# Broadwell-E thread



## greg1184

Just ordered the 6800k from newegg. Who's getting?


----------



## camry racing

I want a 6900K but dang 1200+ I think I will be getting a used 5960X


----------



## Scotty99

Given overwatch is still 100+ FPS for me ill be sticking with ol trusty 2500k til at least skylake-E. Pretty funny how intel keeps jacking prices knowing some people have no concept of price/performance and just want the best money can buy lol.


----------



## greg1184

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Given overwatch is still 100+ FPS for me ill be sticking with ol trusty 2500k til at least skylake-E. Pretty funny how intel keeps jacking prices knowing some people have no concept of price/performance and just want the best money can buy lol.


Agreed. But my current haswell e processor is a poor overclocker so I figure I play the silicon lottery with broadwell.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *camry racing*
> 
> I want a 6900K but dang 1200+ I think I will be getting a used 5960X


This may be the best move with BW-E pricing.


----------



## rxl-gaming

was looking into one of these and christ £1400 in the uk for 6950x


----------



## superkyle1721

It seems the sweet spot for me will be the 6850k. That paired with the rampage V edition 10 seems like a very sexy combination. Price is a bit inflated IMO but of the new batch this seems like the Best Buy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ctepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superkyle1721*
> 
> It seems the sweet spot for me will be the 6850k. That paired with the rampage V edition 10 seems like a very sexy combination. Price is a bit inflated IMO but of the new batch this seems like the Best Buy.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why do you think that over the 6800k (binning, stock clock, pcie lanes)? I am debating between the two.


----------



## PureBlizz

Was planing on buying a 6900k, upgrading from 3930k.
But with these prices, and no performance gain.. Im scraping the whole thing.
So disappointing...


----------



## superkyle1721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *superkyle1721*
> 
> It seems the sweet spot for me will be the 6850k. That paired with the rampage V edition 10 seems like a very sexy combination. Price is a bit inflated IMO but of the new batch this seems like the Best Buy.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that over the 6800k (binning, stock clock, pcie lanes)? I am debating between the two.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion on this is for $150 you get a faster stock clock which may or may not yield better OCing. What is for sure though is you get 12 additional CPU lanes. With DX12 and the new 1080TI coming that $150 gives peace of mind that IF the x8 vs X16 GPU speed gap increases when using SLI I do not need to worry about it as both can run x16. It also allows peace of mind that I will not feel the need to upgrade for some time. But until benchmarks and OCing results are posted this may be a moot point but as of now that is how I am looking at it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tistou77

May be à 6850K for me


----------



## Alwrath

Dont waste your money, it looks like Tomshardware has posted a review, and according to them Broadwell-e looks like a complete flop for gamers. Less overclocking headroom with insane power consumption and temps when voltage is pushed past 1.3 volts. lol @ intel. Looks like 6700k and 5820k/5930k are still the best choices for gamers till Zen and Skylake-e.


----------



## dhenzjhen

Just got one







http://img.hwbot.org/u38005/image_id_1645816.jpeg


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> Just got one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://img.hwbot.org/u38005/image_id_1645816.jpeg


Welp, that was fast.


----------



## superkyle1721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> Just got one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://img.hwbot.org/u38005/image_id_1645816.jpeg


1.72V wow haha wasted 0 time putting that baby to work under ln2. Nice overclock btw!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## greg1184

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alwrath*
> 
> Dont waste your money, it looks like Tomshardware has posted a review, and according to them Broadwell-e looks like a complete flop for gamers. Less overclocking headroom with insane power consumption and temps when voltage is pushed past 1.3 volts. lol @ intel. Looks like 6700k and 5820k/5930k are still the best choices for gamers till Zen and Skylake-e.


Mine is on the way. I'll follow up that review and see how far I can go under water.


----------



## superkyle1721

Just a side note for those interested. Silicon lottery has recently added the 6850k to the binning list.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## newls1

For whats its worth, I was really wanting to get the 6850K, however after reading all the reviews I WILL NOT. I have a great clocking 5930K now (4.55Ghz @ 1.26v) and will obviously NOT get that with Broadwell E... Might even loose a little performance







.. Ill be sticking with my Haswell E and enjoy the money I just saved!!


----------



## obiwansotti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *newls1*
> 
> For whats its worth, I was really wanting to get the 6850K, however after reading all the reviews I WILL NOT. I have a great clocking 5930K now (4.55Ghz @ 1.26v) and will obviously NOT get that with Broadwell E... Might even loose a little performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. Ill be sticking with my Haswell E and enjoy the money I just saved!!


here here.


----------



## Scrimstar

anyone know what these will clock with an AIO cooler

hoping 6850k will get 4.5ghz


----------



## superkyle1721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scrimstar*
> 
> anyone know what these will clock with an AIO cooler
> 
> hoping 6850k will get 4.5ghz


Silicon lottery posted 4.3 GHz stable for the 6950k using a h105 cooler. 4.5 with less cores should be obtainable but will require a great chip. So far it seems 4.3 4.4 will be the sweet spot for BW-E

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scrimstar

and they perform ~10% better at the same clocks vs 5820k/5930k?


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> This may be the best move with BW-E pricing.


Microcenter is once again considerably less $1600.00 but I don't think I will jump on board right away


----------



## whitrzac

I'm thinking intel raised the price on BW-E to make the choice between x99 vs z170 a little more difficult.


----------



## kingofsorrow

i7 6700k @4.8ghz will destroy that 1728$ chip in every game even multithreaded. Or at least will be on pairs.


----------



## superkyle1721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> i7 6700k @4.8ghz will destroy that 1728$ chip in every game even multithreaded. Or at least will be on pairs.


Well that's simply not true. While yes most games the 6700k will post higher fps games that utilize the additional cores the BW-E chips will reign supreme. Basically take a look at GTA and even older games such as this.









As game begin to take advantage of more cores core count will beat clock speed. The choice obviously is up to devs but basically just saying making a statement that the 6700k will win on all games simply isn't true.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kingofsorrow

I said i7 6700 @ 4.8ghz not stock.


----------



## Giggers

I'll be picking up a 6800K when my next paycheck rolls around. I was debating between the 5820K and the 6800K, but in the end the 6800K won me over because of how new it is and the new technologies it comes with as well. Hopefully this lasts me another 3 years (at least) just like my trusty 4670K has!


----------



## navjack27

i don't see much reason to upgrade from my normal broadwell cpu. the overclocking is in line with what i've read and experienced with my 5775c. there isn't anything WRONG with broadwell-E, i mean, i would get one if i had tons of cash just to do some testing and to have an x99 build.

there is just SOMETHING about broadwell and its inability to clock higher then 4.3-.4.4ghz. i don't even have temp issues now that i got a kraken x61 cooling my cpu and i still wasn't able to get stable over 4.3ghz with any voltage with load (premiere exporting). yes i'm able to post and get a screenshot with 4.5ghz but its just not going to be that way for long.

i was disappointed to see so many reviews using boards other then asus, this isn't a shill thing but its a compatibility things i've noticed with broadwell in general where asus seems to support all the functionality correctly


----------



## kingofsorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> i was disappointed to see so many reviews using boards other then asus, this isn't a shill thing but its a compatibility things i've noticed with broadwell in general where asus seems to support all the functionality correctly


Yes, I will be waiting for ROG STRIX X99 GAMING and i7 6950x benchmarks, and if it proves the same 4.1-4.3 ghz overclock I will get z170 instead. Although if it is 4.3ghz guarantee, I might think a bit...


----------



## kingofsorrow

I posted that and decided to give google a try, and here it is: http://www.kitguru.net/components/ryan-martin/intel-core-i7-6950x-broadwell-e-10-core-cpu-review/3/


----------



## AdamK47

My 10 core beast


----------



## Oj010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> Yes, I will be waiting for ROG STRIX X99 GAMING and i7 6950x benchmarks, and if it proves the same 4.1-4.3 ghz overclock I will get z170 instead. Although if it is 4.3ghz guarantee, I might think a bit...


Definitely not guaranteed unless you grt a pretested CPU as some arent capable of 4.1 GHz 24/7.


----------



## xarot

Oh man, I so much wanted a 6950X but this is the first time in years I really couldn't afford one, having owned only Extreme chips in my main rig since 2008.







The prices in Germany are around 1770€ + 20€ shipping, so 1790 €...in my country lowest price is 1905€ currently. If even 4 GHz is not realistic 24x7 clock on some chips, with my luck I would get a crappy chip anyway.

Ordered a 6900K for 1139€ shipped since I already sold my average 5960X. Currently on my old 4960X/RIVE BE which is a rocksolid combination. Shouldn't even upgrade but my RVE and 32 GB 3000 RAM are sitting in a box. Well if the new chip is a dodgy one I might be selling all my X99 parts alltogether or get an used 5820K off the bay.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *greg1184*
> 
> Just ordered the 6800k from newegg. Who's getting?


I picked on up at Micro Center yesterday for $399.99. Mixed bags, but as it stands right now, I'll be selling or returning it. My 5960x, which I consider to be above average, is returning the same Cinebench single core results. Admittedly, my 5960x is a great example, but I was doing clock to clock comparisons on the same rig. The best single I got with the 6800k at 4.8 was 198cb. 196cb best for the 5960x.

Clock for clock, the 6800k took more voltage to stabilize at any given frequency compared to my 5960x. This resulted in temps comparable to Haswell-E.

The cache on my 6800k does not OC well.

I was able to pull off a best of 1512cb multi core / 198cb single in R15 @ 4.8, which seems pretty damn good, but the chip is far from stable at that speed.

With limited stability testing so far, 4.6GHz @ 1.37v may end up being my chips best stable overclock.

Anyways, here's a R15 run at 4.6.


----------



## ZXMustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I picked on up at Micro Center yesterday for $399.99. Mixed bags, but as it stands right now, I'll be selling or returning it. My 5960x, which I consider to be above average, is returning the same Cinebench single core results. Admittedly, my 5960x is a great example, but I was doing clock to clock comparisons on the same rig. The best single I got with the 6800k at 4.8 was 198cb. 196cb best for the 5960x.
> 
> Clock for clock, the 6800k took more voltage to stabilize at any given frequency compared to my 5960x. This resulted in temps comparable to Haswell-E.
> 
> The cache on my 6800k does not OC well.
> 
> I was able to pull off a best of 1512cb multi core / 198cb single in R15 @ 4.8, which seems pretty damn good, but the chip is far from stable at that speed.
> 
> With limited stability testing so far, 4.6GHz @ 1.37v may end up being my chips best stable overclock.
> 
> Anyways, here's a R15 run at 4.6.


Thats a little better than my [email protected] My R15 multithreaded score is 1355 at the same OC. My voltage is set to 1.320. I guess Ill hold on to my chip.


----------



## Wishmaker

...but 6800 @ 4.8 GHz will wreck everything!!!!


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZXMustang*
> 
> Thats a little better than my [email protected] My R15 multithreaded score is 1355 at the same OC. My voltage is set to 1.320. I guess Ill hold on to my chip.


Yes Sir. No doubt that this score would have been a little better with cache/memory tweaks, but the cache on this chip just doesn't want to be messed with.

I really want the 6950x to replace my 5960x, but if this 6800k is an indication of the single core performance of Broadwell-E, the 6950x won't work for me especially at the expected max OC of 4.3GHz or lower. While it would be noticeably faster in maximized multi threaded applications, I enjoy single threaded performance almost equally.

Anyways, I have a couple of 1080s showing up tomorrow so that might offset my slight Broadwell-E depression.


----------



## Wishmaker

Some shops are selling this for :

http://fits.online-reseller.at/eshop.php?action=article_detail&s_supplier_aid=2577321

*HAHAHAH*

*without shipping of course


----------



## Gunslinger.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> ...but 6800 @ 4.8 GHz will wreck everything!!!!


I laughed when I read that also.









Looking like LN2 might be needed for 4.8GHz on these things, which is sad.

I'm pretty tempted to sit it out and wait for Skylake-E, especially if they're going to stick to this ridiculous price structure. 75% increase for 2 more cores and gimped OC'ing?


----------



## ZXMustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Yes Sir. No doubt that this score would have been a little better with cache/memory tweaks, but the cache on this chip just doesn't want to be messed with.
> 
> I really want the 6950x to replace my 5960x, but if this 6800k is an indication of the single core performance of Broadwell-E, the 6950x won't work for me especially at the expected max OC of 4.3GHz or lower. While it would be noticeably faster in maximized multi threaded applications, I enjoy single threaded performance almost equally.
> 
> Anyways, I have a couple of 1080s showing up tomorrow so that might offset my slight Broadwell-E depression.


Are you using a board with the OC socket? I have a gigabyte UD3P board with the OC socket, and my 5820k will only let me OC the cache when the OC switch is on. Otherwise mine wouldnt either. With it on, the cache on my 5820k sits pretty at 4.0ghz.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZXMustang*
> 
> Are you using a board with the OC socket? I have a gigabyte UD3P board with the OC socket, and my 5820k will only let me OC the cache when the OC switch is on. Otherwise mine wouldnt either. With it on, the cache on my 5820k sits pretty at 4.0ghz.


I am. Asus x99 Deluxe/3.1. Same board lets me take my 5960x cache 1:1 up to 4.7. I do have to use a good amount of cache voltage to get it up there, but it does it.

With the 6800k, the cache starts acting up before you even get it to 3.9.


----------



## ctepp

I love how newegg says they are out of 6850ks but remain willing to sell combo packs with a 6850k, mobo, and ram. Got to love the free market. #PriceGougingByAnotherName


----------



## OCmember

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> Just got one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://img.hwbot.org/u38005/image_id_1645816.jpeg


11.26.2015 says the date


----------



## dhenzjhen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OCmember*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> Just got one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://img.hwbot.org/u38005/image_id_1645816.jpeg
> 
> 
> 
> 11.26.2015 says the date
Click to expand...

Just the OS date, but actually benched BW-E last 5/3/16


----------



## tistou77

They are so bad than that the Broadwell-E ?
Not possible to exceed 4ghz for the Cache ?


----------



## iggy097

I pulled the trigger on the 6800k with the Asus Rog Strix X99 Gaming and 32GB of TridentZ Ram. Going to put the Asus Rog Strix 1080 GPU in it when it comes out.
I produce and edit videos for a living and game on the side so my machine is constantly running - I render around 20-25 videos a week.
I'm hoping to get the chip OC nicely - I ran all the benchmarks on my current system to see how much the increase will be - hopefully it's alot as it's hard going from one platform to the next.
Current rig is a 2600k OC to 4.4 , Asrock P67 Extreme4 Gen3, and 32 GB of Ripjaws DDR3, with 2x GTX 770s.

The damn build bug got me again. I waited a good 4-5 years. I even swapped up my 2- 27" QX2710 monitors for the Dell 34 Ultra Wide.
The wife is gone for a month - when she gets home I have to convince her that all I did was switch out the case!

Now I have to sell the old rig!


----------



## Snaaaake

what thermal paste did you use?

i saw this but it's complicated https://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-tim-indigo-xtreme-intel-2011-3


----------



## rt123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZXMustang*
> 
> Are you using a board with the OC socket? I have a gigabyte UD3P board with the OC socket, and my 5820k will only let me OC the cache when the OC switch is on. Otherwise mine wouldnt either. With it on, the cache on my 5820k sits pretty at 4.0ghz.


OC socket doesn't work on BW-E.

Say thank you Intel.


----------



## greg1184

Perhaps after a bios update or two bw-e performance will improve?


----------



## tistou77

It's software (BIOS) or hardware (limit of the CPU) ?


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *greg1184*
> 
> Perhaps after a bios update or two bw-e performance will improve?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> It's software (BIOS) or hardware (limit of the CPU) ?


I kinda have a feeling that after a couple of new bios updates we could finally see the true potential of these chips. Didn't I read somewhere that turbo boost 3 wasn't working yet?


----------



## moorhen2

£1,399 for the 6950x, that's what happens when Intel have no competition, can charge what they like.


----------



## Nizzen

Installing 6900k @ rampage V now









Fingers crossed that it OC well


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Installing 6900k @ rampage V now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fingers crossed that it OC well


Hope that you at least hit 4.5....







where did you get your chip, I am waiting on MC for the 6900k?


----------



## johnfreeman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Installing 6900k @ rampage V now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fingers crossed that it OC well


Best of luck. Looking forward seeing actual results from retail units.


----------



## Raghar

Folks can someone test power draw at the same frequency between 5820K and 6800K? I think easiest test would be to run both CPUs with Turbo disabled at 3.3 frequency. Run AIDA FPU test, and post screenshot of CPU power draw? Then do it again and test on same voltages?

I'm currious how much 14 nm technology improved power consumption, and if they are using Broadwell 14 nm, or Skylake 14 nm, or if they are using improved 14 nm node. I remember when one person was curious and calculated static and dynamic power draw between 32 nm and 22 nm FinFet. That was very interesting.


----------



## sblantipodi

can't understand why this mad prices.
performance per dollar are better on Haswell-E, can't understand why intel made this.


----------



## camry racing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sblantipodi*
> 
> can't understand why this mad prices.
> performance per dollar are better on Haswell-E, can't understand why intel made this.


reason is because they can not really other reason


----------



## vibraslap

Where are y'all buying these from? Newegg is sold out, and amazon says 2-4 weeks?


----------



## dhenzjhen

Tested 6900Ks today http://www.overclock.net/t/1510355/gigabyte-x99-motherboard-discussion-club/600_40#post_25222856


----------



## greg1184

God I love Newegg. Ordered free 3 day shipping with premier and they deliver it in 2 days. Newegg and Amazon are the class of online shopping.

Can't wait to give it a test.


----------



## Nizzen

6900k from Norway
Need faster memory


----------



## jonathan13

Trying my hardest to wait on pulling the trigger, but I think I am going to get one of the newegg bundles.







6850k and which motherboard?

1. Asus Deluxe II
2. Asus ROG Strix
3. MSI Gaming Pro Carbon


----------



## Mhill2029

I'll be honest, i have been pondering getting a 6950X. But even i'm struggling with that price for a consumer chip.


----------



## jonathan13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I'll be honest, i have been pondering getting a 6950X. But even i'm struggling with that price for a consumer chip.


I would love nothing more than going for the "mack-daddy" but at the end of the day I have to be honest with myself and come to terms with the fact that I won't be doing anything that would come close to using that chip's potential.


----------



## greg1184

I have a strange problem. I put my overclock settings in my bios, and for whatever reason, none of the settings show up on CPUZ, core temp or anything else. It still shows default clocks. I restart to the bios, and my settings are still there.

This never happened with my Haswell-E processor.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *greg1184*
> 
> I have a strange problem. I put my overclock settings in my bios, and for whatever reason, none of the settings show up on CPUZ, core temp or anything else. It still shows default clocks. I restart to the bios, and my settings are still there.
> 
> This never happened with my Haswell-E processor.


I had a similar problem with my x99 Deluxe/U 3.1 and I realized that I didn't have the latest BIOS release loaded.


----------



## hellkama

So 6800k overclocking isn't anything special? I am considering just getting 5820K.

If anyone else has experiences overclocking these new chips, reports are appreciated


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> 6900k from Norway
> Need faster memory


And, OC that cache....anyways, that's a nice score for 4.4...


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> And, OC that cache....anyways, that's a nice score for 4.4...


3700cache is max LOL

2800mhz is stock.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonathan13*
> 
> I would love nothing more than going for the "mack-daddy" but at the end of the day I have to be honest with myself and come to terms with the fact that I won't be doing anything that would come close to using that chip's potential.


Lol, true, that's how I talked myself down, I was on the ledge, but, for now, I am straight with 8 cores. thinking hard on the 6900k though, my chip is about to be sold...


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> 3700cache is max LOL
> 
> 2800mhz is stock.


Really? I am good, going to get another 5960x, hopes it hit 4.5+...I was pushing 4.4 cache on my present chip....my 4.5 chip was hitting 1812 in Cinebench...4.4 B-E crushes that...I can get the 5960x for $900 though..


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> And, OC that cache....


From my experience with a 6800k, the cache won't be going a whole lot higher without becoming unstable. The CPU was solid up to 4.6, but as far as cache, 3.9/4.0 was about all it had in it. My two options for replacing my 5960x (above average chip) are the 6900k and 6950x, but if the OC numbers don't climb any higher, it might not be worth it as strong low thread count performance is important to me as well. For the cost of the new chips, I'd want a lot more in that area, not just a close match.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> 3700cache is max LOL
> 
> 2800mhz is stock.


The 6800k I was testing fell flat on it face around the 3.9/4.0 area and refused to stabilize at anything higher no matter what I threw at it. Kinda sucks.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Really? I am good, going to get another 5960x, hopes it hit 4.5+...I was pushing 4.4 cache on my present chip....my 4.5 chip was hitting 1812 in Cinebench...


I got better firestrike results with my new 6900k @ 4.4ghz + 3700cache and slow 3000 cl15 VS my good old 5960x @ 4800mhz + 4700mhz cache and 3200mhz cl14.
Same 2x titan X @ ~1500mhz

I want 6900k @ 5ghz LOL


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I got better firestrike results with my new 6900k @ 4.4ghz + 3700cache and slow 3000 cl15 VS my good old 5960x @ 4800mhz + 4700mhz cache and 3200mhz cl14.
> Same 2x titan X @ ~1500mhz


Stop man, you have me waffling here...


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I got better firestrike results with my new 6900k @ 4.4ghz + 3700cache and slow 3000 cl15 VS my good old 5960x @ 4800mhz + 4700mhz cache and 3200mhz cl14.
> Same 2x titan X @ ~1500mhz
> 
> I want 6900k @ 5ghz LOL


That's good to hear! I'm at a decision point at the moment and have a 6950x on hold at MC. Can you be more specific about the increase or link us up? Thanks.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> That's good to hear! I'm at a decision point at the moment and have a 6950x on hold at MC. Can you be more specific about the increase or link us up? Thanks.


Did a fast run 3dmark now :

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8671211

Nothing special, but #41 @ "hall of fame"








(Nzz)

http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+3dmark+score+extreme+preset/version+1.1/2+gpu

With faster memory and lower timings, there is hope


----------



## JamesSR

I'm really stuck. Got a Asus X99e ws board and I've waited to see the 6800k. So far it looks marginally better for some situations and worse for others than a 5820k. I can buy a 6800k for 10% premium over a 5820k, as OEM with 1 year warranty, compared to a 3 year retail warranty for the 5820k.

The 6800k seems to be a worse overlocker currently than a 5820k, but it is newer tech so as bioses get updated would this improve?

I could pick up either today but can't decide...


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Did a fast run 3dmark now :
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8671211
> 
> Nothing special, but #41 @ "hall of fame"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Nzz)
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+3dmark+score+extreme+preset/version+1.1/2+gpu
> 
> With faster memory and lower timings, there is hope


That Physics Score is almost 2G more than mine at Ultra at 4.5, nice..


----------



## Oj010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> 6900k from Norway
> Need faster memory


Every time I see the scores I'm honestly surprised that my dual Westmere rig still beats it by 10 % at a lower clockspeed.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> That Physics Score is almost 2G more than mine at Ultra at 4.5, nice..


Firestrike physics;

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8662976


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Firestrike physics;
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8662976


It's settled then, I will try me out a 6900k, Lol..


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Did a fast run 3dmark now :
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8671211
> 
> Nothing special, but #41 @ "hall of fame"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Nzz)
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+3dmark+score+extreme+preset/version+1.1/2+gpu
> 
> With faster memory and lower timings, there is hope


Them 1080s are sneaking up on you fast. Looks like they bumped you down to #65 in minutes.









Thanks for the links as I am very interested in the physics score. I'm in the 23,xxx to 24,xxx area right now on my 5960x right now, but it takes a much higher clock rate than yours. How much faster do you think you'd be able to get your CPU clock rate? If you're pretty much at the limits, then switching my not benefit me too much.


----------



## iggy097

My whole rig is here minus the 6800k - Fedex says Monday - going to have to run one of my 770's in it until the 1080 releases.
Now which 1080 - Seahawk or Rog Strix?


----------



## JamesSR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> My whole rig is here minus the 6800k - Fedex says Monday - going to have to run one of my 770's in it until the 1080 releases.
> Now which 1080 - Seahawk or Rog Strix?


Seahawk

#jealous


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Them 1080s are sneaking up on you fast. Looks like they bumped you down to #65 in minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the links as I am very interested in the physics score. I'm in the 23,xxx to 24,xxx area right now on my 5960x right now, but it takes a much higher clock rate than yours. How much faster do you think you'd be able to get your CPU clock rate? If you're pretty much at the limits, then switching my not benefit me too much.


I
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Them 1080s are sneaking up on you fast. Looks like they bumped you down to #65 in minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the links as I am very interested in the physics score. I'm in the 23,xxx to 24,xxx area right now on my 5960x right now, but it takes a much higher clock rate than yours. How much faster do you think you'd be able to get your CPU clock rate? If you're pretty much at the limits, then switching my not benefit me too much.


Hmm... still 41 here:

http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+3dmark+score+extreme+preset/version+1.1/2+gpu

Waiting for 2x 1080 and faster memory. I will try Gigabyte Extreme 1080 and Evga 1080 FTW first.

Hoping to beat my friend "MyDog" He used Phase change on cpu and waterchiller on 2x titan X


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I got better firestrike results with my new 6900k @ 4.4ghz + 3700cache and slow 3000 cl15 VS my good old 5960x @ 4800mhz + 4700mhz cache and 3200mhz cl14.
> Same 2x titan X @ ~1500mhz
> 
> I want 6900k @ 5ghz LOL


Possible to have screens of "benchs" of H-E and BW-E to compare the Cache?
And also bandwidth screens of AIDA64 (we see better with screens







)

Even with a Cache to 3.7GHz, the BW-E may be better performance than H-E


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I
> Hmm... still 41 here:
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+3dmark+score+extreme+preset/version+1.1/2+gpu
> 
> Waiting for 2x 1080 and faster memory. Hoping to beat my friend "MyDog" He used Phase change on cpu and waterchiller on 2x titan X


Sorry about the confusion. I was looking at a different chart.









So do you think you'll get much more overclock out of the 6900k? A higher clock speed?


----------



## carlhil2

That BW-E is hitting physics score @4.4 that would take my chip like 4.8+ to hit, that cache must be doing something..


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Firestrike physics;
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8662976


That really is nice especially at 4.4 GHz!. My 5960x needs to be around 4.8/4.9 for that physics score.

Thanks for sharing this info.


----------



## JamesSR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hellkama*
> 
> So 6800k overclocking isn't anything special? I am considering just getting 5820K.
> 
> If anyone else has experiences overclocking these new chips, reports are appreciated


Me too and I'll second that request for 6800k overclocking reports


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> The 6800k I was testing fell flat on it face around the 3.9/4.0 area and refused to stabilize at anything higher no matter what I threw at it. Kinda sucks.


At what voltage it can do 3.8 and 3.9?


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> At what voltage it can do 3.8 and 3.9?


I wish I would have recorded all of that. I've pulled the chip and put my 5960x back in. It was in the 1.4x area, but I can't recall exactly. Definitely not something I'd be running daily for sure.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JamesSR*
> 
> Me too and I'll second that request for 6800k overclocking reports


The best I could get out of the 6800k while remaining stable was 4.6 GHz. I'm not even sure if that was 100% stable as my stress testing was limited to maybe a hour of this and a hour of that.


----------



## iggy097

I'll post my results next week coming from my 2600k setup OC to 4.4 comparing that chip to the 6800k if anyone is interested, It will have standard benchmarks as well as benchmarks from real work work - Sony Vegas and After Effects.


----------



## JamesSR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> I'll post my results next week coming from my 2600k setup OC to 4.4 comparing that chip to the 6800k if anyone is interested, It will have standard benchmarks as well as benchmarks from real work work - Sony Vegas and After Effects.


Thanks, that would be really helpful. Think I'll wait until next week before buying anything


----------



## JamesSR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> The best I could get out of the 6800k while remaining stable was 4.6 GHz. I'm not even sure if that was 100% stable as my stress testing was limited to maybe a hour of this and a hour of that.


Thanks, 4.6 is still reasonable, I'd be happy with 4.5 stable


----------



## ctepp

Finally was able to order my 6850k, not exactly high supplies of these. I will be really curious if the better binning pays off or not, although given the reviews I feel like I just paid extra cash to hit on a hard 15 over a 16 (blackjack).


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> Finally was able to order my 6850k, not exactly high supplies of these. I will be really curious if the better binning pays off or not, although given the reviews I feel like I just paid extra cash to hit on a hard 15 over a 16 (blackjack).


They seem to have a very wide range: http://www.overclock.net/t/1601897/broadwell-e-binning/0_20#post_25223957


----------



## ctepp

Yeah I mean from a value point of view the question is how that OC distribution stacks up against the 6800k. Will probably be a while till we get a solid answer on it. Knocking on wood for a solid 4.6...


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> The 6800k I was testing fell flat on it face around the 3.9/4.0 area and refused to stabilize at anything higher no matter what I threw at it. Kinda sucks.


Well, and what about voltages for cores? At what voltage it can do 4.0 and 4.2 stable? And what voltage it needs at 3.8 GHz in case someone would like to run CPU and cache in sync? Also how large power usage was reported in stress tests? Is it more efficient than HW-E?


----------



## iggy097

Cpu arrived early! Where to begin


----------



## dhenzjhen

Moar BW testing http://www.overclock.net/t/1540939/gigabyte-x99-soc-champion-discussion-ownerss-club/1080_40#post_25225696


----------



## jonathan13

@iggy097-

Such a glorious sight! What made you decide on the Strix board?


----------



## hash1720

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I wish I would have recorded all of that. I've pulled the chip and put my 5960x back in. It was in the 1.4x area, but I can't recall exactly. Definitely not something I'd be running daily for sure.
> The best I could get out of the 6800k while remaining stable was 4.6 GHz. I'm not even sure if that was 100% stable as my stress testing was limited to maybe a hour of this and a hour of that.


Thanks for the 6800k benchmark really insightful. just wondering what cooler did you use ?


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hash1720*
> 
> Thanks for the 6800k benchmark really insightful. just wondering what cooler did you use ?


I'm on a pretty large custom loop. Temps weren't a concern with the chip, but 1.4xv for cache is pretty high.


----------



## Gdourado

How does high end air cooling handle broadwell? Is a noctua d15 an ok option? Is it cooler than haswell? I am talking OC, not stock.
Cheers!


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> How does high end air cooling handle broadwell? Is a noctua d15 an ok option? Is it cooler than haswell? I am talking OC, not stock.
> Cheers!


Wondering the same here, the Tom's review suggested 4.0ghz was the limit for air but that seemed low....Im just trying to read through this thread now but Im hoping 4.2ghz on a d15/ph-tc14pe is ok


----------



## Gdourado

From what I gathered, air cooling on haswell 6 core seems ok until 1.2v, sometimes 1.25v, and on some cases, 4.5 is doable.
The 5960x puts a bit more heat, so probably less.
I am inter step to know if the node shrink would make broadwell more controllable by air coolling.
But it seems high oc on broadwell requires voltages above 1.3, so I don't know...


----------



## Mateo

Do you know if there could be a difference between the 5820K and 6800K for video editing (H.264) in Premiere with DDR4 3000?

I already have a Corsair H115i and Asus X99-A II motherboard.

Thanks!!


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> Moar BW testing http://www.overclock.net/t/1540939/gigabyte-x99-soc-champion-discussion-ownerss-club/1080_40#post_25225696


At first I thought something was wrong, then looked again... Oh! it's the xeon 22 cores! mouahahah nice!


----------



## done12many2

Okay guys, just got the loop back together and refilled. This was a get in and go run as I am figuring out overclocks.

6950x @ 4.5 GHz / 1.4v

Cache untouched and memory (TridentZ 3200 c14) was set to XMP.

Lots of work ahead.


----------



## AdamK47

Nice. Another Commodore owner with a 6950X.


----------



## Zurv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Okay guys, just got the loop back together and refilled. This was a get in and go run as I am figuring out overclocks.
> 
> 6950x @ 4.5 GHz / 1.4v
> 
> Cache untouched and memory (TridentZ 3200 c14) was set to XMP.
> 
> Lots of work ahead.


nice, I can't get 4.5 stable. But i'm just going to sit here @ 4.4 with 1.35v.

can you prime95 at that 4.5ghz? I find unstable OCs will pass a cinebench


----------



## GreedyMuffin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zurv*
> 
> can you prime95 at that 4.5ghz? I find unstable OCs will pass a cinebench


I can run 1.191V 4500 on my 5960X, but 100% stability needs 1.250V. So you're right!


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zurv*
> 
> nice, I can't get 4.5 stable. But i'm just going to sit here @ 4.4 with 1.35v.
> 
> can you prime95 at that 4.5ghz? I find unstable OCs will pass a cinebench


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GreedyMuffin*
> 
> I can run 1.191V 4500 on my 5960X, but 100% stability needs 1.250V. So you're right!


Gents, no idea yet. Like I said, I'm just exploring the chip. I'm going to start dialing everything in today.


----------



## jonathan13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Gents, no idea yet. Like I said, I'm just exploring the chip. I'm going to start dialing everything in today.


Anxious to see the results!


----------



## ctepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mateo*
> 
> Do you know if there could be a difference between the 5820K and 6800K for video editing (H.264) in Premiere with DDR4 3000?
> 
> I already have a Corsair H115i and Asus X99-A II motherboard.
> 
> Thanks!!


Its certaintly not worth an updgrade, but if you are getting a new cpu anyway I would go with the newer technology. Microcenter has 6800k for $400, at about $80 more than the 5820k. I'd pay the 80 for newer tech and most likely a slight performance edge (stats are still coming in) but I think its also rationale to save the extra $ depending on your budget.


----------



## iggy097

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonathan13*
> 
> @iggy097-
> 
> Such a glorious sight! What made you decide on the Strix board?


Sound and some bling, kinda went all out on this one


----------



## jonathan13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> Sound and some bling, kinda went all out on this one


I went back and forth between the Strix and the Deluxe II. Ultimately I went with the Deluxe II becuase of the features and accessories, but I really preferred the way the Strix looked. Let me know how the Strix works out for you!


----------



## kgtuning

Subbed


----------



## iggy097

Okay so we're up and running! I love this case first off!
So results coming from my i72600k overclocked to 4.4 to the 6800k running at stock speeds for now are -
Sony Vegas - 10 minute movie encoded to MP4 - saw an increase of 41% faster.
After Effects rendering a project without particles - 29% faster.
Realbench was 31.3% better score.
Geekbench was only a 3% better score (3556) but in Multithread 37.7% faster (19665)

Cinebench score included


Going fishing today - time to overclock tomorrow!
Hope this helps someone.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

If i beg in the streets and get $1 per day, it will only take 2500 days to buy a 6950X.

Resorting to OC the 5960X to 6900K OC speeds.


----------



## hash1720

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> Okay so we're up and running! I love this case first off!
> So results coming from my i72600k overclocked to 4.4 to the 6800k running at stock speeds for now are -
> Sony Vegas - 10 minute movie encoded to MP4 - saw an increase of 41% faster.
> After Effects rendering a project without particles - 29% faster.
> Realbench was 31.3% better score.
> Geekbench was only a 3% better score (3556) but in Multithread 37.7% faster (19665)
> 
> Cinebench score included
> 
> 
> Going fishing today - time to overclock tomorrow!
> Hope this helps someone.


looking good going from a 3570k to a 6800k excited


----------



## JamesSR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> Its certaintly not worth an updgrade, but if you are getting a new cpu anyway I would go with the newer technology. Microcenter has 6800k for $400, at about $80 more than the 5820k. I'd pay the 80 for newer tech and most likely a slight performance edge (stats are still coming in) but I think its also rationale to save the extra $ depending on your budget.


Do you think so? I'm in the same dilemma but I'm struggling with paying 20-25% more for an 6800k, a mixed bag in performance, but 5-10% improvement but worse overclocking for the 6800k?

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6800K/2579vs3607


----------



## hellkama

I have to agree with James here. Quite a lot heavier price tag, few percentage performance improvement and most evidence shows weaker overclocking potential. Why would anyone pay more for that?

Also older motherboards are cheaper than the new ones with factory bios Broadwell-E support. Feature wise nothing major has changed on the newer mobos as far as I know.


----------



## kgtuning

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JamesSR*
> 
> Do you think so? I'm in the same dilemma but I'm struggling with paying 20-25% more for an 6800k, a mixed bag in performance, but 5-10% improvement but worse overclocking for the 6800k?
> 
> http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6800K/2579vs3607


Man im having the same thought. I think 5820K "might" be a better deal. Just imo though.


----------



## RedRumy3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kgtuning*
> 
> Man im having the same thought. I think 5820K "might" be a better deal. Just imo though.


I still can't decide what I want buy >.< 6700k/5820k/6800k


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedRumy3*
> 
> I still can't decide what I want buy >.< 6700k/5820k/6800k


If you're unsure, go with the 6700k. It's a great chip. Most folks who get 6+ core Intel chips know for sure that they want/need it.


----------



## kgtuning

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> If you're unsure, go with the 6700k. It's a great chip. Most folks who get 6+ core Intel chips know for sure that they want/need it.


Yeah Im going X99 just because i want to tinker with something different. Im coming from Z77/3770k so no matter what itll be a nice upgrade.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kgtuning*
> 
> Yeah Im going X99 just because i want to tinker with something different. Im coming from Z77/3770k so no matter what itll be a nice upgrade.


Get ready to have some fun. Great choice!


----------



## kgtuning

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Get ready to have some fun. Great choice!


Thanks! Ill be buying a cpu this week. g.skill ram just showed up and gigabyte ud5 waiting to be installed. 5820 or 6800 ... decisions decisions


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> Okay so we're up and running! I love this case first off!
> So results coming from my i72600k overclocked to 4.4 to the 6800k running at stock speeds for now are -
> Sony Vegas - 10 minute movie encoded to MP4 - saw an increase of 41% faster.
> After Effects rendering a project without particles - 29% faster.
> Realbench was 31.3% better score.
> Geekbench was only a 3% better score (3556) but in Multithread 37.7% faster (19665)
> 
> Cinebench score included
> 
> 
> Going fishing today - time to overclock tomorrow!
> Hope this helps someone.


Now we need to know voltages at stock, power use on stock, preferably also voltages and power use with Turbo disabled. And also temperatures, to get some ideas how well would work air cooling in comparison to 5820K.

If you have AIDA, run AIDA FPU test, and post power and voltage screenshot.


----------



## Medusa666

Ordered a 6950X to replace my 5960X, I want to futureproof the PC for the coming 4-5 years, it looks like a good choice.


----------



## Mateo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kgtuning*
> 
> Thanks! Ill be buying a cpu this week. g.skill ram just showed up and gigabyte ud5 waiting to be installed. 5820 or 6800 ... decisions decisions


I just decided to go with the good old 5820. With what I have read, I think it could be easier to keep it around 4.3 GHz. But if you can wait some weeks, it would be easier to choose with more reviews.


----------



## kgtuning

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mateo*
> 
> I just decided to go with the good old 5820. With what I have read, I think it could be easier to keep it around 4.3 GHz. But if you can wait some weeks, it would be easier to choose with more reviews.


Pretty sure a 5820 has my name on it.


----------



## iggy097

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Now we need to know voltages at stock, power use on stock, preferably also voltages and power use with Turbo disabled. And also temperatures, to get some ideas how well would work air cooling in comparison to 5820K.
> 
> If you have AIDA, run AIDA FPU test, and post power and voltage screenshot.


It's stable at 4.4 right now , I'm going to play with it some more tomorrow. Called it a day and went fishing! Temps were about 75-80 under stress test at 4.4. I used the OC profile they included on the Asus motherboard for the OC


----------



## hash1720

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I'm on a pretty large custom loop. Temps weren't a concern with the chip, but 1.4xv for cache is pretty high.


i see thanks man
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> It's stable at 4.4 right now , I'm going to play with it some more tomorrow. Called it a day and went fishing! Temps were about 75-80 under stress test at 4.4. I used the OC profile they included on the Asus motherboard for the OC


nice what cooler are you using ?


----------



## darthyodi

Where are you guys all getting your chips? The 6900k has been sold out everywhere I check! Newegg has some third parties selling, but obviously at a silly markup.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> Ordered a 6950X to replace my 5960X, I want to futureproof the PC for the coming 4-5 years, it looks like a good choice.


My god man! Why would you go from a 5960X to a 6950X?


----------



## AdamK47

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> My god man! Why would you go from a 5960X to a 6950X?


That's what I did. I'll probably be getting whatever the next HEDT chip is released next as well.


----------



## Kimir

I'd say, if you can afford, it then go for it!


----------



## greg1184

For MSI users: apparently you can't overclock a broadwell e processor on an msi board yet. My bios OC settings just won't show on Windows, cpuz, coretemp, command center or anything else. And I have the latest bios that I tried to reflash but that didn't do anything. Quite a waste of 550 for a stock processor running, gimped board. Hopefully msi will release bios updates or I'm back to ASUS.


----------



## ctepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mateo*
> 
> I just decided to go with the good old 5820. With what I have read, I think it could be easier to keep it around 4.3 GHz. But if you can wait some weeks, it would be easier to choose with more reviews.


Yeah I mean I think its totally reasonably to get the 5820k. No question you are paying 25% extra for not much, maybe 10% performance. That said, if you have $400 dollars to spend and already have a decent cooling system, I think the 6800k is the best $400 processor. On the other hand the $80 difference might by better spent upgrading the cooling, say going from an H50 to a kraken x61 or similar.

Should be pretty sweet either way.


----------



## iggy097

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Now we need to know voltages at stock, power use on stock, preferably also voltages and power use with Turbo disabled. And also temperatures, to get some ideas how well would work air cooling in comparison to 5820K.
> 
> If you have AIDA, run AIDA FPU test, and post power and voltage screenshot.


I don't have AIDA - but I can run whatever else you need me to -

My cooler is a Corsair H115i - idling at 30 degrees

Screenshots if it helps.


----------



## iggy097

I bumped it up to 4.5 and BSOD almost immediately - I'm fine at 4.4 , I'm going to benchmark and see the gains on this chip from 3.4 to 4.4 - for what I use it for, editing, rendering, etc.
If anyone has questions, fire away.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darthyodi*
> 
> Where are you guys all getting your chips? The 6900k has been sold out everywhere I check! Newegg has some third parties selling, but obviously at a silly markup.


Newegg does have the 6900K in stock, but they're forcing you to purchase a combo deal to get one. If you live near a microcenter you can call them and ask, the local one here had a couple 6900K yesterday even though it's not listed on the website. SL also has some in stock.

I wish Intel would seed retailers with plenty of stock before launch, even if it causes a week of delay. Scalpers and such are very annoying.


----------



## JamesSR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kgtuning*
> 
> Thanks! Ill be buying a cpu this week. g.skill ram just showed up and gigabyte ud5 waiting to be installed. 5820 or 6800 ... decisions decisions


Looks like other people are having a similar debate

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3075803/5820k-6800k.html

I'd like to buy the 6800kforits new features but rationally I can't justify spending more on a chip that in all likelihood will perform worse when overclocked


----------



## lutjens

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> Ordered a 6950X to replace my 5960X, I want to futureproof the PC for the coming 4-5 years, it looks like a good choice.


They are impressive chips. I'm sure you'll have fun with it...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> My god man! Why would you go from a 5960X to a 6950X?


Why not? An additional 4 threads can come in VERY handy for some people. And by upgrading now, he'll still be able to get a decent price for his i7-5960X...


----------



## darthyodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Newegg does have the 6900K in stock, but they're forcing you to purchase a combo deal to get one. If you live near a microcenter you can call them and ask, the local one here had a couple 6900K yesterday even though it's not listed on the website. SL also has some in stock.
> 
> I wish Intel would seed retailers with plenty of stock before launch, even if it causes a week of delay. Scalpers and such are very annoying.


You would think they would have it, but it's the one CPU where every single bundle is "Out of Stock" -- also I've already pre-ordered the RV Ed10, so getting a bundle wouldn't really work out. Crazy how fast these went if they were ever really in stock...

Unfortunately I live in a state that doesn't have a Microcenter, otherwise I would have definitely gone there.

Oh well, it's not like the RV Ed10 will be here this week anyways. I hope they stock them before it gets here though. Literally wasting the warranty away if it sits here. (Not that ASUS is great on warranty claims but that's for another discussion.)

It seems there is very low stock on this new set of processors, the 6850 and 6900 I have never seen in stock other than third party sellers anywhere.


----------



## Synik

well apparently the asus strix has a weird unorthodox spacing between the pcie lanes so you are pretty much stuck with flexible sli bridges until asus makes their own that fits their board. I see microcenter has the gigabyte x99 phoenix boards. I was wondering if anyone knows how they will do for overclocking? I think I will get the broadwell-e with one of the newer motherboards with some of those new features for future proofing. My current motherboard's second pcie slot is broken so sli right now isn't working. I am now looking for those motherboards with metal pcie slots.


----------



## Scotty99

Linus put it best, there is literally no spot in the market for the 6950x. If you need more clockspeed you are better off getting a 6700k, need more cores you are better off with a xeon...heck a dual socket motherboard and two lower clocked xeons are even cheaper lol.\

No one should be buying that CPU and you should feel bad if you did. Intel is really getting cocky this generation, you need to vote with your wallet and not buy this processor.


----------



## Mhill2029

Well, it's only die hard bench markers that will pick it up for a small gain in score. I certainly won't be getting one, since Skylake-E is next year anyway.


----------



## dansi

I hope no one buys the 6950x..it is so badly priced to rip off consumers. I hope most reviews have the balls to call out intel about this. Make me sick some sites still gave it gold award and such


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dansi*
> 
> I hope no one buys the 6950x..it is so badly priced to rip off consumers. I hope most reviews have the balls to call out intel about this. Make me sick some sites still gave it gold award and such


Trouble is these ridiculously expensive products always sell very well surprisingly. Intel is clearly cashing in on enthusiasts deep pockets, they must have got the inspiration from Nvidia as their $1000+ GPU's always sold like hot cakes. We all originally thought Titan was crazy money, but a lot of people bought into them...myself included









The 6950X is just there for people that want the ultimate e-peen. Although it'll have the worst depreciation when a 10 core Skylake E comes along for a third of the cost.


----------



## lutjens

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Linus put it best, there is literally no spot in the market for the 6950x. If you need more clockspeed you are better off getting a 6700k, need more cores you are better off with a xeon...heck a dual socket motherboard and two lower clocked xeons are even cheaper lol.\
> 
> No one should be buying that CPU and you should feel bad if you did. Intel is really getting cocky this generation, you need to vote with your wallet and not buy this processor.


Feel bad? You're joking right? The thing about the i7-6950X is that it helps bridge the gap between single threaded needs AND multi threaded needs. This chip can do BOTH when overclocked. Why force someone to choose between a single threaded machine and a multi threaded one?? I personally want both...in the same machine! Intel isn't charging more for the 6 and 8 core processors, but has simply made a premium SKU avsilable to those who want/need/can afford one and is charging a premium price for it.

I think the i7-6950X is a great SKU...good single threaded performance and the rough equivalent multi threaded performance of a 16-core Xeon....all under one roof. It's a sorely needed ultra premium SKU for those that want it. Worth $1700?? Most definitely...







Intel isn't going to (nor should it) give away 16-core Xeon caliber performance for $1K. Those who don't need such a chip have many K SKUs from which to choose at many different price points.

If Xeons weren't hard locked, it wouldn't matter...one could negate the single threaded performance penalty by overclocking. But the i7-6950X offers the best available multi threaded performance that doesn't force you to make the huge single threaded compromise that a locked Xeon does.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dansi*
> 
> I hope no one buys the 6950x..it is so badly priced to rip off consumers. I hope most reviews have the balls to call out intel about this. Make me sick some sites still gave it gold award and such


Why? The 6 and 8 cores haven't changed in price. If Intel had jacked their price up, I could understand your "rip off consumers" argument, but all they are offering here is an ultra premium SKU for those that want it that sits higher on the SKU stack. I commend them for this SKU. Many people have been begging them for such a SKU for a very long time.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Trouble is these ridiculously expensive products always sell very well surprisingly. Intel is clearly cashing in on enthusiasts deep pockets, they must have got the inspiration from Nvidia as their $1000+ GPU's always sold like hot cakes. We all originally thought Titan was crazy money, but a lot of people bought into them...myself included
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 6950X is just there for people that want the ultimate e-peen. Although it'll have the worst depreciation when a 10 core Skylake E comes along for a third of the cost.


As I've said before, the i7-6950X is there to provide the best of both worlds...excellent single AND multi threaded performance. If you don't need the multi threaded performance it offers, buy a K SKU! They are largely unchanged in price. The reason why these chips sell is...that people want and need them!! I want top notch single threaded performance without being forced to give up multi threaded potential and I'm willing to pay a premium to get that ability. I'm happy the i7-6950X is here and hope it sells well so Intel continues to release premium performance parts in the future. My only wish is that they maintain the useful Xeon features like ECC and dual CPU capability in the future...for the price, they should be enabled.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Can someone run the WinRAR benchmark.

Its in the Tools menu / Benchmark.

Needs to run until it displays the highlighted KB/s result.

7zip benchmark would be good to see too.


----------



## iggy097

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Can someone run the WinRAR benchmark.
> Its in the Tools menu / Benchmark.
> Needs to run until it displays the highlighted KB/s result.
> 
> 7zip benchmark would be good to see too.


----------



## ctepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darthyodi*
> 
> Where are you guys all getting your chips? The 6900k has been sold out everywhere I check! Newegg has some third parties selling, but obviously at a silly markup.


For whatever reason, this place got a ****load of stock. I had never heard of them but they are a google trusted store so I got my 6850k there (although I think they are now sold out of those).

http://www.nothingbutsavings.com/Search/6900k?query=6900k


----------



## superkyle1721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *darthyodi*
> 
> Where are you guys all getting your chips? The 6900k has been sold out everywhere I check! Newegg has some third parties selling, but obviously at a silly markup.
> 
> 
> 
> For whatever reason, this place got a ****load of stock. I had never heard of them but they are a google trusted store so I got my 6850k there (although I think they are now sold out of those).
> 
> http://www.nothingbutsavings.com/Search/6900k?query=6900k
Click to expand...

I've heard of this place and know several that have purchased from them without any issues so I would say you are good. As for their stock if I remember correctly they are a small version of like a jet.com they personally don't carry stock but instead are a third party that sells for other companies In various places. Don't quote me on this but I believe it's correct.

Always destroying exergy


----------



## dansi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lutjens*
> 
> Feel bad? You're joking right? The thing about the i7-6950X is that it helps bridge the gap between single threaded needs AND multi threaded needs. This chip can do BOTH when overclocked. Why force someone to choose between a single threaded machine and a multi threaded one?? I personally want both...in the same machine! Intel isn't charging more for the 6 and 8 core processors, but has simply made a premium SKU avsilable to those who want/need/can afford one and is charging a premium price for it.
> 
> I think the i7-6950X is a great SKU...good single threaded performance and the rough equivalent multi threaded performance of a 16-core Xeon....all under one roof. It's a sorely needed ultra premium SKU for those that want it. Worth $1700?? Most definitely...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel isn't going to (nor should it) give away 16-core Xeon caliber performance for $1K. Those who don't need such a chip have many K SKUs from which to choose at many different price points.
> 
> If Xeons weren't hard locked, it wouldn't matter...one could negate the single threaded performance penalty by overclocking. But the i7-6950X offers the best available multi threaded performance that doesn't force you to make the huge single threaded compromise that a locked Xeon does.
> Why? The 6 and 8 cores haven't changed in price. If Intel had jacked their price up, I could understand your "rip off consumers" argument, but all they are offering here is an ultra premium SKU for those that want it that sits higher on the SKU stack. I commend them for this SKU. Many people have been begging them for such a SKU for a very long time.
> As I've said before, the i7-6950X is there to provide the best of both worlds...excellent single AND multi threaded performance. If you don't need the multi threaded performance it offers, buy a K SKU! They are largely unchanged in price. The reason why these chips sell is...that people want and need them!! I want top notch single threaded performance without being forced to give up multi threaded potential and I'm willing to pay a premium to get that ability. I'm happy the i7-6950X is here and hope it sells well so Intel continues to release premium performance parts in the future. My only wish is that they maintain the useful Xeon features like ECC and dual CPU capability in the future...for the price, they should be enabled.


You be trollin'?
Intel sells the same exact 10 cores BW-E Xeon for $999..
Just because they unlock the multiplier, they want rip another $700 from consumers? Makes no fair sense...was this done before? Why should we accept it now..
I hope not many share your views. There is nothing ultra premium about 6950X, it is just an unlocked Xeon ripoff cause Intel can.
6 and 8 cores BW-E actually went up in prices over HW-E equivalents, but not the point.
The point is that, we expect to see technology improve year on year, buying yester-year premium hardware at mainstream prices.


----------



## carlhil2

I had made plans to buy the 6950x by selling my chip/ram/mobo to a family member. after doing a lot of soul searching, I realized that I just wasn't willing to pay that much for 2 extra cores. am I upset with intel? no, I just decided to move on by buying another 5960x, which I will be picking up from MC later today, and, using the $600 I saved on an extra 1080 for sli.If something is out of my price range, or, I think that the price is too high, I just don't buy it. I see no reason to get upset, I just move on to something else. I learned early in life, never let them see you sweat.I refuse to sweat intel, nVidia or AMD for anything..







too many of you wear your hearts on your sleeves...fact is, everything that we buy as far as building a pc, is overpriced, water cooling, mechanical keyboards, cases, etc., etc., but, we buy it, even though we might not even need it. it is what it is..


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dansi*
> 
> You be trollin'?
> Intel sells the same exact 10 cores BW-E Xeon for $999..
> Just because they unlock the multiplier, *they want rip another $700 from consumers?* Makes no fair sense...was this done before? Why should we accept it now..
> I hope not many share your views. There is nothing ultra premium about 6950X, it is just an unlocked Xeon ripoff cause Intel can.
> 6 and 8 cores BW-E actually went up in prices over HW-E equivalents, but not the point.
> The point is that, we expect to see technology improve year on year, buying yester-year premium hardware at mainstream prices.


Its easy, if you don't like something don't buy it, no need to rant about it, nobody is forcing you or anyone else to buy it.


----------



## lutjens

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dansi*
> 
> You be trollin'?
> Intel sells the same exact 10 cores BW-E Xeon for $999..
> Just because they unlock the multiplier, they want rip another $700 from consumers? Makes no fair sense...was this done before? Why should we accept it now..
> I hope not many share your views. There is nothing ultra premium about 6950X, it is just an unlocked Xeon ripoff cause Intel can.
> 6 and 8 cores BW-E actually went up in prices over HW-E equivalents, but not the point.
> The point is that, we expect to see technology improve year on year, buying yester-year premium hardware at mainstream prices.


Trolling? No. The i7-6950X is also clocked much higher at default than the $999 Xeon, which is why it's priced much higher. You say that $700 is too expensive a price to pay for an unlocked multiplier? I'd gladly pay double that price premium on top of the MSRP of the 22-core if they were to offer an unlocked 22-core Xeon. The i7-6950X is indeed an ultra premium part as it sits atop the SKU stack. "An unlocked Xeon ripoff because they can?" No, it's an unlocked, low volume processor that they've offered because many others, including myself, have been asking for it. We need the extra performance and the $700 price premium for the chip is FAR cheaper than building a high end single threaded machine and a separate high end multi threaded machine. We're willing to pay more for that convenience. If there was an unlocked 12-core for $2500, I'd be all over it too. The performance that the i7-6950X offers when overclocked is near that of a 16-core Xeon, to say nothing of the fact that it maintains excellent single threaded performance while doing so. Given the current price of a 16-core Xeon, I consider the i7-6950X to be easily worth its asking price.

You may "expect to see technology improve year on year" but Intel doesn't increase consumer core counts often, especially not more than once in a platform's life. They do know, however, that people want and need extra multi threaded performance with an unlocked processor, so by releasing the i7-6950X they are providing the desired performance, but with a price premium. Basically, they're permitting earlier access to the type of chip that would otherwise come out later down the road at a cheaper price. As one of the people who want and need this performance now, I'm incredibly happy Intel has released a part that better suits my needs, and don't mind paying a premium for it. I've already purchased one of them and will very likely purchase a second as well. If these chips supported dual CPU operation and ECC, I'd buy five of them.


----------



## darthyodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> For whatever reason, this place got a ****load of stock. I had never heard of them but they are a google trusted store so I got my 6850k there (although I think they are now sold out of those).
> 
> http://www.nothingbutsavings.com/Search/6900k?query=6900k


What's interesting is that this site is the 3rd party seller on Newegg charging 200$ more than the price they are charging in the link you sent. I guess it's a Newegg "tax" or maybe they are just trying to drive business directly to their site?

Newegg has reviews on them, and while most are good, apparently their RMA process is abysmal. Not something I would want for a 1100$ processor, yeah? Going to do some more research on it in the meantime.

Thank you for the heads up on the stock!


----------



## carlhil2

Just got back from MC. bought a new 5960x. turned out, it wasn't new. cracks on the top and bottom where the mobo socket clamps. I am pissed right now...


----------



## lutjens

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Just got back from MC. bought a new 5960x. turned out, it wasn't new. cracks on the top and bottom where the mobo socket clamps. I am pissed right now...


Was the box Factory Sealed when you bought it? Why not sell your existing i7-5960X (it looks like a decent clocker) and put the proceeds toward an i7-6950X? You'd probably still get $700-800 for your chip, making the difference about the same as the amount you just spent on that used 5960X.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lutjens*
> 
> Was the box Factory Sealed when you bought it? Why not sell your existing i7-5960X (it looks like a decent clocker) and put the proceeds toward an i7-6950X? You'd probably still get $700-800 for your chip, making the difference about the same as the amount you just spent on that used 5960X.


Seal was opened, I didn't check in store. I ordered it online. picked it up today, looked at the box in the car home.didn't really think much of it. I have bought a lot of stuff from them. got home, opened the box, bam, busted looking chip. I will be going off in MC tomorrow...


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Seal was opened, I didn't check in store. I ordered it online. picked it up today, looked at the box in the car home.didn't really think much of it. I have bought a lot of stuff from them. got home, opened the box, bam, busted looking chip. I will be going off in MC tomorrow...


Micro Center is awesome, but they can get a little sketchy in the "open box" items area. Sorry to hear about your luck and hope that the trip isn't too far.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Micro Center is awesome, but they can get a little sketchy in the "open box" items area. Sorry to hear about your luck and hope that the trip isn't too far.


Problem is, I didn't buy open box, I paid for a new chip, $900...


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Problem is, I didn't buy open box, I paid for a new chip, $900...


Seems like the "sketchy" is broadening. You'll forget all about it once you power up that beast for the first time.

I'm still testing out this new chip and don't plan to get rid of my 5960x until I know for sure. My 5960x was an above average chip so it's making the comparison hard.


----------



## skline00

Carhil2, sorry to hear of the foul up, especially since you had a solid 5960x at 4.5Ghz and now have to deal with one that apparently was used. Hopefully it works out. I think you are wise to put the extra money saved into 2 GTX 1080s in SLI with the 5960x vs going with a 6950x with your present classifieds. You will get much more bang for the buck in games.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Seems like the "sketchy" is broadening. You'll forget all about it once you power up that beast for the first time.
> 
> I'm still testing out this new chip and don't plan to get rid of my 5960x until I know for sure. My 5960x was an above average chip so it's making the comparison hard.


Lol, I am not powering up nothing. I already had a good 5960x, I just sold it to a relative. my plans was to buy the 6950x, but, for $1600? not me. I will be returning both chip and mobo tomorrow. maybe I will just wait for the 6900k to show and cop that. MC failed me on this one. the thing is, my girl, who was with me, thought something fishy was going on because when I was paying for the Protection Plan, they were having problems with issueing it to this busted chip. now I know why...


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skline00*
> 
> Carhil2, sorry to hear of the foul up, especially since you had a solid 5960x at 4.5Ghz and now have to deal with one that apparently was used. Hopefully it works out. I think you are wise to put the extra money saved into 2 GTX 1080s in SLI with the 5960x vs going with a 6950x with your present classifieds. You will get much more bang for the buck in games.


+1, that is exactly my plan. I am fine with a 5960x, it serves my needs, along with sli 1080....I might just give Amazon my loot this time..


----------



## skline00

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> +1, that is exactly my plan. I am fine with a 5960x, it serves my needs, along with sli 1080....


Dear God man, I intend to buy an EVGA GTX 1080 SC, slap an EK waterblock on it, move it to my 5960x rig, move my beloved GTX 980TI SC with an EK block to my 4790k rig and be happy as a clam. 2 GTX 1080s in SLI must be HELLISH fast.

BTW, some scoff at us paying the extra $$ for the full waterblocks but I never run into a throttling issue either stock or at overclocking. Thermal issues disappear,


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skline00*
> 
> Dear God man, I intend to buy an EVGA GTX 1080 SC, slap an EK waterblock on it, move it to my 5960x rig, move my beloved GTX 980TI SC with an EK block to my 4790k rig and be happy as a clam. 2 GTX 1080s in SLI must be HELLISH fast.


SLI 1080 seems like fire...







I would rather have that setup than having a 6950x and a single 1080...I might hold out for the 6900k though..


----------



## skline00

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> SLI 1080 seems like fire...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather have that setup than having a 6950x and a single 1080...I might hold out for the 6900k though..


I hear you carhil2. My goal has been to get away from CF/SLI setups and go to a to single powerful card for each rig.

I purchased the GTX 980TI SC last June to replace the 2 R9 290s in CF but sourced them to a 4790k build I just made. Now I have @$700 in gift cards and don't want to wait for late this fall/winter or next year for Vega or 1080TI.

The GTX 1080 with a water block will do the trick replacing the 290s. A lot less power draw, double the ram and at very minimum equal power. in games if not more.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Yeah I went down to Microcenter yesterday and picked up a 5820k (900 a little too rich for my blood right now.) I waited all that time for broadwell and I could have been rocking this 5820k a year.


----------



## tistou77

In fact, the Cache on the Broadwell-E is very different according to the "chips" and OC Socket work with BW-E, I think





The Cache can reach 4400 without problem, you just have a very good CPU, as explained here

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?296657-Intel-6950X-Overclocking-Report


----------



## Giggers

I got myself the 6800K, Gigabyte X99P-SLI, and 32 gigs of Crucial Ballistix. This has been a good upgrade!

Originally, though, I had the MSI X99A RAIDER, which I discovered doesn't support TurboBoost 3.0, meaning I wasn't able to overclock _at all_ using that board. Luckily I shop at Microcenter, and exchanging it for the Gigabyte one was easy-peasy, and it was only $13 more expensive!

So far, my overclocking has gotten me to 4.2GHz at 1.300 V, but I haven't been able to go much higher than that. Even at 1.400 V, the chip just refuses to remain stable at 4.3. It's possibly because I've literally only been changing the multiplier and core voltage, so there's probably some other settings I could adjust to get it to go higher. Right now, though, it stays pretty cool under load (60C), and I'm happy with that.

It's been great for rendering, giving me almost double the speed of my previous 4670K, and the benchmarks I've run have really shown the improvement. But above all, being able to stream games at 60FPS without any hiccups has really opened my eyes.

Now I'll just have to wait and see if I regret not getting the 5820k over this.


----------



## greg1184

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Giggers*
> 
> I got myself the 6800K, Gigabyte X99P-SLI, and 32 gigs of Crucial Ballistix. This has been a good upgrade!
> 
> Originally, though, I had the MSI X99A RAIDER, which I discovered doesn't support TurboBoost 3.0, meaning I wasn't able to overclock _at all_ using that board. Luckily I shop at Microcenter, and exchanging it for the Gigabyte one was easy-peasy, and it was only $13 more expensive!
> 
> So far, my overclocking has gotten me to 4.2GHz at 1.300 V, but I haven't been able to go much higher than that. Even at 1.400 V, the chip just refuses to remain stable at 4.3. It's possibly because I've literally only been changing the multiplier and core voltage, so there's probably some other settings I could adjust to get it to go higher. Right now, though, it stays pretty cool under load (60C), and I'm happy with that.
> 
> It's been great for rendering, giving me almost double the speed of my previous 4670K, and the benchmarks I've run have really shown the improvement. But above all, being able to stream games at 60FPS without any hiccups has really opened my eyes.
> 
> Now I'll just have to wait and see if I regret not getting the 5820k over this.


Same issue here with MSI boards. I basically have a $540 glorified OEM prebuild computer board now. Hope MSI provides an updated bios pronto.


----------



## Synik

Sounds like 4.3-4.4 is a great overclock for broadwell and 4.5 is a gold chip. Such a dissapointing chip for overclockers. I think I will try to get a used system and wait for skylake-x and hope it overclocks like 6700k


----------



## opt33

Same here, was planning on 8 or 10 core Broadwell E, but $1700 for mediocrity in overclocking and IPC increase







... back to witcher 3 blood and wine, will check back next year with skylake X. Still waiting on 1080ti as well.


----------



## Ragsters

mATX X99 boards are almost non existent now. All the EVGA Micro 2 and Asus-M WS boards seem to be sold out everywhere. What gives?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> mATX X99 boards are almost non existent now. All the EVGA Micro 2 and Asus-M WS boards seem to be sold out everywhere. What gives?


Lots here for the Asus at a Canadian retailer:
*
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX58909*

Says special order for the evga though.


----------



## Oj010

For overclocking it is just as bad as Broadwell. Broadwell didn't improve as it matured, I don't expect Broadwell-E to either.


----------



## xarot

My 6900K is out for delivery today. I am having some buyers remorse if I should have picked the 6950X instead and return this one..


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> My 6900K is out for delivery today. I am having some buyers remorse if I should have picked the 6950X instead and return this one..


6900k is something pretty good, just stick with it. That is the chip that I'm considering myself. Just mulling over selling the 1680 v2 to do so, Just don't want seller's remorse after it's sold. It's been very good to me.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> 6900k is something pretty good, just stick with it. That is the chip that I'm considering myself. Just mulling over selling the 1680 v2 to do so, Just don't want seller's remorse after it's sold. It's been very good to me.


You are most probably right. And I could pick up the Rampage V Edition 10 for the extra money I'd have to put in the 6950X.









The 1680 V2 sounds like a sweet chip and you should get a good price if selling it. You might not see a whole lot of difference if you move to 6900K (outside benchmarks). I am running 4960X/RIVE BE in the mean time and this combo is rocksolid...


----------



## carlhil2

Well, just for the heck of it, I installed that damaged chip from MC that I was complaining about, so far, does 4.7 at 1.3 volts. it was a quick, dirty OC. cache at 4.2. stock voltages. scored 1872 in Cinebench. think I should keep it?


----------



## Kimir

It's not a bad one with 4.7 at 1.3v really.


----------



## skline00

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Well, just for the heck of it, I installed that damaged chip from MC that I was complaining about, so far, does 4.7 at 1.3 volts. it was a quick, dirty OC. cache at 4.2. stock voltages. scored 1872 in Cinebench. think I should keep it?


Holy smokes, that puts mine to shame!


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> It's not a bad one with 4.7 at 1.3v really.


I am waiting on the new mobos to come out and see what it can do. I already contacted MC. I also have the Protection Plan with it. I will mess with it for a couple of days . If it is stable at 4.7+, I will just keep it and sell it at the begging of next year before Skylake E drops..Also, ran realbench with cache at 4.4, slowly moving up...


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Well, just for the heck of it, I installed that damaged chip from MC that I was complaining about, so far, does 4.7 at 1.3 volts. it was a quick, dirty OC. cache at 4.2. stock voltages. scored 1872 in Cinebench. think I should keep it?


4700mhz @ 1,3V is EPIC on 6900k !

Mine is stable @ 4,4Ghz @ 1,38







and 3700mhz cache/3000 cl15 mem
1860 in CB 15.

Looks like your'e score is very low for that speed...


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> 4700mhz @ 1,3V is EPIC on 6900k !
> 
> Mine is stable @ 4,4Ghz @ 1,38
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and 3700mhz cache/3000 cl15 mem
> 1860 in CB 15.
> 
> Looks like your'e score is very low for that speed...


Lol, my bad, should have made it clear, this is another 5960x that I bought from MC yesterday that looked used/damaged on the part where the socket locks. I was just testing to see what it could do. so far, 200mhz more than my old 5960x at the same voltages that I had since day one. ...


----------



## Raghar

Code:



Code:


HW-E vs BW-E

                     5820K       6800K   8 C HW-W 6900K
Watts at 3.5G          94        98      121       141 
Watts at 4G            115       117     146       153
Voltage at 3.5G        1.072     1.15    1.066     1.170
Voltage at 4G          1.100     1.200   1.110     1.2
Temperature 3.5G       48        48      55 (1V)          10C  56 (1.098)
Temperature 4G         57        69      62 (1.074V)      10C  77 (1.248)

I made this small table from reviews. That last column 10C means I compare 8C with 10 C because I wanted to compare the same heatsink.

(Overclocked by manufacturer? I think next two generation of CPU would be about underclocking. *Imagine how well would 12 core work on 0.9V.* There you can show your overclocking skills, now used in underclocking CPUs overclocked by manufacturer.)


----------



## Gdourado

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Lol, my bad, should have made it clear, this is another 5960x that I bought from MC yesterday that looked used/damaged on the part where the socket locks. I was just testing to see what it could do. so far, 200mhz more than my old 5960x at the same voltages that I had since day one. ...


Any chance you can post some pics of the damage?
Might be usefull to know the type of damage that can occur on used CPUs when buying from second hand sources...

Cheers!


----------



## Gdourado

So I received my 5960X.
But now I am getting a bit of buyers remorse.
I got it for 570 Euros.
It is a great price and even better when I think that the cheapest I can get a 6900K is 910 Euros.
But I currently just use the computer for gaming and not much since I don't have much time. Just a couple of hours on weekdays.
The rest of the time, the computer is pretty much powered off.
So I am thinking if I should return it or sell it and get a cheaper 6800K and pocket the difference or put it towards a GPU upgrade in the near future...
The 6800K is 375 by the way, so I would still save 200 Euros...
All in all, I don't know... This buyers remorse is really getting the better of me...

Cheers!


----------



## Kimir

It's probably not damage per-se but only traces on the IHS from the first time you put on a cooler - if one is not careful that is -.
Return, heck no I wouldn't do that... sell it for 700-800 (is it opened, have you tested it?) and then get the 6800K if you must.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> So I received my 5960X.
> But now I am getting a bit of buyers remorse.
> I got it for 570 Euros.
> It is a great price and even better when I think that the cheapest I can get a 6900K is 910 Euros.
> But I currently just use the computer for gaming and not much since I don't have much time. Just a couple of hours on weekdays.
> The rest of the time, the computer is pretty much powered off.
> So I am thinking if I should return it or sell it and get a cheaper 6800K and pocket the difference or put it towards a GPU upgrade in the near future...
> The 6800K is 375 by the way, so I would still save 200 Euros...
> All in all, I don't know... This buyers remorse is really getting the better of me...
> 
> Cheers!


For your usage scenario why not just buy an unlocked i5 and save hundreds of more euro?


----------



## Descadent

should I upgrade my 2600k at 4.6 to a 6800k, 6850k, or 6700k or keep waiting.... ??? having a processor since 2011 that still kicks ass last 5 years has been pretty nice but I know I need to upgrade for 4k video rendering and vr.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Descadent*
> 
> should I upgrade my 2600k at 4.6 to a 6800k, 6850k, or 6700k or keep waiting.... ??? having a processor since 2011 that still kicks ass last 5 years has been pretty nice but I know I need to upgrade for 4k video rendering and vr.


You dont need to upgrade my man. In reality a 2600k running at 4.6ghz is good for an easy 5 more years, easily. If you got extra income burning a hole look at new HDR tv's, best investment in tech right now.


----------



## carlhil2

That's how it looked out of the box. also, the seal was opened before, it's like a split on top and bottom..  I went from 4.5=1808 on my old chip to 4.7=1898 with the "new" one....


----------



## Scotty99

Dude that isnt damage...yes its a used CPU for sure but it aint damage lol. Ill let you figure out why it isnt.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Dude that isnt damage...yes its a used CPU for sure but it aint damage lol. Ill let you figure out why it isnt.


This is my second 5960x, my first one didn't look like this, anyways, I will most likely keep it..







oh, and, you can catch your fingernail in those grooves on the edges of the chip, like it is about to split, lol...who knows, I could just be tripping...


----------



## Scotty99

I would as well thats a good OC'er









As for what i was referening, thats just from the mounting pressure applied by the mounting mechanism. Sure the grooves may be a little deeper than normal but its nothing to worry about, i thought you meant there were gouges near the actual cpu die.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I would as well thats a good OC'er
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for what i was referening, thats just from the mounting pressure applied by the mounting mechanism. Sure the grooves may be a little deeper than normal but its nothing to worry about, i thought you meant there were gouges near the actual cpu die.


Lol, nah, maybe I am exaggerating? maybe I am just looking for perfection after spending another grand..


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Lol, nah, maybe I am exaggerating? maybe I am just looking for perfection after spending another grand..


I mean maybe its too deep if a fingernail can grab on it lol. I dunno maybe wait for more opinions, if it was me and i assessed there was no chance it would break under mounting pressure (after looking in person at gouge) id keep it cause its a good clocker.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I mean maybe its too deep if a fingernail can grab on it lol. I dunno maybe wait for more opinions, if it was me and i assessed there was no chance it would break under mounting pressure (after looking in person at gouge) id keep it cause its a good clocker.


True....like I said, I also bought their protection plan, so, I SHOULD be good...I just need a better mobo, I have the Asus x99 Pro at the moment...


----------



## Descadent

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> You dont need to upgrade my man. In reality a 2600k running at 4.6ghz is good for an easy 5 more years, easily. If you got extra income burning a hole look at new HDR tv's, best investment in tech right now.


I already have a 4K curved HDR lol.

Just figured new processor would make 4K rendering faster


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Descadent*
> 
> I already have a 4K curved HDR lol.
> 
> Just figured new processor would make 4K rendering faster


Oh it would but it wouldnt save enough time in a day to be worth spending all that money on a new board/chip/ram etc, unless that is all you do on your pc.

And what tv you get? I just ordered a vizio P55 from best buy, should be here on thursday snagged it on a deal for 1099.00


----------



## skline00

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> That's how it looked out of the box. also, the seal was opened before, it's like a split on top and bottom..  I went from 4.5=1808 on my old chip to 4.7=1898 with the "new" one....


carlhil2: At the 4.7Ghz setting can you run Asus RealBench without errors?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skline00*
> 
> carlhil2: At the 4.7Ghz setting can you run Asus RealBench without errors?


----------



## nissin

I'm building a machine for SolidWorks and Modo. SolidWorks likes low cores / high clock speeds, Modo takes advantage of every core you have during rendering. So ideally, I'd like to have a 6-core machine that overclocks well.

I initially bought a 5820K w/ H100i v2 cooling and an X99 Sabertooth board and G Skill DDR4-3200 32Gb kit (F4-3200C16Q-32GTZB, which is not an ASUS approved kit). My overclock was completely underwhelming at 4.01 using the utility, and 4.1 manually, unless I went with crazy high voltages and even then it was not completely stable. After looking at the top OC's on this site for 5820's, it appears the most common board to use is an ASUS x99-deluxe. If I could get to 4.5 (the same speed as my 3770K work machine) I'd be happy.

I'm returning the Sabertooth because I don't believe it's worth the money. After reading about the 6800's, those don't sound particularly promising w/ regards to oc'ing either, and I'm not crazy about the extra heat they produce.

My question is, do I go with older technology and go with the 5820K / ASUS x99-Deluxe or X99-E? Or do I wait and see what the new X99 boards do with the 6800's? The other possibility is completely change plans and go 6700K and try for a very strong OC (4.8+) and save a little $$$.

(A 5930+/6850+ chips are a faint, distant possibility)


----------



## MR-e

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*


Can you do the stress test at 1 hour, 32gb ram? 1 run of the benchmark is not enough to indicate stability or not.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> Can you do the stress test at 1 hour, 32gb ram? 1 run of the benchmark is not enough to indicate stability or not.


I agree, running benchmarks is a waste of time. Use your PC as you normally do, that is how you see if its stable.


----------



## CL3P20

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nissin*
> 
> I'm building a machine for SolidWorks and Modo. SolidWorks likes low cores / high clock speeds, Modo takes advantage of every core you have during rendering. So ideally, I'd like to have a 6-core machine that overclocks well.
> 
> I initially bought a 5820K w/ H100i v2 cooling and an X99 Sabertooth board and G Skill DDR4-3200 32Gb kit (F4-3200C16Q-32GTZB, which is not an ASUS approved kit). My overclock was completely underwhelming at 4.01 using the utility, and 4.1 manually, unless I went with crazy high voltages and even then it was not completely stable. After looking at the top OC's on this site for 5820's, it appears the most common board to use is an ASUS x99-deluxe. If I could get to 4.5 (the same speed as my 3770K work machine) I'd be happy.
> 
> I'm returning the Sabertooth because I don't believe it's worth the money. After reading about the 6800's, those don't sound particularly promising w/ regards to oc'ing either, and I'm not crazy about the extra heat they produce.
> 
> My question is, do I go with older technology and go with the 5820K / ASUS x99-Deluxe or X99-E? Or do I wait and see what the new X99 boards do with the 6800's? The other possibility is completely change plans and go 6700K and try for a very strong OC (4.8+) and save a little $$$.
> 
> (A 5930+/6850+ chips are a faint, distant possibility)


4.5ghz on a 5820k for the type of intensive workload you are running, will likely not happen on an AIO.. you will need better water to hold load temps down. I have nearly the same rig (x99 champion) and run 4/4/3200 for daily with HT off.. this rig was folding 24/7 at these specs all last winter.

The one advantage that BW-E will have will be memory.. as bandwidth is higher by default when compared to HW-E.. but; there is no longer cache OC for BW-E to the same extent. BW-E will not clock as high either, smaller process means its much more sensitive to internal heat..and it gets hot very fast.

*If you can stand it: throw some meaner fans on your [email protected] 100% tilt and see if you can stomach the noise needed to push for more speed. Since you already have a nice system.. you may consider looking into a custom water setup that can help control that beast @ +4.4ghz though


----------



## shark0311

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nissin*
> 
> I'm building a machine for SolidWorks and Modo. SolidWorks likes low cores / high clock speeds, Modo takes advantage of every core you have during rendering. So ideally, I'd like to have a 6-core machine that overclocks well.
> 
> I initially bought a 5820K w/ H100i v2 cooling and an X99 Sabertooth board and G Skill DDR4-3200 32Gb kit (F4-3200C16Q-32GTZB, which is not an ASUS approved kit). My overclock was completely underwhelming at 4.01 using the utility, and 4.1 manually, unless I went with crazy high voltages and even then it was not completely stable. After looking at the top OC's on this site for 5820's, it appears the most common board to use is an ASUS x99-deluxe. If I could get to 4.5 (the same speed as my 3770K work machine) I'd be happy.
> 
> I'm returning the Sabertooth because I don't believe it's worth the money. After reading about the 6800's, those don't sound particularly promising w/ regards to oc'ing either, and I'm not crazy about the extra heat they produce.
> 
> My question is, do I go with older technology and go with the 5820K / ASUS x99-Deluxe or X99-E? Or do I wait and see what the new X99 boards do with the 6800's? The other possibility is completely change plans and go 6700K and try for a very strong OC (4.8+) and save a little $$$.
> 
> (A 5930+/6850+ chips are a faint, distant possibility)


If you look at the rig in my signature I have a pretty close setup and I get 4.5 GHz @ 1.262 V pretty easily. I think that you just have a bad 5820k. The Sabertooth has been a great board. What bios are you running?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> Can you do the stress test at 1 hour, 32gb ram? 1 run of the benchmark is not enough to indicate stability or not.


Lol, I will do all of that once I get a new mobo. I just did a couple of runs with 2 different versions of realbench. this mobo doesn't let me OC my ram like my old mobo did.. I am not going to waste my time dialing in my settings for a proper OC til then..







here was the updated realbench run. 
Plus, I had a doctors appointment today, that's why I am not at work yet...


----------



## Descadent

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Oh it would but it wouldnt save enough time in a day to be worth spending all that money on a new board/chip/ram etc, unless that is all you do on your pc.
> 
> And what tv you get? I just ordered a vizio P55 from best buy, should be here on thursday snagged it on a deal for 1099.00


samsung 65" 9000 series curved. forget exact model number other than it ends in 9000.

but yeah that's reason why I haven't upgraded from 2600k yet because it's never seemed worth it.

it's just insane the life that the 2600k has had. back in the day ever cpu release was a big deal now it's like meh 5 years later, I really don't have too.


----------



## nissin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shark0311*
> 
> If you look at the rig in my signature I have a pretty close setup and I get 4.5 GHz @ 1.262 V pretty easily. I think that you just have a bad 5820k. The Sabertooth has been a great board. What bios are you running?


I was thinking I didn't get a great chip, but you think it could've been thermal throttling as well? I never checked for it but running Prime95 it would get to 190F/88C, under more typical loads and benchmarking it'd hover in the 160F/71C range.

I started with the 2101 (I believe) BIOS, then upgraded to the latest, which was 3101.

I talked to a G Skill tech over the phone, and he said that ram I'm running should be fine even though it's not "certified / approved", and if the board didn't correctly load the ram profiles, that I could manually enter them. Does that sound feasible? I haven't messed with ram settings before.


----------



## superkyle1721

Setting ram timings manually are very easy to do. If you know the xmp settings of the ram you purchased simply input those values into the memory timings configurator of your board and then set the memory speed. Once done then set the dram voltage to what your ram is set to run at. Most likely this is 1.35V that should be all you need to do. From there you can also work on lowering the timings a bit if interested.

Always destroying exergy


----------



## shark0311

I manually entered my ram profile because I was overclocking it. I pulled the timings from the XMP then entered them manually and adjusted them for stability.

Here are my settings:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



[2016/05/12 18:52:15]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
ASUS MultiCore Enhancement [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Sync All Cores]
1-Core Ratio Limit [45]
2-Core Ratio Limit [45]
3-Core Ratio Limit [45]
4-Core Ratio Limit [45]
5-Core Ratio Limit [45]
6-Core Ratio Limit [45]
Min. CPU Cache Ratio [Auto]
Max. CPU Cache Ratio [36]
Internal PLL Overvoltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency : DRAM Frequency Ratio [Auto]
DRAM Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
Extreme Over-voltage [Disabled]
Fully Manual Mode [Disabled]
CPU Core Voltage [Adaptive Mode]
Offset Mode Sign [+]
CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.253]
Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU Cache Voltage [Auto]
CPU System Agent Voltage Offset Mode Sign [+]
CPU System Agent Voltage Offset [Auto]
CPU SVID Support [Auto]
CPU Input Voltage [Auto]
DRAM SVID Support [Disabled]
DRAM Voltage(CHA, CHB) [1.350]
DRAM Voltage(CHC, CHD) [1.350]
PCH Core Voltage [Auto]
PCH I/O Voltage [Auto]
VCCIO CPU 1.05V Voltage [Auto]
VCCIO PCH 1.05V Voltage [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage(CHA, CHB) [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage(CHC, CHD) [Auto]
PLL Termination Voltage [Auto]
PLL Reference Offset Mode Sign [+]
PLL Reference Offset Value [Auto]
CPU Spread Spectrum [Auto]
SfrTrim Optin [Disabled]
CPU Input Eventual Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Delay [16]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [36]
DRAM Command Rate [Timing 2T]
DRAM RAS# to RAS# Delay [Auto]
DRAM RAS# to RAS# Delay L [Auto]
DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
DRAM Refresh Interval [Auto]
DRAM WRITE Recovery Time [Auto]
DRAM READ to PRE Time [Auto]
DRAM FOUR ACT WIN Time [Auto]
DRAM WRITE to READ Delay [Auto]
DRAM WRITE to READ Delay L [Auto]
DRAM CKE Minimum Pulse Width [Auto]
DRAM Write Latency [Auto]
tRRDR [Auto]
tRRDD [Auto]
tWWDR [Auto]
tWWDD [Auto]
tRWDR [Auto]
tWRDR [Auto]
tWRDD [Auto]
tRWSR [Auto]
tCCD [Auto]
tUWRDR [Auto]
tRWDR2 [Auto]
tRWDD [Auto]
tRWSR2 [Auto]
tWRDD2 [Auto]
tCCDWR [Auto]
tCCD_L [Auto]
DRAM Eventual Voltage(CHA, CHB) [Auto]
DRAM Eventual Voltage(CHC, CHD) [Auto]
DRAM CLK Period [Auto]
Memory Optimize Control [Auto]
Enhanced Training(CHA) [Auto]
Enhanced Training(CHB) [Auto]
Enhanced Training(CHC) [Auto]
Enhanced Training(CHD) [Auto]
MemTest [Auto]
Attempt Fast Boot [Auto]
Attempt Fast Cold Boot [Auto]
DRAM Training [Auto]
DRAM SPD Write [Disabled]
DRAM RTL INIT value [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHA D0 R0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHA D0 R1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHA D1 R0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHA D1 R1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHB D0 R0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHB D0 R1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHB D1 R0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHB D1 R1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHC D0 R0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHC D0 R1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHC D1 R0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHC D1 R1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHD D0 R0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHD D0 R1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHD D1 R0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHD D1 R1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHA D0 R0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHA D0 R1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHA D1 R0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHA D1 R1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHB D0 R0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHB D0 R1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHB D1 R0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHB D1 R1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHC D0 R0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHC D0 R1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHC D1 R0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHC D1 R1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHD D0 R0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHD D0 R1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHD D1 R0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHD D1 R1) [Auto]
MC Vref(CHA) [Auto]
MC Vref(CHB) [Auto]
MC Vref(CHC) [Auto]
MC Vref(CHD) [Auto]
DRAM Vref(CHA) [Auto]
DRAM Vref(CHB) [Auto]
DRAM Vref(CHC) [Auto]
DRAM Vref(CHD) [Auto]
CTL Vref (CHAB) Sign [+]
CTL Vref (CHAB) [Auto]
CTL Vref (CHCD) Sign [+]
CTL Verf (CHCD) [Auto]
Receiver DQ Pre-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver DQ De-emphasis [Auto]
Transmitter DQ De-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver DQS Pre-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver DQS De-emphasis [Auto]
Transmitter DQS De-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver CMD Pre-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver CMD De-emphasis [Auto]
Transmitter CMD De-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver CLK Pre-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver CLK De-emphasis [Auto]
Transmitter CLK De-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver CTL Pre-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver CTL De-emphasis [Auto]
Transmitter CTL De-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver ODT Pre-emphasis [Auto]
Receiver ODT De-emphasis [Auto]
Transmitter ODT De-emphasis [Auto]
CPU Input Boot Voltage [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 7]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Enabled]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe Thermal]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
DRAM Current Capability(CHA, CHB) [100%]
DRAM Current Capability(CHC, CHD) [100%]
DRAM Switching Frequency(CHA, CHB) [Auto]
DRAM Switching Frequency(CHC, CHD) [Auto]
DRAM Power Phase Control(CHA, CHB) [Standard]
DRAM Power Phase Control(CHC, CHD) [Standard]
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology [Enabled]
Turbo Mode [Enabled]
Long Duration Package Power Limit [Auto]
Package Power Time Window [Auto]
Short Duration Package Power Limit [Auto]
CPU Integrated VR Current Limit [Auto]
CPU Integrated VR Fault Management [Auto]
CPU Integrated VR Efficiency Management [Auto]
Disable Parity Workaround [Disabled]
CMD Margins [40]
Serial Debug Message Level [Disabled]
Multi-Threaded MRC [Auto]
MemTestLoops [1]
EarlyCtlClk [Auto]
EarlyCmdClk [Auto]
Ddr4LrdimmBacksideRxPhase [Auto]
Ddr4LrdimmBacksideRxCycle [Auto]
Ddr4LrdimmBacksideRxDelay [Auto]
ReceiveEnable [Auto]
ReadDqDqs [Auto]
Ddr4LrdimmBacksideTxFineWL [Auto]
Ddr4LrdimmBacksideTxCoarseWL [Auto]
Ddr4LrdimmBacksideTxDelay [Auto]
WriteLeveling [Auto]
WriteLevelingCleanUp [Auto]
WrDqDqs [Auto]
WrEarlyVrefCentering [Auto]
RdEarlyVrefCentering [Auto]
LateCmdClk [Auto]
TxEqTraining [Auto]
ImodeTraining [Auto]
RxPerBitDeskew [Auto]
TxPerBitDeskew [Auto]
WrVrefCentering [Auto]
RdVrefCentering [Auto]
WrAdvancedCentering [Auto]
RdAdvancedCentering [Auto]
RoundTripOptimize [Auto]
SwitchToNormalMode [Auto]
RankMarginTool [Auto]
tRWDS [Auto]
tWWDS [Auto]
tRRDS [Auto]
tWRDS [Auto]
TXP DLL [Auto]
TXS OFFSET [Auto]
TXP [Auto]
DRAM_TSTAGGER_REF [Auto]
DRAM Refresh Interval (nREFIx9) [Auto]
t_cs_oe [Auto]
t_odt_oe [Auto]
shift_odt_early [Auto]
orefni [Auto]
Idle Page Rst Val [Auto]
Window Size [Auto]
PPC TH [Auto]
OPC TH [Auto]
Adapt pg clse [Auto]
pre_enable [Auto]
act_enable [Auto]
dis_opp_rd [Auto]
max_rpq_cas [Auto]
STR_OCMR_DRAM_TCKSRX [Auto]
Data Scrambling [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 DQ Scomp delay cells (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 DQ Scomp PC (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CMD Scomp delay cells (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CMD Scomp PC (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CTL Scomp delay cells (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CTL Scomp PC (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 DQ Scomp delay cells (after) (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 DQ Scomp PC (after) (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CMD Scomp delay cells (after) (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CMD Scomp PC (after) (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CTL Scomp delay cells (after) (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CTL Scomp PC (after) (CHAB) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 DQ Scomp delay cells (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 DQ Scomp PC (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CMD Scomp delay cells (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CMD Scomp PC (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CTL Scomp delay cells (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CTL Scomp PC (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 DQ Scomp delay cells (after) (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 DQ Scomp PC (after) (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CMD Scomp delay cells (after) (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CMD Scomp PC (after) (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CTL Scomp delay cells (after) (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRCompCtl1 CTL Scomp PC (after) (CHCD) [Auto]
ddrCRClkComp Scomp ChA [Auto]
ddrCRClkComp Scomp ChB [Auto]
ddrCRClkComp Scomp ChC [Auto]
ddrCRClkComp Scomp ChD [Auto]
ddrCRCmdComp Scomp ChA [Auto]
ddrCRCmdComp Scomp ChB [Auto]
ddrCRCmdComp Scomp ChC [Auto]
ddrCRCmdComp Scomp ChD [Auto]
ddrCRCtlComp Scomp ChA [Auto]
ddrCRCtlComp Scomp ChB [Auto]
ddrCRCtlComp Scomp ChC [Auto]
ddrCRCtlComp Scomp ChD [Auto]
DDR DEBUG MR0 [0]
DDR DEBUG MR1 [0]
DDR DEBUG MR2 [0]
MRC Delay Time [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHA D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHA D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHA D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHA D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHB D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHB D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHB D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHB D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHC D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHC D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHC D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHC D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHD D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHD D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHD D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTWR(CHD D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHA D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHA D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHA D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHA D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHB D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHB D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHB D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHB D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHC D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHC D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHC D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHC D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHD D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHD D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHD D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTNOM(CHD D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHA D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHA D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHA D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHA D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHB D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHB D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHB D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHB D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHC D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHC D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHC D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHC D1 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHD D0 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHD D0 R1) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHD D1 R0) [Auto]
ODT RTTPARK(CHD D1 R1) [Auto]
dqdrvpupvref Vref [Auto]
dqdrvpdnvref Vref [Auto]
dqodtpupvref Vref [Auto]
tcovref Vref [Auto]
dqodtpdnvref Vref [Auto]
clkdrvpupvref Vref [Auto]
clkdrvpdnvref Vref [Auto]
cmddrvpupvref Vref [Auto]
cmddrvpdnvref Vref [Auto]
ctldrvpupvref Vref [Auto]
ctldrvpdnvref Vref [Auto]
Hyper-Threading [ALL] [Enabled]
Intel Adaptive Thermal Monitor [Enabled]
Limit CPUID Maximum [Disabled]
Execute Disable Bit [Enabled]
Intel Virtualization Technology [Disabled]
Hardware Prefetcher [Enabled]
Adjacent Cache Line Prefetcher [Enabled]
Boot Performance Mode [Max Performance]
Maximum CPU Core Temperature [Auto]
Active Processor Core 0 [Enabled]
Active Processor Core 1 [Enabled]
Active Processor Core 2 [Enabled]
Active Processor Core 3 [Enabled]
Active Processor Core 4 [Enabled]
Active Processor Core 5 [Enabled]
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology [Enabled]
Turbo Mode [Enabled]
CPU C-States [Auto]
PCIEX4_1 Speed [Auto]
PCIEX1_1 Speed [Auto]
Intel Rapid Start Technology [Enabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATAEXPRESS SRIS Support [Auto]
S.M.A.R.T. Status Check [Enabled]
SATA Controller 1 Mode Selection [AHCI]
Support Aggressive Link Power Management [Disabled]
SATA6G_1(Beige) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_2(Beige) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_3(Gray) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_4(Gray) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_5(Gray) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_6(Gray) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA Controller 2 Mode Selection [AHCI]
Support Aggressive Link Power Management [Disabled]
SATA6G_7(Black) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_8(Black) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_9(Black) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_10(Black) [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA Led locate [Enabled]
SATA HDD Unlock [Enabled]
SATA Led locate [Enabled]
MCTP [Disabled]
ACS Control [Disabled]
PCIEX16_1 Link Speed [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Link Speed [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Link Speed [Auto]
Intel VT for Directed I/O (VT-d) [Disabled]
DMI Gen 2 [Enabled]
Intel xHCI Mode [Smart Auto]
EHCI Legacy Support [Enabled]
xHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
EHCI Hand-off [Disabled]
Corsair Voyager Mini 0.00 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Enabled]
USB_7 [Enabled]
USB_8 [Enabled]
USB_9 [Enabled]
USB_10 [Enabled]
USB_11 [Enabled]
USB_12 [Enabled]
USB_13 [Enabled]
USB_14 [Enabled]
USB3_E2 [Enabled]
USB3_E3 [Enabled]
USB3_E4 [Enabled]
USB3_E5 (USB3.1) [Enabled]
USB3_E6 (USB3.1) [Enabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By Ring [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
Front Panel Type [HD Audio]
SPDIF Out Type [SPDIF]
PCIEX4_1 Slot(black) Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Slot(black) Bandwidth [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Battery Charging Support [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel Lan PXE Option ROM [Disabled]
Realtek LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE Option ROM [Disabled]
Serial Port [Enabled]
Change Settings [IO=3F8h; IRQ=4]
SA DMI ASPM [Disabled]
PEG ASPM Support [Disabled]
PCH DMI ASPM [Disabled]
ASPM Support [Disabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Relaxed Ordering [Disabled]
Extended Tag [Disabled]
No Snoop [Enabled]
Maximum Payload [Auto]
Extended Synch [Disabled]
Link Training Retry [5]
Link Training Timeout (uS) [1000]
Restore PCIE Registers [Disabled]
Completion Timeout [Default]
ARI Forwarding [Disabled]
AtomicOp Requester Enable [Disabled]
AtomicOp Egress Blocking [Disabled]
IDO Request Enable [Disabled]
IDO Completion Enable [Disabled]
LTR Mechanism Enable [Disabled]
End-End TLP Prefix Blocking [Disabled]
Clock Power Management [Disabled]
Compliance SOS [Disabled]
Hardware Autonomous Width [Enabled]
Hardware Autonomous Speed [Enabled]
BIOS Hot-Plug Support [Enabled]
PCI Buses Padding [1]
I/O Resources Padding [4 K]
MMIO 32 bit Resources Padding [16 M]
PFMMIO 32 bit Resources Padding [16 M]
Intel Thunderbolt Technology [Disabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 4 Speed [Monitor]
Asst Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Asst Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Asst Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
Asst Fan 4 Speed [Monitor]
Asst Fan 5 Speed [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [300 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 4 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 4 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 4 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Chassis Fan 4 Profile [Standard]
ASST Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Asst Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Asst Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Asst Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
ASST Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Asst Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Asst Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Asst Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
ASST Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Asst Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Asst Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Asst Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
ASST Fan 4 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Asst Fan 4 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Asst Fan 4 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Asst Fan 4 Profile [Standard]
ASST Fan 5 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Asst Fan 5 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Asst Fan 5 Speed Low Limit [300 RPM]
Asst Fan 5 Profile [Standard]
Fan Overtime [1 minutes]
Dust de-Fan [30 Seconds]
Reversed periodically in OS [2 Hour]
Reversed duration in OS [30 Seconds]
Anti Surge Support [Enabled]
Chassis Intrude Detect Support [Enabled]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
VCORE Temperature [Monitor]
VCORE(BACK) Temperature [Monitor]
DRAM1 Temperature [Monitor]
DRAM2 Temperature [Monitor]
USB3.0 Temperature [Monitor]
PCIE-1 Temperature [Monitor]
PCIE-2 Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
SATA Support [All Devices]
USB Support [Partial Initialization]
Network Stack Driver Support [Disabled]
Redirection Support [Disabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
DirectKey (DRCT) [Enabled]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
INT19 Trap Response [Immediate]
Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
Setup Mode [EZ Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E/PCI Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [OC]
Save to Profile [1]


----------



## superkyle1721

For a post of that length of you don't mind please use the spoiler button to condense it for others and overall thread cleanliness.

Always destroying exergy


----------



## shark0311

Sorry about that.


----------



## superkyle1721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shark0311*
> 
> Sorry about that.


No problem







now you know

Always destroying exergy


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> Can you do the stress test at 1 hour, 32gb ram? 1 run of the benchmark is not enough to indicate stability or not.


Can you run linpack with all ram for 4h?


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Is anyone able to disable hyperthreading while overclocking the 6950X? Meaning, do all cores run at the speed you set when disabling HT?

Also, can anyone confirm C-state and EIST disabling works for them?

If the answer is yes to these questions, please share your MOBO+BIOS version


----------



## xarot

I got my 6900K, the known store in Germany decided it is a good idea to send it in a bubble-wrap envelope so needless to say it's not in a good shape anymore. Haven't opened the package yet, I'm furious.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I got my 6900K, the known store in Germany decided it is a good idea to send it in a bubble-wrap envelope so needless to say it's not in a good shape anymore. Haven't opened the package yet, I'm furious.


Who cares about the paperbox?









The cpu is safe in the plastic


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Who cares about the paperbox?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cpu is safe in the plastic


Well not much plastic to cover it really. Looks like someone had been jumping on it during shipment. Last time I ordered my 4960X the processor was almost out of the whole box...

Anyway, very careless to send an expensive item in a bubble wrap envelope...I asked if they would send the i7-6950X in envelope too and they said yeah.

Anyway, time to test the proc when I have the motivation and less lack of sleep to do some plumbing and reinstall the RVE into the case.


----------



## yuppicide

I am starting to get parts for a new computer.. looking at this page;

http://www.techspot.com/review/1187-intel-core-i7-6950x-broadwell-e/

I may go with the 6850K.

All of them say memory DDR4-2400.

But looking at X99 motherboards they say memory supported, well some say up to DDR4 3466, 3400, 3333, etc.

I'm going to put 128GB memory in it. I am just wondering when I do go to purchase memory should I look for faster stuff or just get whatever? Does Broadwell-E support 128GB or will I only be able to do 64GB max?

Does anyone know how much memory Skylake will take up to? I may even go with an i7 6700K.


----------



## Skinnered

I wonder if there is much difference running these (6900K) in SLI or CF @4K, or even @5K compared to a 6700K. I do have a Z170 with a plx chip to run 2 [email protected] x16 for the GPU's and this made quite a difference in a bunch of games @4 and 5K (20-50%!! 50% only for a handful though).


----------



## alawadhi3000

I ordered the 6800K to replace my 4.7GHz [email protected] 1.3V

Hopefully I will get an equally good overclocing CPU.


----------



## Exolaris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> I ordered the 6800K to replace my 4.7GHz [email protected] 1.3V
> 
> Hopefully I will get an equally good overclocing CPU.


From what we've seen so far, even 4.5 GHz is proving hard to hit without substantial cooling and voltages. Good luck though, hoping it works out for ya!


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exolaris*
> 
> From what we've seen so far, even 4.5 GHz is proving hard to hit without substantial cooling and voltages. Good luck though, hoping it works out for ya!


A 4.3GHz 6800K should be as fast as my 4.7GHz 5820K so hopefully I get one thats capable of 4.4GHz and higher @ 1.3V

If I remember correctly Haswell-E was the same people were getting 4.3GHz-4.5GHz at most so I'm positive.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> A 4.3GHz 6800K should be as fast as my 4.7GHz 5820K so hopefully I get one thats capable of 4.4GHz and higher @ 1.3V
> 
> If I remember correctly Haswell-E was the same people were getting 4.3GHz-4.5GHz at most so I'm positive.


Doubt that


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> A 4.3GHz 6800K should be as fast as my 4.7GHz 5820K so hopefully I get one thats capable of 4.4GHz and higher @ 1.3V
> 
> If I remember correctly Haswell-E was the same people were getting 4.3GHz-4.5GHz at most so I'm positive.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> Doubt that


Which part are you doubting?


----------



## jonathan13

They finally arrived today!!


----------



## JamesSR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonathan13*
> 
> They finally arrived today!!


Looking good, let us know how it overclocks


----------



## karlram

Hi,

Has someone experience in overclocking a 6850k or 6900k with a single stage?


----------



## RedRumy3

Decided to play with 6800k all this came earlier today and finally all up and running and plan to overclock tomorrow and hopefully get at least 4.2ghz out of it.


----------



## JamesSR

Nice, good luck with the overclock


----------



## Nizzen

I need a memory OC guide for Broadwell-e 6900k right now









Looks like it's hard to go over 3200mhz cl15.

Trying some new G.skill TridentZ 3733mhz cl17 4x4 kit.

Help!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I need a memory OC guide for Broadwell-e 6900k right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's hard to go over 3200mhz cl15.
> 
> Trying some new G.skill TridentZ 3733mhz cl17 4x4 kit.
> 
> Help!


What makes you think you'll get anywhere near 3733?


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What makes you think you'll get anywhere near 3733?


I think he's just mentioning the RAM he bought, noting that even 3200+ was hard to hit.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B017WSVBW8/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1/280-5110229-1134231?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_r=WXH66FXY3Z36EH5XJS23&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=569136327&pf_rd_i=B01AIZW6O4


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Which part are you doubting?


That the IPC gain is that much to make them equal


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What makes you think you'll get anywhere near 3733?


I don't, only hoping for a bit more than 3200mhz









G.skill showed 3600mhz? on x99 and broadwel-e on Computex

My goal for now must be 3600mhz on top of 4,4ghz and 3700mhz cache on the 6900k.

It was more easy to OC the memory on 5960x


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedRumy3*
> 
> Decided to play with 6800k all this came earlier today and finally all up and running and plan to overclock tomorrow and hopefully get at least 4.2ghz out of it.


matching 2 32GB kits together?

I've found that works maybe 10% of the time so I wish you luck


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> matching 2 32GB kits together?
> 
> I've found that works maybe 10% of the time so I wish you luck


Is that so? I've put together multiple TZ 4x8GB 3200c14 kit without issues at XMP. It is not recommended that's a sure thing, but because one can't do it, doesn't mean another can't.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What makes you think you'll get anywhere near 3733?


G.skill is close:

http://www.gskill.com/en/press/view/g-skill-exhibits-extreme-limits-of-ddr4-memory-on-live-demo-systems-at-computex-2016


----------



## Mhill2029

Just picked up the 6950X and popped it in after a Bios update, but for some reason the Bios says target boost frequency of 4Ghz (which is normal based on reviews I've seen) but in windows it only boosts to 3.4Ghz. Any ideas?

I installed that Turbo Boost 3.0 while I was at it.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Just picked up the 6950X and popped it in after a Bios update, but for some reason the Bios says target boost frequency of 4Ghz (which is normal based on reviews I've seen) but in windows it only boosts to 3.4Ghz. Any ideas?
> 
> I installed that Turbo Boost 3.0 while I was at it.


Stock in bios, it says 4000mhz boost for my 6900k. In windows it is 3700mhz


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Stock in bios, it says 4000mhz boost for my 6900k. In windows it is 3700mhz


According to what I've just read it seems my CPU is using Turbo Boost 2.0. Odd....


----------



## Medusa666

I have a general question for Broadwell-E users;

Is there any confirmation that you can overclock the Broadwell-E CPUs on older MSI X99 motherboards i.e the ones that came 2014-2015?

Thankful for any information regarding this as I'm about to order an upgrade.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> matching 2 32GB kits together?
> 
> I've found that works maybe 10% of the time so I wish you luck


I've done it with two 32 GB sets TridentZ 3200 c14 on a 6950x without issue. It even ran 3400 just fine with the xmp profile.

I've since pulled the 6950x and returned to my 5960x, but my 5960x will definitely not do the 3400 like the 6950x did.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> G.skill is close:
> 
> http://www.gskill.com/en/press/view/g-skill-exhibits-extreme-limits-of-ddr4-memory-on-live-demo-systems-at-computex-2016


There are plenty of sticks that can do these speeds. The problem is, Broadwell-E cannot. 3333/3400 is around the limit here. Some may go slightly higher, but stability may well have a limited range.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> There are plenty of sticks that can do these speeds. The problem is, Broadwell-E cannot. 3333/3400 is around the limit here. Some may go slightly higher, but stability may well have a limited range.


Was waiting to see a post from you about BW-E IMC's.

Shame. Hopefully can max out my 5930k's IMC with the E-Die I have now. Seems the only thing I'd get is a 10% increase clock for clock.

No new fun with RAM? That's useless.


----------



## RedRumy3

What program do people use now to stress test if overclock is stable enough? I usually just use aida64 but is there something better?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Was waiting to see a post from you about BW-E IMC's.
> 
> Shame. Hopefully can max out my 5930k's IMC with the E-Die I have now. Seems the only thing I'd get is a 10% increase clock for clock.
> 
> No new fun with RAM? That's useless.


I've yet to play with one here, but have it on good authority that this is the case. I don't expect to see over 3400, would not be too concerned about the differences between your 5930 and Broadwell if this is what you are looking for. Tight 3200 is the way forward.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've yet to play with one here, but have it on good authority that this is the case. I don't expect to see over 3400, would not be too concerned about the differences between your 5930 and Broadwell if this is what you are looking for. Tight 3200 is the way forward.


Agreed. Good to know for sure.

Oh well, Quad Channel must really take a lot out of the IMC so I don't fault Broadwell-E too hard. Expected more than 200mhz though...

Even said 3600mhz would have been great some time ago...heh. Tight 3200mhz is what I more or less expected to be running with my 5930k, was running tight 2666mhz however it wasn't enough.


----------



## Scrimstar

So if I get a 6850k, I should get [email protected] over a [email protected] RAM


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scrimstar*
> 
> So if I get a 6850k, I should get [email protected] over a [email protected] RAM


I personally would, to avoid potential headaches.


----------



## Martin778

Guys, how do your voltages look like? I'm really unsure about the correctness of the readings.
Also - don't set any voltage on auto, at least not on the X99 Del. 3101.

My 6950X passes Cine R15 at 4376MHz @ 1.277V. Even on a strong LC loop the temps are very meh when you start playing with voltages.
Also, Intel really does need to rethink their core placement - 15*C difference beteen cores is NOT normal.


----------



## JackCY

Anyone tried the C612 and Broadwell Xeons?







Or X99 and Broadwell Xeons at least?


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Guys, how do your voltages look like? I'm really unsure about the correctness of the readings.
> Also - don't set any voltage on auto, at least not on the X99 Del. 3101.
> 
> My 6950X passes Cine R15 at 4376MHz @ 1.277V. Even on a strong LC loop the temps are very meh when you start playing with voltages.
> Also, Intel really does need to rethink their core placement - 15*C difference beteen cores is NOT normal.


seeing same thing on core temps. pretty disgusting seeing 3 or 4 cores at 97C, 4 at 75 and 2 at 60

for 4.4 my voltage is looking at around 1.36-1.38, but the temps are ridiculous. Anything lower than 1.36 didn't stand a chance on either cpu.


----------



## Martin778

I'm now past the 10 minute mark on P95 26.6 blend at 4.4GHz @ 1.30V. 4.5 crashed right away at 1.34V.
My block is a Supremacy Evo Elite, paired with a D5 pump and a RX360 rad but it cannot cope with the 6950 above 1.3-1.32V.
The CPU just can't dissipate the heat efficiently enough.

Also worth mentioning - IBT doesn't work well on BW-E. The result is just about 50% of the GFLOPs of a HW-E CPU.


----------



## lutjens

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Just picked up the 6950X and popped it in after a Bios update, but for some reason the Bios says target boost frequency of 4Ghz (which is normal based on reviews I've seen) but in windows it only boosts to 3.4Ghz. Any ideas?
> 
> I installed that Turbo Boost 3.0 while I was at it.


I think it's only one or two cores that can go that high using the Turbo Boost 3.0 app. You'll probably have to use HWinfo or some other similar program that shows the clock speed that each core is running at to see it. I just got my system back up today...I'm still figuring it out myself...


----------



## Martin778

The best I can do so far and using XMP, it's also 7.5h prime stable.
Max. temps are again very mediocre - 80-85C on core 2,3,4 and the others are at around 70*C.



I don't think I should install the Turbo Boost software? I run all 10 cores, EIST off at 4.4GHz according to CPU-z.


----------



## dhenzjhen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Anyone tried the C612 and Broadwell Xeons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or X99 and Broadwell Xeons at least?


Some xeons here and here


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The best I can do so far and using XMP, it's also 7.5h prime stable.
> Max. temps are again very mediocre - 80-85C on core 2,3,4 and the others are at around 70*C.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I should install the Turbo Boost software? I run all 10 cores, EIST off at 4.4GHz according to CPU-z.


Is this using the latest version of Prime?


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Is this using the latest version of Prime?


Doubtful, the latest version would result in throttling with that level of Vcore during the small FFT loops.


----------



## greg1184

Finally got over clocking to work on my board. So far my 6800k overclocks very similarly to my 5820k. Except it seems like this chip runs cooler with the same voltage.


----------



## Martin778

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Doubtful, the latest version would result in throttling with that level of Vcore during the small FFT loops.


Correct, even the 5930K couldn't run the latest P95 (which has AVX instructions) without throttling.
Running LinX is also pointless - 100*c within a second.


----------



## kgtuning

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> Some xeons here and here


... good lord, thats awesome.


----------



## Martin778

Loaded XMP profile for my RAM and even on 'stock' the 6950X still heats up to 90*C under LinX. GGWP, this CPU is simply unable to run AVX workloads for longer than a couple of seconds.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Loaded XMP profile for my RAM and even on 'stock' the 6950X still heats up to 90*C under LinX. GGWP, this CPU is simply unable to run AVX workloads for longer than a couple of seconds.


I would use a decent cooler for Prime AVX2 workloads. Real world AVX apps such as Handbrake don't load the CPU in this way.


----------



## Martin778

It's not the cooler (I have strong LC loop with EK block, D5 pump and RX360v3 rad) but rather the CPU's inability do get rid of the core heat on time.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> It's not the cooler (I have strong LC loop with EK block, D5 pump and RX360v3 rad) but rather the CPU's inability do get rid of the core heat on time.


A good EK loop can handle up to 1.22Vcore in Prime95 small FFTs with 25C ambient temps.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> There are plenty of sticks that can do these speeds. The problem is, Broadwell-E cannot. 3333/3400 is around the limit here. Some may go slightly higher, but stability may well have a limited range.


What makes you so sure?


----------



## Martin778

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> A good EK loop can handle up to 1.22Vcore in Prime95 small FFTs with 25C ambient temps.


The temps jump to 90*C in a second so it doesn't have a lot to do with the loop itself as the coolant won't even warm up. Probably the only thing to stabilize it would be LN2.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The temps jump to 90*C in a second so it doesn't have a lot to do with the loop itself as the coolant won't even warm up. Probably the only thing to stabilize it would be LN2.


Seems to be specific to you, as I'm not seeing such an extreme limit on my side when using good water cooling. Check the Vcore that is being applied. If it's 1.20Vcore, then 90C is expected for AVX2 Prime loads. If it's around 1.10Vcore, then there is a water loop issue.

AVX Handbrake loads can hold 1.35V+ on good water loops.

This may be of use to you, tho I would not set it up to run with Prime95. Works well for real world loads.

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/05/31/get-best-performance-broadwell-e-processors-asus-thermal-control-tool/


----------



## Martin778

I ran at 1.3-1.33V as that's what my 6950 needs for 4.4GHz







My Vcore after loading XMP and not touching anything else is 1.27V.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I ran at 1.3-1.33V as that's what my 6950 needs for 4.4GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Vcore after loading XMP and not touching anything else is 1.27V.


That explains the temps. That's ballpark for these CPUs and water cooling. That said, I use my system for things other than Prime95...


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Seems to be specific to you, as I'm not seeing such an extreme limit on my side when using good water cooling. Check the Vcore that is being applied. If it's 1.20Vcore, then 90C is expected for AVX2 Prime loads. If it's around 1.10Vcore, then there is a water loop issue.
> 
> AVX Handbrake loads can hold 1.35V+ on good water loops.
> 
> This may be of use to you, tho I would not set it up to run with Prime95. Works well for real world loads.
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/05/31/get-best-performance-broadwell-e-processors-asus-thermal-control-tool/


Despite having returned to my 5960x from the 6950x, the Asus Thermal Throttle Control works perfectly. Best of both worlds (single/multi) on the fly without having to swap OC profiles in BIOS.


----------



## [email protected]

Cool. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Martin778

Doesn't seem to work here - Error starting service at Win 7 Ultimate x64.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Doesn't seem to work here - Error starting service at Win 7 Ultimate x64.


Blimey, you're not having much luck today, are you. Send me that CPU


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Doesn't seem to work here - Error starting service at Win 7 Ultimate x64.


Windows 10 works fine for me.


----------



## Martin778

Will upgrade to 10 and post back asap


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Doesn't seem to work here - Error starting service at Win 7 Ultimate x64.


Works perfectly fine with Win8.1 and Win10.

Admittedly, if you crash while finding your optimal configuration and happen to have it set to "Enable at system start", it will not work on the following startup. Actually it won't work at all even after a reinstall.

Despite that I have found some great settings for my setup and once I'm done testing it on my bench/test OS drives, I'll just reset that OS drive with the issue and input all the final settings. I just need to make sure that I don't crash again, because recovering the Asus TTC app after a crash while it's set to start with the system seems impossible.

With all of that said, using Asus TTC, I can run Cinebench R15 with single core at 4.9 followed immediately by a multi core run at whatever multiplier I have that set to. I've tested the 4.9 single/4.7 multi combo and it's perfect, but I know I can pass R15 at 4.8 with all cores so that configuration is coming up.

It really let's you get maximum single core and multi core in one session. Pretty cool stuff.


----------



## Kimir

Using it on W7 pro x64 here, with "Enable at system start" if the windows is slow to start, AsusTC will pop-up an error. But works fine when starting it manually after everything is loaded.


----------



## Elyminator

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Just picked up the 6950X and popped it in after a Bios update, but for some reason the Bios says target boost frequency of 4Ghz (which is normal based on reviews I've seen) but in windows it only boosts to 3.4Ghz. Any ideas?
> 
> I installed that Turbo Boost 3.0 while I was at it.


had the same problem on my x99a sli its the BIOS. see if you can find a more updated beta bios. the one listed by MSI wouldn't allow it

secondary note. anyone have a good idea on max safe voltages for these?


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The best I can do so far and using XMP, it's also 7.5h prime stable.
> Max. temps are again very mediocre - 80-85C on core 2,3,4 and the others are at around 70*C.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I should install the Turbo Boost software? I run all 10 cores, EIST off at 4.4GHz according to CPU-z.


does EIST off actually work at the moment on that mobo?


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Seems to be specific to you, as I'm not seeing such an extreme limit on my side when using good water cooling. Check the Vcore that is being applied. If it's 1.20Vcore, then 90C is expected for AVX2 Prime loads. If it's around 1.10Vcore, then there is a water loop issue.
> 
> AVX Handbrake loads can hold 1.35V+ on good water loops.
> 
> This may be of use to you, tho I would not set it up to run with Prime95. Works well for real world loads.
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/05/31/get-best-performance-broadwell-e-processors-asus-thermal-control-tool/


as Raja said, this info is on point

I can do about 1.365V before temps get in the way. (with prime95/non AVX2)


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've yet to play with one here, but have it on good authority that this is the case. I don't expect to see over 3400, would not be too concerned about the differences between your 5930 and Broadwell if this is what you are looking for. Tight 3200 is the way forward.


Why are you saying this just because 1 or 2 people are claiming the 6950X can't handle it? Do I need to order a 4133 kit just to prove this info wrong?


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Why are you saying this just because 1 or 2 people are claiming the 6950X can't handle it? Do I need to order a 4133 kit just to prove this info wrong?


4133 is simply not going to happen.


----------



## coolbho3k

Raja, the X99 Deluxe II just pumped 1.5V into my 6950X.

I had boost voltage set to 1.275 and offset on auto. During Linpack AVX it was *fine* for a few minutes (normal voltage and temps, -4 AVX offset at 4.4 GHz) then OCCT stopped the test due to temperature error. I checked again and it was putting 1.5V into the CPU under load, AVX or not&#8230;

I think it was on 1.5V for less than 10 seconds, temps can't have exceeded TJ MAX. Could I have damaged my CPU?

The chip seems to do 4.4 at 1.3V fine, 1 hr Linpack no-AVX and Prime95 no-avx blend 2 hour. Crashes immediately at 4.5 on stress test.

Have my AVX offset set to -4 right now, so 4 GHz.

Anyone try to do boost OC based on what Turbo Boost 3.0 software tells you are the best cores? Ie. Maybe the best 4 cores can higher on boost.

What would be safe 24/7 voltages for BW-E? Assuming under 80C temps on full load? I'm keeping it 1.3 or under.


----------



## Martin778

So if I understand right the ASUS thermal software is a tool to throttle your CPU at more moderate temps than Intel's 'critical' 95*C?

^Up
I also don't run AVX loads, they kill the temps in no-time.

Regarding the EIST - I haven't seen the freqs drop with EIST turned off, so yes it seems to work.
If only XMP profile didn't truck up my CPU settings (it sets 1.3V default) and turbo @ 4GHz it would've been great.


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> So if I understand right the ASUS thermal software is a tool to throttle your CPU at more moderate temps than Intel's 'critical' 95*C?
> 
> ^Up
> I also don't run AVX loads, they kill the temps in no-time.
> 
> Regarding the EIST - I haven't seen the freqs drop with EIST turned off, so yes it seems to work.
> If only XMP profile didn't truck up my CPU settings (it sets 1.3V default) and turbo @ 4GHz it would've been great.


For me OCCT stopped itself once temps reached > 85 C which happened pretty quickly when the board kicked 1.5 V into my CPU (a H110i GTX with 3000rpm Noctua fans). One of the few instances I'm glad the cooling wasn't good enough.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> What makes you so sure?


Not that, that's for certain. We will see results in time won't we.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Why are you saying this just because 1 or 2 people are claiming the 6950X can't handle it? Do I need to order a 4133 kit just to prove this info wrong?


You could do, but your credibility would go right out of the window as that would be stupid


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> For me OCCT stopped itself once temps reached > 85 C which happened pretty quickly when the board kicked 1.5 V into my CPU (a H110i GTX with 3000rpm Noctua fans). One of the few instances I'm glad the cooling wasn't good enough.


If you are overclocking and using Auto for voltages, the PCU may request something quite high when the ratios ramp, and when the fav core is loaded. Use Adaptive to cap voltages instead of using Auto. This isn't the board as much as it is the CPU and end-user misadventure. I usually stick under 2X the rated TDP at full load.

There's always the chance the voltage isn't set properly or there was a misread also. I'm using a Deluxe II here, and when I set up Adaptive voltage, no such gremlins rear their heads. If they did the scope captures i took for the current ramps in the Thermal Tool article would have picked them up.


----------



## Riot55

So I'm thinking about going from my current system (2500k, 680gtx, 8gb ram) to a 6800k build with a 1080gtx. I've never flashed a BIOS before and that kind of makes me nervous, so ideally I'd like to get a motherboard with Broadwell-e compatibility right out of the box. I am not a crazy overclocker (I'd like to maybe get it to 4.2 or 4.4) and don't need a ton of features (don't really plan on doing SLI). I've heard that the ASUS ROG Strix has the functionality out of the box but is $350. Can anybody give me a list of the mobos currently (or that are known to be coming in the next few weeks) that are Broadwell-e ready? Ideally I'd like to not spend a ton of money, so kind of looking for the cheapest, solid but not super feature-packed option.

Thanks!


----------



## Medusa666

So I sold my 5960X today, looking to Broadwell-E now, considering either 6950X or 6850K, possibly the 6800K, what are your experiences so far?


----------



## Martin778

I'd go for the 8-core variant at least. Keep in mind that your 5960X probably clocked way higher than any BW-E.

BW-E's are very energy efficient and run very cool unless you touch anything that has to do with overclocking, then all hell breaks loose


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Correct, even the 5930K couldn't run the latest P95 (which has AVX instructions) without throttling.
> Running LinX is also pointless - 100*c within a second.


No. I have a 5930k @ 4.5ghz with 1.385v pumped into it. Fully AVX stable, 85c max temp. I test exclusively with AVX software as it pushes temps highest.

Totally depends on loop. My loop could handle your CPU with ease.


----------



## RedRumy3

this passed fine

next up 4.5ghz


----------



## Jpmboy

more to come...









http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffc8f1d7b6d7eadbeddde5d6f082bf8ea8cda895a583f0cdfd
AVX @ 41


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Why are you saying this just because 1 or 2 people are claiming the 6950X can't handle it? Do I need to order a 4133 kit just to prove this info wrong?


yes.. that is proof .


----------



## shark0311

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Riot55*
> 
> So I'm thinking about going from my current system (2500k, 680gtx, 8gb ram) to a 6800k build with a 1080gtx. I've never flashed a BIOS before and that kind of makes me nervous, so ideally I'd like to get a motherboard with Broadwell-e compatibility right out of the box. I am not a crazy overclocker (I'd like to maybe get it to 4.2 or 4.4) and don't need a ton of features (don't really plan on doing SLI). I've heard that the ASUS ROG Strix has the functionality out of the box but is $350. Can anybody give me a list of the mobos currently (or that are known to be coming in the next few weeks) that are Broadwell-e ready? Ideally I'd like to not spend a ton of money, so kind of looking for the cheapest, solid but not super feature-packed option.
> 
> Thanks!


Really? It's pretty rudimentary and nothing to fear.


----------



## Mateo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Guys, how do your voltages look like? I'm really unsure about the correctness of the readings.
> Also - don't set any voltage on auto, at least not on the X99 Del. 3101.
> 
> My 6950X passes Cine R15 at 4376MHz @ 1.277V. Even on a strong LC loop the temps are very meh when you start playing with voltages.
> Also, Intel really does need to rethink their core placement - 15*C difference beteen cores is NOT normal.


I had a difference of 20°C earlier today, I thought it was linked to the spreading of my thermal paste, so I cleaned everything, applied some again carefully, and now the difference is around 6°C...


----------



## xarot

What are your thoughts about 'sane' voltage levels for these? I am just throwing some I am thinking might be still safe.

VCCIN - 1.92 V?
VCCSA - 1.000 V?
VCACHE - 1.15-1.200 V?
VCORE - up to me???









I am currently trying manual voltage on my 6900K and VCCIN/VCCSA don't seem to do that much when overclocking my CPU. Currently at 4.3 GHz, AVX 2.8 GHz, DRAM 3000 CL15-17-17-35-1.36V on 100 strap and cache 3.6 GHz.

4.4 GHz does a few runs of RB at 1.37 V, 4.5 GHz can't even run CB at 1.415 V.

I find the AVX throttling frequency very useful, but since I have mostly used LinX to burn my previous 5960X, I'll need to figure which stress tests to use for non-AVX. Prime95 with all those instructions disabled and RB have detected instability so far - RB much quicker than P95.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Not that, that's for certain. We will see results in time won't we.
> You could do, but your credibility would go right out of the window as that would be stupid


We sure will.
@5:43
https://youtu.be/vJctFSiM-JA?t=343

3600Mhz sure is attainable but i have not put in the time to try and reach any stability for 24/7use.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> We sure will.
> @5:43
> https://youtu.be/vJctFSiM-JA?t=343
> 
> 3600Mhz sure is attainable but i have not put in the time to try and reach any stability for 24/7use.


Nice one.


----------



## [email protected]

3200~3400 is where the action is at for 24/7 with sane voltages. 3200 with good Samsung DIMMs can be set to run at the limits of bus architecture, at low voltages.


----------



## Kimir

3400 doable with strap 100 on BW-E?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> 3200~3400 is where the action is at for 24/7 with sane voltages. 3200 with good Samsung DIMMs can be set to run at the limits of bus architecture, at low voltages.


sane voltage? what's that.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> sane voltage? what's that.


Anything that doesn't require an exponential increase in voltage for little real-world gain


----------



## Jpmboy

I was thinking that voltage which induces sanity.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I was thinking that voltage which induces sanity.


Ahh, my bad. Let me lay this out so its a bit clearer.

Sane for 24/7 = staying in the linear portion of the voltage curve for near max perf.

Not sane for 24/7 = large voltage increase requirement for minuscule gain.

Benching and casual use of one's system for sake of screenshots/forum discourse is another field of usage. I usually keep the 24/7 usage model separate from benching/casual overclocking.


----------



## Jpmboy

Very clear.

But uh-oh. I'm generating that outlier data point... running vdimm @ 1.45V as a 24/7 setting.


----------



## [email protected]

There's nothing wrong with that, just that there are ways to get the most from one's parts without beating them up 24/7. Some parts are made to take a bruisin, though.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that, just that there are ways to get the most from one's parts without beating them up 24/7. Some parts are made to take a bruisin, though.


so far it's all good.











(lol - ignore the spooled keystrokes in the gsat report window)

all lined up for a beatin!


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> 3400 doable with strap 100 on BW-E?


yes


----------



## Mhill2029

I'm having issues with the 3101 Bios using optimised defaults and occasionally causes hard locks and reboots, only seems to happen randomly on the desktop idle or browsing, no errors nothing. Gaming for hours and benching all is fine and dandy, checked the ROG forums and it seems to be an ongoing problem with current Bios' for Broadwell-E. Starting to regret buying this 6950X due to this nonsense....

Also I noticed that when using the using XMP with DDR4 3000 it cause my 950 Pro to run at approx 1400Mb/s reads since this is due to the 125Mhz BCLK that's used with such memory. Anyone know a solution to this? Since it seems that my drive must be reverting to Gen2 speeds or something. And 100Mhz BCLK is a PITA last I checked with DDR4 3000+


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Also I noticed that when using the using XMP with DDR4 3000 it cause my 950 Pro to run at approx 1400Mb/s reads since this is due to the 125Mhz BCLK that's used with such memory. Anyone know a solution to this? Since it seems that my drive must be reverting to Gen2 speeds or something. And 100Mhz BCLK is a PITA last I checked with DDR4 3000+


I just received my 6850k yesterday and only had 30 mins or so to start playing with the bios, however I was able to enable the XMP profile on my DDR4 3200 sticks/100 BCLK and boot into windows at with a mild overclock at 4ghz using the latest bios (0601/released June 7) for the X99 Strix. I couldn't do this using the stock 0215 bios that came with the motherboard though. Maybe there's another bios update in the works for you?


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Also I noticed that when using the using XMP with DDR4 3000 it cause my 950 Pro to run at approx 1400Mb/s reads since this is due to the 125Mhz BCLK that's used with such memory. Anyone know a solution to this? Since it seems that my drive must be reverting to Gen2 speeds or something. And 100Mhz BCLK is a PITA last I checked with DDR4 3000+


DDR4-3000 works fine here so far on 100 strap on my 6900K, my 5960X couldn't do it. Just set frequency, voltages and timings manually. I guess I have the same kit as you do.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> 3200~3400 is where the action is at for 24/7 with sane voltages. 3200 with good Samsung DIMMs can be set to run at the limits of bus architecture, at low voltages.


Yep. Same as Haswell-E though.

I run 3200mhz 14-15-15-33-1T at 1.4v with Samsung E-Die on a 5930k. Doesn't seem like Broadwell is doing any better.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> 4133 is simply not going to happen.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> so far it's all good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (lol - ignore the spooled keystrokes in the gsat report window)
> 
> all lined up for a beatin!


Where can I download this version of Asus Turbo V core?

Asus AI suite..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Where can I download this version of Asus Turbo V core?
> 
> Asus AI suite..


https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gpMyj43ZFjRnNjUW1GcWFGTE0


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> yes


Where have you seen this. Got proof.... link?

NVM here are a couple
http://hwbot.org/submission/3228083_benchbros_geekbench3___multi_core_core_i7_6950x_49609_points
http://hwbot.org/submission/3227674_fugger_superpi___32m_core_i7_6950x_6min_10sec_469ms


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Where have you seen this. Got proof.... link?
> 
> NVM here are a couple
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3228083_benchbros_geekbench3___multi_core_core_i7_6950x_49609_points
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3227674_fugger_superpi___32m_core_i7_6950x_6min_10sec_469ms


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Where have you seen this. Got proof.... link?
> 
> NVM here are a couple
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3228083_benchbros_geekbench3___multi_core_core_i7_6950x_49609_points
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3227674_fugger_superpi___32m_core_i7_6950x_6min_10sec_469ms


Ill get a windows install going here for future responses but for now it seems dmidecode only shows the xmp profile speed and not the actual configured speed of memory.


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ You can always post geekbench 3 results if you are using linux.
____________________________________________________________
lol - and SPi stability.








core 42, cache 36


----------



## ChronoBodi

Wouldn't Skylake at least OC better than this? I rather wait on Skylake-E, but that's me.

Especially with potential AMD Zen competition, more cores for less wouldn't be bad.

Yes, I wish they replaced the 8 core with 10 core at the $999 price point like they did with Haswell-e, thats how 5960x became my first Extreme cpu.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*
> 
> Wouldn't Skylake at least OC better than this? I rather wait on Skylake-E, but that's me.
> 
> Especially with potential AMD Zen competition, more cores for less wouldn't be bad.
> 
> Yes, I wish they replaced the 8 core with 10 core at the $999 price point like they did with Haswell-e, thats how 5960x became my first Extreme cpu.


OC better than what?


----------



## ChronoBodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> OC better than what?


Broadwell in general, they just seems to stop at 4.1-4.3 ghz, while Skylake goes up to 4.7-4.8 ghz.


----------



## lilchronic

Broadwell was never supposed to make it to desktop and was never really popular.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1583537/intel-broadwell-c-ownership-club/0_50


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*
> 
> Broadwell in general, they just seems to stop at 4.1-4.3 ghz, while Skylake goes up to 4.7-4.8 ghz.


if your concern is single core performance, then if skylake-e OCs like skylake, you should wait for SKL-E. 6950x should run 4.4 fairly easy. above that, it is a heat management challenge. Skylake? gotta delid.

the catch is... wait for skylake-E... then might as well wait for the next gen.. and so on.


----------



## RedRumy3

well I think I will just stay at 4.2ghz since it only needs 1.25v.

4.5ghz needs 1.4v and I don't think I want to stay that high. Gets pretty toasty~


----------



## lutjens

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedRumy3*
> 
> well I think I will just stay at 4.2ghz since it only needs 1.25v.
> 
> 4.5ghz needs 1.4v and I don't think I want to stay that high. Gets pretty toasty~


I'm of the same mind. 4.2GHz is still incredible power and I'm able to run mine at 1.225V. Very stable so far. I see no real need to cram a bunch of voltage into the chip for a mere 100-200MHz of speed, especially when my thermals are still very good at this fairly low voltage. I'll just try and tune up the cache and memory a bit...


----------



## skline00

lutjens, you have one VERY POWERFUL rig!


----------



## greg1184

So far I am stable at 4.4 ghz with 1.95/1.35 with 75% vdroop. Temps are pretty decent.

Now working on vring. Testing it at 3.6/1.275v.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Yep. Same as Haswell-E though.
> 
> I run 3200mhz 14-15-15-33-1T at 1.4v with Samsung E-Die on a 5930k. Doesn't seem like Broadwell is doing any better.


In my experience, the BW-E controller is more adept at running the memory at lower latency. Of course, understanding what that means requires a an elementary grasp of memory timings.


----------



## coolbho3k

Anyone know if Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 driver boosts you even if you're OC'd?


----------



## Oj010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*
> 
> Wouldn't Skylake at least OC better than this? I rather wait on Skylake-E, but that's me.
> 
> Especially with potential AMD Zen competition, more cores for less wouldn't be bad.
> 
> Yes, I wish they replaced the 8 core with 10 core at the $999 price point like they did with Haswell-e, thats how 5960x became my first Extreme cpu.


Yup, but new board required. LGA2066.


----------



## Jpmboy

this is beginning to look promising. Vdimm is 1.475 in bios, but vsa 1.15 via offset.



edit: actually, more than promising:


----------



## greg1184

Stable 2hours on realbench, 4.4ghz/1.36v and 3.5ghz ring and 1.275 vring.


Cinebench:


----------



## xarot

When I set manual or adaptive VCORE voltage, AIDA64 reports Vcore much higher. BIOS 1.325 V = AIDA 1.36 V. BIOS 1.22 V = AIDA 1.254 V. Anyone else seen the same? CPU-Z reports same as BIOS but what to believe? I don't own a DMM. 6900K CPU.


----------



## tistou77

I expected the 6850K, to replace my 5930K, but the OC is really disappointing
I'll keep my 5930K, I believe








Pay more for a 6850K less efficient than my 5930K ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> When I set manual or adaptive VCORE voltage, AIDA64 reports Vcore much higher. BIOS 1.325 V = AIDA 1.36 V. BIOS 1.22 V = AIDA 1.254 V. Anyone else seen the same? CPU-Z reports same as BIOS but what to believe? I don't own a DMM. 6900K CPU.


not to scare anyone, but if you measure the vcore with a DMM it is higher than both.









Bios set to 1.285V adaptive

*Idle (balanced/Hi Perf) R15 Load
*
*DMM 0.814V/1.294V 1.311V*
*AID64 0.784V/1.280V 1.280V*


----------



## AdamK47

I've been running my 6950X at 4GHz since release with 1.20V on my Rampage V Extreme.

I've run a combined 24 hours of LinX, Prime95, AIDA64, and OCCT stress testing. It's not the 4.5+GHz some strive for. I'm not megahertz greedy. The low voltage and knowing it's as stable as I can possibly determine sets my mind at ease for 24/7 usage.

I also ran several hours of Heaven and 3DMark demo looping. It's was more for testing the two GTX 1080s, but running it with the CPU at 4GHz added further CPU testing.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AdamK47*
> 
> I've been running my 6950X at 4GHz since release with 1.20V on my Rampage V Extreme.
> 
> I've run a combined 24 hours of LinX, Prime95, AIDA64, and OCCT stress testing. It's not the 4.5+GHz some strive for. I'm not megahertz greedy. The low voltage and knowing it's as stable as I can possibly determine sets my mind at ease for 24/7 usage.
> 
> I also ran several hours of Heaven and 3DMark demo looping. It's was more for testing the two GTX 1080s, but running it with the CPU at 4GHz added further CPU testing.


didn;t you have a 5960X clocked higher? fraom what I have here.. the 6950X needs ~ 4.4/3.7 to "feel like" a 5960X at 4.7/4.2 in multithreaded apps. If you mainly game, it may not be the best "upgrade". What's been your experience with gaming?


----------



## Jpmboy

@nizzen
as requested.









160611174809.zip 3127k .zip file


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> didn;t you have a 5960X clocked higher? fraom what I have here.. the 6950X needs ~ 4.4/3.7 to "feel like" a 5960X at 4.7/4.2 in multithreaded apps. If you mainly game, it may not be the best "upgrade". What's been your experience with gaming?


I get 170 points shy of a [email protected] 4.8Ghz in Cinebench R15 when my 6950X is at stock. Overclocked to 4Ghz (for now) and hit around 2080cb, not too shabby imho. I'll happily settle for 4Ghz - 4.2Ghz....


----------



## lutjens

My i7-6950X at 4.2GHz gives me 2175 in Cinebench R15...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lutjens*
> 
> My i7-6950X at 4.2GHz gives me 2175 in Cinebench R15...


Nice!!

4875 on my 5960X is 1977 R15. Day driver clocks: R15= mid 18's

4300/3700 on this 6950X is 2261 (day driver) 44/38 is 2325


----------



## RedRumy3

4.5Ghz I need 1.375-1.4v (don't like it that high)

Think I will keep my 6800K @ this speed.

4.3Ghz 1.275v / Uncore 3.5Ghz


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedRumy3*
> 
> 4.5Ghz I need 1.375-1.4v (don't like it that high)
> 
> Think I will keep my 6800K @ this speed.
> 
> 4.3Ghz 1.275v / Uncore 3.5Ghz


What score with Cinebench R15 ? And bandwidth with AIDA64 ?

Thanks


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> this is beginning to look promising. Vdimm is 1.475 in bios, but vsa 1.15 via offset.


You know I tried to tell someone that I was able to boot up fine (stability not verified, but definitely usable) with my TridentZ 3200 c14 set at 3400 on the 6950x and was called just about everything, but honest.









I've since returned to my 5960x, which can in no way do this.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> You know I tried to tell someone that I was able to boot up fine (stability not verified, but definitely usable) with my TridentZ 3200 c14 set at 3400 on the 6950x and was called just about everything, but honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've since returned to my 5960x, which can in no way do this.


lol - what did I call you?


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> You know I tried to tell someone that I was able to boot up fine (stability not verified, but definitely usable) with my TridentZ 3200 c14 set at 3400 on the 6950x and was called just about everything, but honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've since returned to my 5960x, which can in no way do this.


Indeed, my 5960X refused to post at all with DDR4 3000 with any kind of overclock on the CPU. Sure i could have got it working if i spent a long time tweaking it (i'm lazy), but my 6950X posts DDR4 3000 at 4Ghz on the CPU without breaking a sweat.

I must say though i tested 1.25vcore to see what my AIO could deal with and hottest core hit 67c. I'm guessing beyond 1.3v is a no no without some lavish custom watercooling going on.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Indeed, my 5960X refused to post at all with DDR4 3000 with any kind of overclock on the CPU. Sure i could have got it working if i spent a long time tweaking it (i'm lazy), but my 6950X posts DDR4 3000 at 4Ghz on the CPU without breaking a sweat.
> 
> I must say though i tested 1.25vcore to see what my AIO could deal with and hottest core hit 67c. I'm guessing beyond 1.3v is a no no without some lavish custom watercooling going on.


hit 67C in what?


----------



## RedRumy3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> What score with Cinebench R15 ? And bandwidth with AIDA64 ?
> 
> Thanks


I will post scores in a bit =]


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I get 170 points shy of a [email protected] 4.8Ghz in Cinebench R15 when my 6950X is at stock. Overclocked to 4Ghz (for now) and hit around 2080cb, not too shabby imho. I'll happily settle for 4Ghz - 4.2Ghz....


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lutjens*
> 
> My i7-6950X at 4.2GHz gives me 2175 in Cinebench R15...


CinebenchR15 is threaded up to around 24 threads, possibly more. Most applications are not, as is what JP was implying.


----------



## alawadhi3000

My new 6800K is here, hopefully its a good overclocker since my 5820K can do [email protected]


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedRumy3*
> 
> I will post scores in a bit =]


Thank you, I can compare with my 5930K
I think keeping my 5930K, best ratio performance / OC


----------



## Nizzen

Wonder if Xeon 1660 v4/1680v4 is unlocked?


----------



## AdamK47

My 5960X was also running at 4.0GHz.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> didn;t you have a 5960X clocked higher? fraom what I have here.. the 6950X needs ~ 4.4/3.7 to "feel like" a 5960X at 4.7/4.2 in multithreaded apps. If you mainly game, it may not be the best "upgrade". What's been your experience with gaming?


My 5960X was also running at 4.0GHz. Ran it that way for most of the 21 months I've owned it. Clock for clock, the 6950X is a tiny bit faster thanks to the IPC improvements.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AdamK47*
> 
> My 5960X was also running at 4.0GHz.
> My 5960X was also running at 4.0GHz. Ran it that way for most of the 21 months I've owned it. Clock for clock, the 6950X is a tiny bit faster thanks to the IPC improvements.


Ah, I thought you spun up that 5960X a bit more. Yes, at the same freq, not counting cores... the 6950X is a bit quicker.


----------



## coolbho3k

What's the consensus on max safe 24/7 voltage on these 14nm CPUs? I'm trying to keep it under 1.3V


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> What's the consensus on max safe 24/7 voltage on these 14nm CPUs? I'm trying to keep it under 1.3V


Same question every generation. No one knows the answer, but we do not care. This IS overclock.net, not safe-voltages.net









I pumping 1,38v on my 6900k broadwell-e, and it is working fine. I it dies, I get another one on warranty


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> What's the consensus on max safe 24/7 voltage on these 14nm CPUs? I'm trying to keep it under 1.3V


If it's as durable as Skylake, you'll probably hit a thermal limit before it matters.


----------



## orlfman

anyone have any recommendations for a micro-atx to pair with a 6800k?

edit:
could a nh-d15s cool a 6800k @4ghz with a an ambient room temperature of 26c?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *orlfman*
> 
> anyone have any recommendations for a micro-atx to pair with a 6800k?
> 
> edit:
> *could a nh-d15s cool a 6800k @4ghz with a an ambient room temperature of 26c?*


no doubt


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> What are your thoughts about 'sane' voltage levels for these? I am just throwing some I am thinking might be still safe.
> 
> VCCIN - 1.92 V?
> VCCSA - 1.000 V?
> VCACHE - 1.15-1.200 V?
> VCORE - up to me???


Nobody? I guess I'll go with HW-E voltages limits here too, especially cache.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> not to scare anyone, but if you measure the vcore with a DMM it is higher than both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bios set to 1.285V adaptive
> 
> *Idle (balanced/Hi Perf) R15 Load
> *
> *DMM 0.814V/1.294V 1.311V*
> *AID64 0.784V/1.280V 1.280V*


Thanks! I noticed that on every other boot AIDA reports almost the same as CPU-Z and every other around 50 mV higher. BIOS or AIDA issue, who knows without a DMM.

My 6900K is poop, it seems to stabilize around 4.3 GHz only in RB and P95 non-AVX. Haven't stressed more yet to make it crash. 4.4 might need over 1.4.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I noticed that on every other boot AIDA reports almost the same as CPU-Z and every other around 50 mV higher. BIOS or AIDA issue, who knows without a DMM.


Getting the same crap here, I'm using an offset of 0.18V, BIOS says 1.35V, AIDA64 says 1.48V and CPU-Z says 1.38V.


----------



## Jpmboy

erm - doesn't cpuZ report VID on this platform?


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Getting the same crap here, I'm using an offset of 0.18V, BIOS says 1.35V, AIDA64 says 1.48V and CPU-Z says 1.38V.


The UEFI voltage monitoring is based on the load the CPU is under when in that environment. When using Offset and Adaptive modes, the voltage scales according to the load the CPU is under. Hence to see the full load voltage you will need to be in the OS with the CPU in load state. Use AI suite if the other tools are not showing similar values. Try not to use multiple tools at once as that will create polling errors, also/ Thats because the time at which each tool polls the SuperIO can coincide which generates false readings.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> The UEFI voltage monitoring is based on the load the CPU is under when in that environment. When using Offset and Adaptive modes, the voltage scales according to the load the CPU is under. Hence to see the full load voltage you will need to be in the OS with the CPU in load state. Use AI suite if the other tools are not showing similar values. Try not to use multiple tools at once as that will create polling errors, also/ Thats because the time at which each tool polls the SuperIO can coincide which generates false readings.


Its the same even when I use a manual/fixed 1.35V in the BIOS.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Its the same even when I use a manual/fixed 1.35V in the BIOS.


Set it to manual, go into the OS and check the voltage under full load using AI Suite.

No issues here:



Quite often, perceived issues are due to users not knowing how to set voltage.

Good luck


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Set it to manual, go into the OS and check the voltage under full load using AI Suite.
> 
> No issues here:
> 
> *Quite often, perceived issues are due to users not knowing how to set voltage.*
> 
> Good luck


Honestly I'm not sure if you are being serious or trolling here.

Voltage in the BIOS is manual @ 1.35V

BIOS says 1.34xV after I save and restart.

CPU-Z now reports 1.348V

AIDA64 and AI Suite both report 1.424V


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Honestly I'm not sure if you are being serious or trolling here.
> 
> Voltage in the BIOS is manual @ 1.35V
> 
> BIOS says 1.34xV after I save and restart.
> 
> CPU-Z now reports 1.348V
> 
> AIDA64 and AI Suite both report 1.424V


Funny, I was wondering the same thing











No issue here.









Internal LLC in Bahrain, possibly? Not under ASUS control, that.

On a serious note, check software versions. Likely that's where the issue lies. I use the AI Suite on the X99-Deluxe II page.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Funny, I was wondering the same thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No issue here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Internal LLC in Bahrain, possibly?* Not under ASUS control, that.
> 
> On a serious note, check software versions. Likely that's where the issue lies. I use the AI Suite on the X99-Deluxe II page.


What?









Changing the LLC from Auto to Level 7-9 to Level 1-2 only affects the VRM voltage, it drops from 1.936V to ~1.825V, CPU voltage stays the same.

Will check the AI Suite, but I doubt that will make any difference since AI Suite reports the same voltage as AIDA64.


----------



## [email protected]

Alternatively, save yourself the hassle and just stick with CPU-Z, since it is correct.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Newer version of AI Suite reports the same voltage, also I'm not sure which one is the correct one, don't want to put 1.4V+ on a 14nm CPU 24/7.


----------



## Kimir

That's where the voltage point to put on the DMM comes in handy.


----------



## Jpmboy

*Bios Settings:*


*Idle: CPUZ, AID64, Digital MM reading from MB:*


*R15 Load: CPUZ, AID64, DMM*


... adjust accordingly.









(Fluke 113 DMM)


----------



## xarot

I installed AI Suite and I can replicate the "issue" or a "feature" too. I can see higher voltage already in BIOS. I tried loading optimized defaults, boot, set ONLY VCore to 1.325, reboot, it is close to what it should be.

Then I manually keyed in the settings again, reboot, VCore is higher in BIOS. I think a workaround around this is to use offset voltage before I can test more.

I can clearly see here reported VCore and manual setting. Well same goes for SA, both are higher than setting.



Perhaps this is just another case of "_users not knowing how to set voltage_" but I am curious to know if this is the case.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oj010*
> 
> Yup, but new board required. LGA2066.


Source?


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Source?


All over
Skylake X will be on the platform LGA 2066


----------



## dhenzjhen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Wonder if Xeon 1660 v4/1680v4 is unlocked?


I tried E5 1680V4 ES on Giga X99 champ (bios F22H) and it's *locked*. It was unlocked on the previous generations, but looks like they entirely locked
xeons this time.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> I tried E5 1680V4 ES on Giga X99 champ (bios F22H) and it's *locked*. It was unlocked on the previous generations, but looks like they entirely locked
> xeons this time.


The F22H bios (broadwell?) busted the unlock??


----------



## dhenzjhen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> I tried E5 1680V4 ES on Giga X99 champ (bios F22H) and it's *locked*. It was unlocked on the previous generations, but looks like they entirely locked
> xeons this time.
> 
> 
> 
> The F22H bios (broadwell?) busted the unlock??
Click to expand...

Not really sure. I'd like to verify it on RVE or any other UP boards, but I only have X99 Champ.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> I tried E5 1680V4 ES on Giga X99 champ (bios F22H) and it's *locked*. It was unlocked on the previous generations, but looks like they entirely locked
> xeons this time.


What a bummer.


----------



## Elyminator

Man oh man this 6800k is hot. I dont know how some of you are running 1.4v... i have a full custom loop and even at 1.32 i have 1 core thats hitting 80.... i've remounted it and its the same core so i know its the cpu did i just get a "lucky" draw or what?


----------



## Oj010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Source?


I think it's common knowledge that we're at the end of the line for LGA2011v3







I dont know if LGA2066 will be the final name, but that's the pin count.


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elyminator*
> 
> i have a full custom loop and even at 1.32 i have 1 core thats hitting 80.


Avx or regular load?

My 6850k hits 78 - 80C on avx loads with 1.28 volts @ 4.0ghz. Otherwise I run 4.3 for non-avx loads with cores at 65 - 70c I think. Except I'm using an air cooling/NH-D15.

Am I playing with fire here?


----------



## Elyminator

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cryptopone*
> 
> Avx or regular load?
> 
> My 6850k hits 78 - 80C on avx loads with 1.28 volts @ 4.0ghz. Otherwise I run 4.3 for non-avx loads with cores at 65 - 70c I think. Except I'm using an air cooling/NH-D15.
> 
> Am I playing with fire here?


no i think its me. Core 4 hit 90 at 1.32 with aida64 going... i just cant figure it out....


----------



## coolbho3k

Can I lower voltage for AVX loads? I'm at 4.3 GHz @ 1.25 V at AVX offset -3, for 4.0 GHz for AVX seems to run it too hot in Prime95 Small FFT, hitting around 90C.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elyminator*
> 
> no i think its me. Core 4 hit 90 at 1.32 with aida64 going... i just cant figure it out....


I have the same issue, I think there is another member too.

Core 3 is more than 20C higher than Core 6, I will repaste later today.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Can I lower voltage for AVX loads? I'm at 4.3 GHz @ 1.25 V at AVX offset -3, for 4.0 GHz for AVX seems to run it too hot in Prime95 Small FFT, hitting around 90C.


If you have an ASUS motherboard you can use the Thermal tool which will allow you decrease the multi and voltage once you hit a certain temperature, its very useful.


----------



## Elyminator

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> I have the same issue, I think there is another member too.
> 
> Core 3 is more than 20C higher than Core 6, I will repaste later today.
> If you have an ASUS motherboard you can use the Thermal tool which will allow you decrease the multi and voltage once you hit a certain temperature, its very useful.


kinda glad its not just me... i was about to tear my whole loops apart again... but i did some testing and at absolute stocktheres about 5 degrees across the board. But even running real bench at 1.3 volts its a solid 15 degree difference between my favorite core as its being called now... and the core i want to punch in the nuts.


----------



## coolbho3k

It appears cores 5-9 are closer to the center of the die than cores 0-4 so I notice higher temps on cores 0-4. Not sure the core layout of the 6900K and 6-core variants; I'd imagine depending on yields they do disable failing cores so it might be somewhat random.

I also wonder if all 10 cores are good on a chip meant to be floorswept to an 8C or 6C part, for example, they disable the "worse" cores (as seen in the Turbo Boost 3.0 driver).


----------



## coolbho3k

Just realized that the Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 driver doesn't actually show you the cores in order of which ones are "best." It's always the sequence 9, 4, 8, 3, 7, 2, 6, 1, 5, 0 on the 6950X.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Just realized that the Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 driver doesn't actually show you the cores in order of which ones are "best." It's always the sequence 9, 4, 8, 3, 7, 2, 6, 1, 5, 0 on the 6950X.


Is there any benefit of the Turbo Boost 3.0 driver being installed?


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Is there any benefit of the Turbo Boost 3.0 driver being installed?


I don't think it really does anything, if you have a fixed overclock. I don't know, it might offer improvements over the standard Windows scheduler?


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> I don't think it really does anything, if you have a fixed overclock. I don't know, it might offer improvements over the standard Windows scheduler?


What is your Cinebench R15 score out of curiosity? At 4.0Ghz with DDR 3000 i'm sitting at 2067cb.


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> What is your Cinebench R15 score out of curiosity? At 4.0Ghz with DDR 3000 i'm sitting at 2067cb.


Just got 2163 at 4.3 GHz, auto volts (1.244 V load) with DDR4 2800

EDIT additional run gave me 2180


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Just got 2163 at 4.3 GHz, auto volts (1.244 V load) with DDR4 2800
> 
> EDIT additional run gave me 2180


Auto Vcore? You have more trust in the board than I would. Usually they are over generous with their voltages....


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Auto Vcore? You have more trust in the board than I would. Usually they are over generous with their voltages....


I like having it scale down :/ I haven't seen it go above 1.244 at full load, even Prime95 AVX, but there was a scare before that I posted where it spiked to 1.5 V in a different mode

EDIT: It was in adaptive mode with turbo voltage set to 1.275 and offset set to 0 where it spiked for no good reason


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> I like having it scale down :/ I haven't seen it go above 1.244 at full load, even Prime95 AVX, but there was a scare before that I posted where it spiked to 1.5 V in a different mode
> 
> EDIT: It was in adaptive mode with turbo voltage set to 1.275 and offset set to 0 where it spiked for no good reason


I'm sitting at manual vcore of 1.20v for 4.0Ghz, which Is probably more than required. But I like to run a processor in for a few weeks to make sure no BSODs occur, and monitor thermals. I don't trust Prime 95 anymore, even when I've had systems that were several hours stable in that tool, i've had BSOD's. It's a waste of space that program imho...I just don't think it's reliable anymore with multicore CPU's of today.

My current method seems to be far more reliable, 32M SuperPI 2 or 3 times Cinebench R15 several times, Game for hours, multiple Firestrike Ultra runs. And my 5960X @ 4.5Ghz never once failed me. If I relied on Prime 95 for stability i'd be pulling my hair out.


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I'm sitting at manual vcore of 1.20v for 4.0Ghz, which Is probably more than required. But I like to run a processor in for a few weeks to make sure no BSODs occur, and monitor thermals. I don't trust Prime 95 anymore, even when I've had systems that were several hours stable in that tool, i've had BSOD's. It's a waste of space that program imho...I just don't think it's reliable anymore with multicore CPU's of today.
> 
> My current method seems to be far more reliable, 32M SuperPI 2 or 3 times Cinebench R15 several times, Game for hours, multiple Firestrike Ultra runs. And my 5960X @ 4.5Ghz never once failed me. If I relied on Prime 95 for stability i'd be pulling my hair out.


My philosophy is that the CPU should run anything that's thrown at it. The negative AVX offset really helps these CPUs. Prime95 AVX on small FFTs serves as a worst case scenario for me.

I also run older versions of Prime95 and Linpack to test my non-AVX overclock, as well as ASUS Realbench and Cinebench.


----------



## [email protected]

Negative AVX offset only helps if the PCU applied voltages are sufficient for the AVX ratio and the normal use ratios. If one side needs and offset and the other doesn't, the usefulness of this feature is very limited.


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Negative AVX offset only helps if the PCU applied voltages are sufficient for the AVX ratio and the normal use ratios. If one side needs and offset and the other doesn't, the usefulness of this feature is very limited.


Right now I'm using it mostly to limit thermals. Small FFTs with an AVX enabled Prime95 at 1.244 V gives me ~82 C on my hottest core at 4.1 GHz. Is that a reasonable usage for the offset?


----------



## [email protected]

Depends if the voltage applied is close to what the CPU needs to be stable at that frequency, while not affecting requirements at the normal ratios. That's the rub; the fact you cannot tune voltage for all CPUs effectively for both scenarios. If your CPU can run with less voltage and you apply the offset, it will affect the normal ratio voltage, also.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Can I lower voltage for AVX loads? I'm at 4.3 GHz @ 1.25 V at AVX offset -3, for 4.0 GHz for AVX seems to run it too hot in Prime95 Small FFT, hitting around 90C.


AVX small FFTs... why are you running this? Need to test the heat flux of your cooler mount?
p95 sm ffts have not been useful as a diagnostic of instability for quite some time. Are you setting up a computational box?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Is there any benefit of the Turbo Boost 3.0 driver being installed?


AFAIK, you need to leave voltage control on Auto for this to work. Just OC "by specific core" or synch all cores. Use the AVX offset if needed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> My philosophy is that the CPU should run anything that's thrown at it. The negative AVX offset really helps these CPUs. Prime95 AVX on small FFTs serves as a worst case scenario for me.
> 
> I also run older versions of Prime95 and Linpack to test my non-AVX overclock, as well as ASUS Realbench and Cinebench.


True, p95 small ffts with the most recent version (28.7) is the worst.


----------



## Oj010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> All over
> Skylake X will be on the platform LGA 2066


Can you find a public source for that? Cause I can't, I may have said too much


----------



## iggy097

Not wanting to read through 40 pages of this thread - anyone that has been following, has anyone managed to get a stable OC past 4.4 on the 6800k?
I'm using the Asus OC built into the Rog Strix board and the 4.4 OC setting is stable and runs about 70-80 degrees under full load rendering movies.
I tried to bump it to 4.5 and BSOD.
Side note - my MSI GTX 1080 comes in today!


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oj010*
> 
> Can you find a public source for that? Cause I can't, I may have said too much


In french









http://www.hardware.fr/news/14656/skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-an.html


----------



## Oj010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> In french
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hardware.fr/news/14656/skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-an.html


Thanks, sometimes I type messages without a thought as to whether the info is public or not


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> AFAIK, you need to leave voltage control on Auto for this to work. Just OC "by specific core" or synch all cores. Use the AVX offset if needed.


You need to use Auto/Offset voltage modes for the AVX offset to work effectively, also. The voltage needs to drop for the current and temps to drop. Alternative is to use the Thermal Control Tool and set it up using Adaptive voltage.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> You need to use Auto/Offset voltage modes for the AVX offset to work effectively, also. The voltage needs to drop for the current and temps to drop. Alternative is to use the Thermal Control Tool and set it up using Adaptive voltage.


adaptive works also - right? (At least that's what I've been using with an AVX offset of 3 from 44 core).


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> Not wanting to read through 40 pages of this thread - anyone that has been following, has anyone managed to get a stable OC past 4.4 on the 6800k?
> I'm using the Asus OC built into the Rog Strix board and the 4.4 OC setting is stable and runs about 70-80 degrees under full load rendering movies.
> I tried to bump it to 4.5 and BSOD.
> Side note - my MSI GTX 1080 comes in today!


Mine seems to top out at 4.4GHz also.


----------



## nissin

I'm currently using a 6800K (initially had a 5820, it overclocked terribly, returned it and regrettably got talked into upgrading) with an x99 sabertooth/3101 BIOS, 4x8gb sticks of GSkill Ram, and Swiftech 240 x cooling. I'm venturing into the manual oc world for the first time because the auto-oc via ASUS won't even post. My 5820K had the same problem... I'm wondering if something is wrong with my board?

Any way, so far I've only adjusted the core mult, voltage, and played around with ram speeds. All manual, no XMP. 2400 for the RAM is the usual/most stable, though I got 3200 to work well with the 6800K out of the box, then again at a 40 mult.

My question is, when I benchmark on RealBench, everything seems to go well. But when I stress test using RB, my CoreTemp or Open Hardware temps start freezing or acting erratic- I only use one monitor at a time. Is this a sign of running my voltage too low? Something else? Or normal behavior with the cpu load at 98%+? I haven't gotten to any other tests yet, RealBench is my first go-to.

Another odd problem is that often the ASUS-spec CPUZ will load with errors or incompletely. In the cpu section it will have empty sections, or in the spd section, it will not recognize anything other than the amount of ram installed. No timings, no freq's, etc&#8230; even when I run it at 2133 or below.

Sorry for all the questions, but thanks for the help.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nissin*
> 
> My question is, when I benchmark on RealBench, everything seems to go well. But when I stress test using RB, my CoreTemp or Open Hardware temps start freezing or acting erratic- I only use one monitor at a time. Is this a sign of running my voltage too low? Something else? Or normal behavior with the cpu load at 98%+? I haven't gotten to any other tests yet, RealBench is my first go-to.
> 
> Another odd problem is that often the ASUS-spec CPUZ will load with errors or incompletely. In the cpu section it will have empty sections, or in the spd section, it will not recognize anything other than the amount of ram installed. No timings, no freq's, etc&#8230; even when I run it at 2133 or below.
> 
> Sorry for all the questions, but thanks for the help.


Its normal.

Probably the CPU-Z bundled with Realbench is an older version, or you didn't give admin rights to the app.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> adaptive works also - right? (At least that's what I've been using with an AVX offset of 3 from 44 core).


The full-load voltage will be whatever Adaptive voltage you have set. You can't set two Adaptive voltage targets. That's why the Thermal Control Tool was made...


----------



## coolbho3k

Huh, that's interesting, the per core ratios are actually exactly what it sounds like. It's not a turbo boost thing. Is this true for HSW-E too? The cores I set are actually running faster at full load.

According to BIOS core 5 is my best, and I know for sure cores 5-9 run cooler. I wish I could see a ranking instead of which one is best. It'll be interesting to see if I can run the second "cluster" faster at the same voltage.

EDIT apparently this has been around for a while lol But I guess the turbo boost 3.0 driver makes the Windows scheduler aware of it?


----------



## xarot

I couldn't run a single full run in LinX 0.6.6 when using adaptive voltage and throttled AVX from 43x to 32x (offset 11x). With offset voltage it works fine though. I guess this is due to adaptive not adding offset unless maximum default multiplier is applied under stress and default voltage being too low for given AVX frequency - while offset adds the desired voltage through whole frequency range? I haven't had much time to play with it yet so I may be mistaken here.









With offset voltage, AVX offset does wonders so far. Temps keep well under control now. I am not going to do much stress testing with AVX this time though, but I want it to be "stable if ever needed". Now I have used only RB and P95 with AVX/FMA3 disabled. Very stable so far..


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I couldn't run a single full run in LinX 0.6.6 when using adaptive voltage and throttled AVX from 43x to 32x (offset 11x). With offset voltage it works fine though. I guess this is due to adaptive not adding offset unless maximum default multiplier is applied under stress and default voltage being too low for given AVX frequency - while offset adds the desired voltage through whole frequency range? I haven't had much time to play with it yet so I may be mistaken here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With offset voltage, AVX offset does wonders so far. Temps keep well under control now. I am not going to do much stress testing with AVX this time though, but I want it to be "stable if ever needed". Now I have used only RB and P95 with AVX/FMA3 disabled. Very stable so far..


What are your voltages?


----------



## coolbho3k

Anyone know if these CPUs actually support TSX? It's in CPU-Z but not ARK. Unlike Haswell-E/early Broadwell, Broadwell-E/EP should support it unless disabled by Intel for no good reason in the consumer CPUs...

I'll check /proc/cpuinfo in Linux


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I couldn't run a single full run in LinX 0.6.6 when using adaptive voltage and throttled AVX from 43x to 32x (offset 11x). With offset voltage it works fine though. I guess this is due to adaptive not adding offset unless maximum default multiplier is applied under stress and default voltage being too low for given AVX frequency - while offset adds the desired voltage through whole frequency range? I haven't had much time to play with it yet so I may be mistaken here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With offset voltage, AVX offset does wonders so far. Temps keep well under control now. I am not going to do much stress testing with AVX this time though, but I want it to be "stable if ever needed". Now I have used only RB and P95 with AVX/FMA3 disabled. Very stable so far..


Comes back to what I said earlier. While the AVX offset mechanism works with Offset voltage, you cannot tune the voltage for the non-AVX and AVX ratios at the same time. Only rarely is the voltage level correct for both. Most of the time, one of the voltage levels is higher or lower than it should be. Stability aside, you don't really want to be feeding the CPU more voltage than it needs for either type of workload (moreso the AVX workloads which consume a lot of current).

The issue with Adaptive is that whatever you set will be applied to the AVX and non-AVX workloads.


----------



## coolbho3k

Getting no TSX reported in an Ubuntu VM.

Raja do you have any idea if TSX is supported? Maybe current motherboard BIOS has it disabled for Broadwell-E CPUs because of the Haswell TSX bug?


----------



## Mhill2029

I find it odd that Asus never implemented PLX to the Rampage V Extreme or the new Refreshed 10th anniversary board. I want to use my 4x Titan X's with an M.2 drive, now it seems I have to change to the Asus WS just to make that a possibility. Why would they integrated M.2 support on a so called extreme board designed for enthusiasts but have a minor oversight regarding PCI_E lanes. Head scratch moment for me indeed....


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Been following the thread for a while now.

I just about to pull the pin on a new x99 build, what's the general consensus on the 6850k over the 5820k for overclocking, is it still worth getting the 6850k?
Will be grabbing a Strix motherboard (no more MSI for me) and a set of 32GB G-Skill Trident 3200Mhz DDR4.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I find it odd that Asus never implemented PLX to the Rampage V Extreme or the new Refreshed 10th anniversary board. I want to use my 4x Titan X's with an M.2 drive, now it seems I have to change to the Asus WS just to make that a possibility. Why would they integrated M.2 support on a so called extreme board designed for enthusiasts but have a minor oversight regarding PCI_E lanes. Head scratch moment for me indeed....


PLX adds a bit latency and heat, and maybe no good for extreme OC.

I ran 3x Titan X + Intel P3700 pci-e nvme and samsung sm951 nvme m.2 on Rampage V. This is better for me, because 3-way sli is enough.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> PLX adds a bit latency and heat, and maybe no good for extreme OC.
> 
> I ran 3x Titan X + Intel P3700 pci-e nvme and samsung sm951 nvme m.2 on Rampage V.


I've gone to 2-Way SLI atm, and after years of doing 4-Way SLI builds, I can see why nobody does it anymore. 2-Way is just amazing!


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I find it odd that Asus never implemented PLX to the Rampage V Extreme or the new Refreshed 10th anniversary board. I want to use my 4x Titan X's with an M.2 drive, now it seems I have to change to the Asus WS just to make that a possibility. Why would they integrated M.2 support on a so called extreme board designed for enthusiasts but have a minor oversight regarding PCI_E lanes. Head scratch moment for me indeed....


From my perspective, such features are best implemented on the WS series. The niche within the niche that needs your setup is too limiting for us for sales. More so with NV going the 2-Way SLI route.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> From my perspective, such features are best implemented on the WS series. The niche within the niche that needs your setup is too limiting for us for sales. More so with NV going the 2-Way SLI route.


Yeah I guess i'm not exactly the normal user so it would make sense from a sales perspective.

I'm glad Nvidia is taking this stance on 3 and 4 way, my future builds will be cheaper







Well assuming 6950X prices don't become the norm on the flagship.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Comes back to what I said earlier. While the AVX offset mechanism works with Offset voltage, you cannot tune the voltage for the non-AVX and AVX ratios at the same time. Only rarely is the voltage level correct for both. Most of the time, one of the voltage levels is higher or lower than it should be. Stability aside, you don't really want to be feeding the CPU more voltage than it needs for either type of workload (moreso the AVX workloads which consume a lot of current).
> 
> The issue with Adaptive is that whatever you set will be applied to the AVX and non-AVX workloads.


Thanks for the reply. I am currently using the voltage I need for RB and non-AVX Prime95 stability and then try to scale down the AVX ratio to be able to run some AVX tests successfully using the same offset. I think it works best this way currently, because AVX probably needs the same voltage at much lower frequency. Just need to figure out the optimal AVX multiplier, although I don't mind that much overvolting the lower AVX frequency a bit if temps are still good under load.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I am currently using the voltage I need for RB and non-AVX Prime95 stability and then try to scale down the AVX ratio to be able to run some AVX tests successfully using the same offset. I think it works best this way currently, because AVX probably needs the same voltage at much lower frequency. Just need to figure out the optimal AVX multiplier, although I don't mind that much overvolting the lower AVX frequency a bit if temps are still good under load.


The lack of control can render one of the overclocks unstable or eating more voltage and current than it needs.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> The full-load voltage will be whatever Adaptive voltage you have set. You can't set two Adaptive voltage targets. That's why the Thermal Control Tool was made...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Comes back to what I said earlier. While the AVX offset mechanism works with Offset voltage, you cannot tune the voltage for the non-AVX and AVX ratios at the same time. Only rarely is the voltage level correct for both. Most of the time, one of the voltage levels is higher or lower than it should be. Stability aside, you don't really want to be feeding the CPU more voltage than it needs for either type of workload (moreso the AVX workloads which consume a lot of current).
> 
> The issue with Adaptive is that whatever you set will be applied to the AVX and non-AVX workloads.


Understood, I did use the ASUS ATC with offset earlier and posted results - i think. So they way I have this set up ATM is adaptive core and offset cache with offset VSA as shown: Core at 43, AVX at 40, cache at 37. I guess I tuned the clocks to the voltage I was willing to run?
For the "pedestrian" AVX loads I will/have subject(ed) it to, it is stable at this voltage with AVX running 4000 (encodes, physics tests ect, NO p95) and core is stable at 43 with the same voltage (cores synched). Yeah - it's bass-akwards in that I found the voltage for which both AVX and non-AVX work loads are working. So far so good. I guess I haven't yet found a single-threaded app that has really suffered under these conditions... but that does not mean I haven't screwed up and won't.









(sorry - edit: the turbovcore snip is for 43a40c37m3400)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I find it odd that Asus never implemented PLX to the Rampage V Extreme or the new Refreshed 10th anniversary board. I want to use my 4x Titan X's with an M.2 drive, now it seems I have to change to the Asus WS just to make that a possibility. Why would they integrated M.2 support on a so called extreme board designed for enthusiasts but have a minor oversight regarding PCI_E lanes. Head scratch moment for me indeed....


yeah.. .I went that route in the past with x79E-WS. Great board! NOt an overclocker like the Rampage tho. The PLX multiplexers introduce a latency in the system. For a straight gaming, or computational box (like with Intel Phi cards or a gaggle of tesla cards) it works great. Once you start to OC the system and the cards, it kinda presents more problems than solves. More importantly for gamers, 4-way and 3-way has no support from NV atm (even the special enthusiast "key" thing is a farce it seems). You will not see a difference in real-world PCIE bandwidth at x8 anyway. Ity is just not there. Sure, you can measure it, but it is a non-impactful difference.


----------



## mickeykool

I picked up a 6800K and a Gig x99 board. I'm coming from an i5 3570 OC to 4.2. Its been a long time since I tinkered w/ overclocking but I plan to OC this chip to 4.0 - 4.2 w/ max volt at 1.2.
As of my question, to keep everything simple do I just change the BK clock to 40 and up the volts to 1.2 at start since it seems everyone can get 4.0 w/ volts increased.. I'll also be using the Corsair iH100 AIO for this chip.

Thanks


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Understood, I did use the ASUS ATC with offset earlier and posted results - i think. So they way I have this set up ATM is adaptive core and offset cache with offset VSA as shown: Core at 43, AVX at 40, cache at 37. I guess I tuned the clocks to the voltage I was willing to run?
> For the "pedestrian" AVX loads I will/have subject(ed) it to, it is stable at this voltage with AVX running 4000 (encodes, physics tests ect, NO p95) and core is stable at 43 with the same voltage (cores synched). Yeah - it's bass-akwards in that I found the voltage for which both AVX and non-AVX work loads are working. So far so good. I guess I haven't yet found a single-threaded app that has really suffered under these conditions... but that does not mean I haven't screwed up and won't.


The ATCT would have given you two Adaptive voltages levels to work with, which allows tuning both ratios effectively. That allows me to run the games etc at 4.5G and the low side on 4.2/4.3. Not a life and death difference, but both are under 250W of power consumption when loaded.


----------



## Rammler

Got my 6850k.

First i had to cry about a dead pixel on my 4k screen. VERY bad start.......

After some tests i reached 4,3 Ghz stable at 1,24 vcore. 2 hours prime torture.

4,4 Ghz was not stable under 1,3 vcore, so i left this mystery unsolved. I don't want to exceed 1,3 volts.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> The ATCT would have given you two Adaptive voltages levels to work with, which allows tuning both ratios effectively. That allows me to run the games etc at 4.5G and the low side on 4.2/4.3. Not a life and death difference, but both are under 250W of power consumption when loaded.


gonna give it another go...


----------



## PowerK

Hi guys.

I'm going to buy 6950X with Asus Rampage V Edition 10 motherboard. However, with so many DDR4 memory speed ratings and variants, I'm still undecided which to choose. I think I'll go for 32GB (4x8GB) capacity.

DDR4 RAMs in my list are as follows:

1. G.SKILL DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34
https://www.amazon.com/G-SKILL-Ripjaws-PC4-25600-3200MHz-F4-3200C14Q-64GVR/dp/B01C6XPEIQ?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

2. Avexir ROG Red Tesla DDR4-2666 (2800 on ROG board) CL15-15-15-35
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820011266&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker,%20LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

3. Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36
http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3200mhz-c16-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b3200c16

The G.SKILL above seems to be the fastest DDR4 available?? 3200MHz with the tightest timings (CL14).
And I really how Avexir ROG Red Tesla looks. However, I am puzzled how it got ROG badge while it's only rated at 2666MHz.
Corsair Dominator looks very nice too.

Can someone please help me choose DDR4 memory? It doesn't have to be one of those listed above.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

G.SKILL DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34

No doubt!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]ASUS*
> 
> The ATCT would have given you two Adaptive voltages levels to work with, which allows tuning both ratios effectively. That allows me to run the games etc at 4.5G and the low side on 4.2/4.3. Not a life and death difference, but both are under 250W of power consumption when loaded.


yeah - that's a nice way to set it up. I have it set to 43 throttle, 45 on 9 and 46 on *core. Throttle voltage is 1.285V adaptive, low load voltage is 1.425V for 1x46+9x45. Works as it should! Allows for a down clock and down volt when the loading is high and not AVX. Just using the settings available in UEFI, 45core, 43 AVX ... *core at 45 is giving slightly lower numbers in low load tests (like image editing in realbench) as it should. Nice little tool.

Question: if the throttle ratio kicks in when the upper limit is exceeded, and the UEFI settings when the temp is below the Lower Limit... what is in control between the two? UEFI? Or should they ideally be set nearly the same?


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - that's a nice way to set it up. I have it set to 43 throttle, 45 on 9 and 46 on *core. Throttle voltage is 1.285V adaptive, low load voltage is 1.425V for 1x46+9x45. Works as it should! Allows for a down clock and down volt when the loading is high and not AVX. Just using the settings available in UEFI, 45core, 43 AVX ... *core at 45 is giving slightly lower numbers in low load tests (like image editing in realbench) as it should. Nice little tool.
> 
> Question: if the throttle ratio kicks in when the upper limit is exceeded, and the UEFI settings when the temp is below the Lower Limit... what is in control between the two? UEFI? Or should they ideally be set nearly the same?


There is no in between. The upper side ratio is active until the high side temp is breached. Once the upper side temp is breached, the low side OC is active until the temp falls under the lower limit. Once the temp falls under the lower limit, the upper side ratio is active again until the high side temp is breached. Power savings states when idle still apply, of course.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> The lack of control can render one of the overclocks unstable or eating more voltage and current than it needs.


I guess I am using unnecessarily high voltage for non-AVX, but at the moment my OC works fine: With AVX on a lower multiplier and non-AVX with the OC multiplier. Voltage is around 1.15 V at 3200 MHz in AVX and 1.37 at 4300 MHz for non-AVX. I'll leave it there for a while and see how it turns out. At stock settings, I think default voltage applied is around 1.157 V at 3700 MHz turbo.

Thanks for your input on this. Maybe Intel will further tune this setting in the upcoming platforms.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> There is no in between. The upper side ratio is active until the high side temp is breached. Once the upper side temp is breached, the low side OC is *active until the temp falls under the lower limit*. Once the temp falls under the lower limit, the upper side ratio is active again until the high side temp is breached. Power savings states when idle still apply, of course.


got it. Last effective. thanks!

I was either over or under thinking... likely the later.


----------



## bonkers2

Got 3 6800k's, none booting at 4,4GHz (tested till 1,4V, after that temps got too high) , best one seems stable at 4,[email protected], 3,9 AVX and 3,6 uncore for now (going to be a 4,2GHz 24/7), the rest is going back.

A bit underwhelming, would have prefered a 4,5GHz 5820k but lower power consumption was an important factor.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rammler*
> 
> Got my 6850k.
> 
> First i had to cry about a dead pixel on my 4k screen. VERY bad start.......
> 
> After some tests i reached 4,3 Ghz stable at 1,24 vcore. 2 hours prime torture.
> 
> 4,4 Ghz was not stable under 1,3 vcore, so i left this mystery unsolved. I don't want to exceed 1,3 volts.


Hello

What score with Cinebench R15 ?

Thanks


----------



## Cryptopone

With my 6850k I get about 1344 multi and 175-180 single core with a 4.3ghz overclock.

If memory matters I have 64gb @ 3200mhz 15-15-15-35 2T.

Edit: cache 34x ATM. Thanks Jpmboy


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cryptopone*
> 
> With my 6850k I get about 1344 multi and 175-180 single core with a 4.3ghz overclock.
> 
> If memory matters I have 64gb @ 3200mhz 15-15-15-35 2T.


Cinebench R15 is very cache dependent... so comparisons really need to include the cache clock.


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Cinebench R15 is very cache dependent... so comparisons really need to include the cache clock.


Noted. Thanks I had forgotten to include that.

Tests were at 34x cache. I should be able to bump it up a bit more once I've stabilized after switching to variable voltages (been setting them manually up to this point).


----------



## coolbho3k

X99 Deluxe 2 was giving 1.368 to system agent voltage on auto mode. Setting it too offset, + 0.001 made it normal again. Didn't notice for a few days after benching a lot







Any idea why it was pumping this much voltage?


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> X99 Deluxe 2 was giving 1.368 to system agent voltage on auto mode. Setting it too offset, + 0.001 made it normal again. Didn't notice for a few days after benching a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea why it was pumping this much voltage?


Thats exactly what happened with my Deluxe, I forwarded the finding to Raja and he said that its for worst case scenarios. Doesn't make sense. They need to fix their BIOS.


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> X99 Deluxe 2 was giving 1.368 to system agent voltage on auto mode. Setting it too offset, + 0.001 made it normal again. Didn't notice for a few days after benching a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea why it was pumping this much voltage?


what BIOS version

and what memory kit

edit

i see last update on delux ii bios was 5/26... I'd suggest waiting a week or so until next BIOS update and see what that does. But it does depend on memory kit. Some of the newer high BW kits will auto at around 1.25V-1.32 VCCSA and this is not just on ASUS boards. This is usually a memory-CPU thing, not a 'broken BIOS is broken' thing. But these early BW-E BIOSes definitely have a lot of problems atm, so cross your fingers for an update next week and see what happens.

I haven't seen that with VCCSA but I did see VCCIO CPU Voltage on one of the first BW-E BIOSes was Insanely high and was fixed in the next version.. so could stil lbe bios related.


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> what BIOS version
> 
> and what memory kit
> 
> edit
> 
> i see last update on delux ii bios was 5/26... I'd suggest waiting a week or so until next BIOS update and see what that does. But it does depend on memory kit. Some of the newer high BW kits will auto at around 1.25V-1.32 VCCSA and this is not just on ASUS boards. This is usually a memory-CPU thing, not a 'broken BIOS is broken' thing. But these early BW-E BIOSes definitely have a lot of problems atm, so cross your fingers for an update next week and see what happens.
> 
> I haven't seen that with VCCSA but I did see VCCIO CPU Voltage on one of the first BW-E BIOSes was Insanely high and was fixed in the next version.. so could stil lbe bios related.


Latest BIOS, 0602.

It was a Ripjaws 64GB CL16 3400 dual channel kit.

This is supremely disappointing, it looks like 1.3+ VCCSA was considered to be unsafe on Haswell-E and the BIOS was setting it well above that.

Auto settings should ALWAYS err on the side of SAFETY.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Latest BIOS, 0602.
> 
> It was a Ripjaws 64GB CL16 3400 dual channel kit.
> 
> This is supremely disappointing, it looks like 1.3+ VCCSA was considered to be unsafe on Haswell-E and the BIOS was setting it well above that.
> 
> *Auto settings should ALWAYS err on the side of SAFETY.*


If that were the case, there would be many more users with failure to post/boot. Are you using the XMP settings and Auto voltage? Remember - Auto is a four letter word... even worse when you use two: Auto Volt.








But generally the auto rules work fine keeping in mind that most users will not attempt to run 64GB of ram, and a dual channel kit nonetheless. What s that a 4x16GB ram kit?


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> If that were the case, there would be many more users with failure to post/boot. Are you using the XMP settings and Auto voltage? Remember - Auto is a four letter word... even worse when you use two: Auto Volt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But generally the auto rules work fine keeping in mind that most users will not attempt to run 64GB of ram, and a dual channel kit nonetheless. What s that a 4x16GB ram kit?


Yes, it's 4 x 16. Setting system agent voltage back to default the board also boots and stress tests fine at the 3000 MHz CL15 I'm running at. The behavior is the same on both XMP and manual modes.

I'd prioritize failure to boot over too high voltages in auto, as it's better to have to clear CMOS than have a dead CPU


----------



## eatthermalpaste

well

considered to be unsafe

and unsafe

are two different things

and auto settings err on the side of safety... that's pretty much never been true. They err on the side of stability. The whole point of auto bios settings is for a random person to be able to plug and play.

If you run with auto settings that means you're rolling with ~medium LLC, SVID support on both RAM and CPU, and definitely at the very least .2V more than you need on Vcore.. +whatever the SVID will add under load. Auto errs on the side of POSTing, not safety.

And if you think that VCCSA will kill your CPU, that's fine. But until thats proven, you can't really claim that for sure with broadwell-e. You keep saying too high voltages.. but that is for Haswell-E.. and I haven't see nany issues on some that I've pumped up to 1.32


----------



## Silent Scone

Some quick preliminary testing on the 6900K and Deluxe II. [email protected] 1.28v with 4x8GB 3200C15 2T. 1.92v VCCIN, 0.8v IO / 1.15v VCCSA.

One hour Realbench stable.


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Some quick preliminary testing on the 6900K and Deluxe II. [email protected] 1.28v with 4x8GB 3200C15 2T. 1.92v VCCIN, 0.8v IO / 1.15v VCCSA.
> 
> One hour Realbench stable.


What is your uncore at


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> What is your uncore at


Default, these things come secondary - will be testing over the weekend


----------



## coolbho3k

Hm I had my RAM running 1.35v 3200 15-15-15-35 and 3200 uncore at 1.10v, 1.244 vcore at 4.3 GHz. Stable in other stability benches but got error in HCI after like 5 hours.

Tetsting at DDR4 3000 and 3400 uncore at 1.15 now. I"m pretty confident in my CPU voltage, since all of my cpu stability benches are fine for hours and hours. It's pretty low for 4.3 compared to others but will play with it if necessary.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Some quick preliminary testing on the 6900K and Deluxe II. [email protected] 1.28v with 4x8GB 3200C15 2T. 1.92v VCCIN, 0.8v IO / 1.15v VCCSA.
> 
> One hour Realbench stable.


nice! What's the vcore at load (or actually - whats the bios idle vcore...). Tell us more!


----------



## goinskiing

Long time lurker first time poster! I just updated my 6700k system to a 6800k system and I'll tell you what, the 6C/12T is a monster no matter how you slice it on multi-core (Adobe Premiere primarily for me).

Here's brief look at my setup:
- MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon
- i7-6800k
- Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB Dual Channel (Need to go quad channel 32GB)
- Corsair H115i

I've managed to get my -7-6800k stable at 4.4GHz @ 1.42VCore. Temps are hovering in high 60's and low 70's and I feel pretty happy with it. I've noticed that 4.4GHz is the cliff on this chip and voltages and temperatures fall off sharply. I think the lottery for this chip is more determined by what voltage you can get away with at 4.4GHz. LOL


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *goinskiing*
> 
> Long time lurker first time poster! I just updated my 6700k system to a 6800k system and I'll tell you what, the 6C/12T is a monster no matter how you slice it on multi-core (Adobe Premiere primarily for me).
> 
> Here's brief look at my setup:
> - MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon
> - i7-6800k
> - Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB Dual Channel (Need to go quad channel 32GB)
> - Corsair H115i
> 
> I've managed to get my -7-6800k stable at 4.4GHz @ 1.42VCore. Temps are hovering in high 60's and low 70's and I feel pretty happy with it. I've noticed that 4.4GHz is the cliff on this chip and voltages and temperatures fall off sharply. I think the lottery for this chip is more determined by what voltage you can get away with at 4.4GHz. LOL


Better cooling will possibly help mitigate the voltage required
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice! What's the vcore at load (or actually - whats the bios idle vcore...). Tell us more!


Easy tiger, just got everything up and running









Vcore at load is 1.28v BIOS idle is 1.032v. Using adaptive, and offset for cache. Doing some cache testing in AIDA at 3.7 with 1.175v on offset.

Memory is a cheap Corsair 2666 Hynix LPX kit I picked up for the time being running at 3200C15 2T and 1.15v VCCSA via offset. Realbench and HWBOTx265Benchmark core temps hover around 55c. That is with 1500mm of radiator space and 25c water temps at load


----------



## cookiesowns

So erm... my 5960X decided to finally fall on borderline unstable vs borderline stable on my aggressive 4.6 @ 1.195V settings. Now I'm down to 4.5 @ 1.15V but I digress.

What seems to be the "average" 6950X or 6900K overclock? What seems to be the IPC differences? 100Mhz? 200Mhz? To get it to perform similarly to HW-E? eg: is a 6900K = 5960X 4.3|4.5, or?


----------



## Silent Scone

Just this moment touched on this here:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only/12440_40


----------



## iggy097

Thought I would share the pics and results of my build with the 6800k overclocked to 4.4 and my MSI GtX 1080.
Man this setup is a beast it has helped my workflow so much - and gaming is just ridiculous!


----------



## goinskiing

@iggy097 I know you used the OC profile, I have the same cooler, but I'm curious as to what your VCore is? Thanks!


----------



## goinskiing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> Thought I would share the pics and results of my build with the 6800k overclocked to 4.4 and my MSI GtX 1080.
> Man this setup is a beast it has helped my workflow so much - and gaming is just ridiculous!


What's your Vcore when at 4.4GHz on the 6800k? (Sorry about double post, still learning how the forums here work...)


----------



## xarot

Still getting some weird VCore readings every now and then after reboot. Using same offset +0.050 V for VCore, sometimes in Windows I am getting a reading of 1.36 ~ 1.376 V which seems to be the voltage my chip is fully stable at only 4.3 GHz. But on some bootups, VCore ends up being only ~1.3 V. As I wrote before the same thing happens on manual voltage and VCore in BIOS and Windows ends up being around 0.070 V higher than it should. Only rarely it ends up being around the same I have it set to. These are under similar load in RB.

Also tried 4.4 today with offset of +0.170 V. Vcore ended being 1.456 V. Rebooted and reduced offset to +0.145 V. Back to Windows, VCore is shown now at 1.472 V at load.

There was at least one user with similar issue but anyone else? I am using AISuite and AIDA64 to check VCore, CPU-Z shows only the setting (VID?) I have input in BIOS myself.

Specs in my sig. It might be worth it to verify your VCore under load using AISuite.


----------



## iggy097

Looks to be around 1.35 - 1.37


----------



## SchmoSalt

Are the performance benefits enough to justify the $80 difference between the 5930K and the 6850K? I'm currently debating between the two to upgrade from my 4670K build. Which one do you think I should go with?

Thanks,
Matt


----------



## Twinnuke

I'm not going crazy or anything but 6800k stock voltages 3.9ghz and ram at 3000.


----------



## goinskiing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> Looks to be around 1.35 - 1.37


Nice! I can't even get stability at 4.3 with those same voltages. 0/2 in silicon lottery (1st was the 6700k recently).


----------



## iggy097

I just used the built in OC profile of the board and changed the RAM speed to 3200 and left it alone. Maybe it would fail if I stress tested it for hours - I don't know. I benchmarked it several times, rendered a bunch of movies, gamed, edited photos, all runs good.
Now if I try to bump it to 4.5 it will BSOD immediately - also if I try and push all the cores to 4.4 it can get unstable. The OC profile has 4 cores 4.4, one at 4.3 and one at 4.2


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> Looks to be around 1.35 - 1.37


96°C on your hottest core.







that's not a good thing. I don't like to let my temps go over 75°c


----------



## goinskiing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> I just used the built in OC profile of the board and changed the RAM speed to 3200 and left it alone. Maybe it would fail if I stress tested it for hours - I don't know. I benchmarked it several times, rendered a bunch of movies, gamed, edited photos, all runs good.
> Now if I try to bump it to 4.5 it will BSOD immediately - also if I try and push all the cores to 4.4 it can get unstable. The OC profile has 4 cores 4.4, one at 4.3 and one at 4.2


Ah! That makes more sense. I've been doing all cores. Maybe I could pull a similar type OC. My MSI X99 Gaming Pro Carbon OC settings are laughable, I'm even running their newest 1.1 BIOS and it sets all cores to 4.4GHz with a VCore of 1.25V. Bwahahahahaha. Usually these are conservative and will go OVER voltage, but this is laughably under volted on my mobo. I've finally gotten stable on 4.3 @ 1.4. Highest core temp is 75C under sustained workloads.


----------



## goinskiing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> 96°C on your hottest core.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's not a good thing. I don't let my temps go over 75°c


Here's my clock, voltage, and temps...

Summary:
All Cores 4.3GHz @ 1.4 VCore (BIOS) w/Highest Core Temp at 75C of which is getting close to my threshold for comfort.


----------



## lilchronic

Well here is my 5820K @4.7Ghz / 4.5Ghz uncore Ram @ 3200Mhz CL14


----------



## iggy097

I think that was not reset since when I was doing some fan calibration on the cooler - I was working on a silent curve for the fans - trying it again now with some new settings


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Just this moment touched on this here:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only/12440_40


Thanks for the link.

hey - I just ordered a caselabs Mercury S8... figure I'd give this 6950X and R5E-10 a real home.


----------



## MR-e

^ Nice! I love the horizontal chassis, the S8 will house that system real well. Load it up with 3x 360 rads and keep that 10-core beast chilly!


----------



## goinskiing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Well here is my 5820K @4.7Ghz / 4.5Ghz uncore Ram @ 3200Mhz CL14


Well, frick, why didn't I just grab the 5820k again?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> hey - I just ordered a caselabs Mercury S8... figure I'd give this 6950X and R5E-10 a real home.


Awesome cases







. Mine is somewhat cobbled on a TT P5 currently, makes life easier, though lol. Like the patent pending vrm cooling


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *goinskiing*
> 
> Well, frick, why didn't I just grab the 5820k again?


Good question.







Clock for Clock BW-E is slightly faster but HW-E can clock higher. Only reason the 6950x is beating the 5960x is because of the 2 extra cores, Ovcerclocking wise BW-E cant match HW-E.

So 6950x or HW-E


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Good question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clock for Clock BW-E is slightly faster but HW-E can clock higher. Only reason the 6950x is beating the 5960x is because of the 2 extra cores, Ovcerclocking wise BW-E cant match HW-E.
> 
> So 6950x or HW-E


My 6900k broadwell-e @ 4,4/3,7cache beats my old good 5960x @ 4800mhz easy









Broadwell-e @ 4,4 8core is the same as 5960x @ 5-5,1ghz

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8812586

Physics


----------



## iggy097

Temps are cooler now - albeit louder-
Did get a System Instability after 10 min stress test however. I'm not too worried about it - I've never run into an issue in real world results. Wondering if it has something to do with the ram. Going to drop it down to testing 4GB instead of 8 and see if that makes a difference
.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> ^ Nice! I love the horizontal chassis, the S8 will house that system real well. Load it up with 3x 360 rads and keep that 10-core beast chilly!


My first Caselabs... 6 weeks for delivery? what's that about?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Awesome cases
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Mine is somewhat cobbled on a TT P5 currently, makes life easier, though lol. Like the patent pending vrm cooling
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


lol - pending? You mean you didn;t request an expedited allowance?

anyway. thought this might be useful (next is a run with the ATCT in play).

Clocks are 44 core, AVX 43, Cache 38, ram 3400c14. 6950X on my OG R5E. Bios 3101.
START:


FINISH:


Voltages:



I'll tell ya... x265 with 12 overkill is simply brutal (not sm fft-like from a temp POV) Uses almost 30GB ram!!

temps are controlled with:





... so adjust accordingly.









the Koolance Chiller was a freebee. Works amazingly well.









BTW - that score is roughly a 4.9-5.0 5960X with cache at 4.6-4.7. (a rare chip and not easy to get stable for x265)


----------



## Synik

is the samsung b die worth the extra cost over e die for broadwell e? 210$ for b die and 165$ for e die gskill tz 32 gb. Was going to get 16gb but the cost difference is half for double the ram.


----------



## Scrimstar

[email protected] = [email protected]?


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scrimstar*
> 
> [email protected] = [email protected]?


Compare my 3dmark physics score, and compare









http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8812586

Physics score is very dependant on memory speed and low latency too..

For me 4,4 looks like 5-5,1ghz, but maybe it depends of what program it is.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> My first Caselabs... 6 weeks for delivery? what's that about?
> lol - pending? You mean you didn;t request an expedited allowance?
> 
> anyway. thought this might be useful (next is a run with the ATCT in play).
> 
> Clocks are 44 core, AVX 43, Cache 38, ram 3400c14. 6950X on my OG R5E. Bios 3101.
> START:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FINISH:
> [ ALT=""]http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2809555/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
> 
> Voltages:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell ya... x265 with 12 overkill is simply brutal (not sm fft-like from a temp POV) Uses almost 30GB ram!!
> 
> temps are controlled with:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... so adjust accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Koolance Chiller was a freebee. Works amazingly well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW - that score is roughly a 4.9-5.0 5960X with cache at 4.6-4.7. (a rare chip and not easy to get stable for x265)


Nice one!

[EDIT]

Just for you, thought I'd quickly run 8 instances. Still plenty of room for improvement. 4.3 / 3.6 @ 1.28v Max temp 56c, water at 23c.



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Compare my 3dmark physics score, and compare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8812586
> 
> Physics score is very dependant on memory speed and low latency too..
> 
> For me 4,4 looks like 5-5,1ghz, but maybe it depends of what program it is.


Going by that example, 4.3 is around 4.8 for the 6900K and 5960. I looked at that yesterday.


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *goinskiing*
> 
> Nice! I can't even get stability at 4.3 with those same voltages. 0/2 in silicon lottery (1st was the 6700k recently).


Damn, I have a good 6950X sample. Stable at 4.3 at 1.244


----------



## GreedyMuffin

Can somebody with 6900K test Cinebench R15 for me? So i can see the IPC improvements from other benchmarks as well.

I get 180 on Singel Score and 1810 on MP. 4500/4000 mem 2400-12-12-12-35-1T.


----------



## Synik

So what is a good voltage to aim at 24/7 for running the broadwell-e cool enough but still providing enough juice for overclocking? 1.3? 1.4?


----------



## superkyle1721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> So what is a good voltage to aim at 24/7 for running the broadwell-e cool enough but still providing enough juice for overclocking? 1.3? 1.4?


It's tough to say. What type of cooling are you using? You can shoot for 1.4V but it will output a ton of heat so you will likely need a custom loop to tame it. Play around between 1.3 and 1.4V and find that happy medium of performance of temps. Unfortunately there is no magic number for this question. It is highly setup/ silicon lottery dependent.

Always destroying exergy


----------



## Synik

Using 110i gtx CLC. I saw a video of someone with 6800k hitting 4.5 with 1.45volts. it hit 86C which i think people will say is way too hot for 24/7. Just trying to get a sense of a good voltage range that doesn't seem to cause too much excess heat.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> Using 110i gtx CLC. I saw a video of someone with 6800k hitting 4.5 with 1.45volts. it hit 86C which i think people will say is way too hot for 24/7. Just trying to get a sense of a good voltage range that doesn't seem to cause too much excess heat.


http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## GreedyMuffin

I don't go over 70¤C. When i hit 75¤C my PC does a shutdown or downclock itself.


----------



## hash1720

had my 6800k stable @ 4.4ghz with 1.365v for a week . During stress test temps below 80 with 12 hours of occt and 1 hour on realbench . do you think this is fine for 24/7 use ? should i down clock to 4.3 thats what im leaning towards.


----------



## mickeykool

I got my 6800k @4.2 w/ volts at 1.25 Max temp reading 57 degrees.

/edit Previously had 4.3 but failed after one min running OCCT but ran fine for 2 hours on realbench.

Need to play w/ it some more.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Hey guys

I'm just about ready to order, but I'm stuck on the ram.

I've looked at these 32GB Kits.

Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK32GX4M4B2800C14
Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK32GX4M4A2666C16
G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C16Q-32GTZB
Corsair Dominator Platinum CMD32GX4M4A2400C14
Corsair Dominator Platinum CMD16GX4M2B3200C16 (Will have to buy 2 kits as they only sell these as dual channel locally)

What do you think, any suggestions?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Really stuck on considering whether to jump to BW-E. Currently running my i7 5960X @ 4.5ghz 1.28v (4ghz cache) on my R5E board. My new Rampage V Black Edition 10th anniversary board arrives wednesday and i'm wondering if i should take the plunge into Broadwell. I'm wanting to get a 2nd MSI Gaming X GTX 1080 to compliment my nice silicon lottery winner 1080 that i got to 2,150mhz stable @ 1.096v with modified VBIOS on stock air cooling. Especially wanting to test SLI water cooled results. So i thought maybe i'd sell my 5960X and nab a 6800K using the money i save to put towards the waterblocks and 2nd 1080.

Kinda wonder if i'll miss the 8 core 16 thread though. Can't afford to splurge on 6900K, and 6850K doesn't seem to be much importance to me since i can only run two way SLI on HB SLI bridge 1080's anyway, and i should be able to run two way 1080's at 8x PCI lanes per card, and still be able to run a Samsung 950 Pro off the M.2. Not sure if PCI lanes effect the USB 3.1 like they do on some other boards, but if not i may even be able to run RAID 0 950 Pro with a 2nd one in the U.2 on the R5BE.

What do you guys think of the 6800K (or i guess 6850K since it's virtually identical in most ways?) I'm talking to a friend who can hook me up with a 4.4ghz 6800K @ 1.32v that was running on an AIO; so on my custom loop of XSPC EX 480mm rad, EK XTC 420mm rad, and Black Ice GTX 360mm rad with EK Supremacy EVO and CL Liquid Ultra i SHOULD be able to get that 4.4ghz at ~1.3v maybe? Or POSSIBLY push 4.5ghz at 1.38 - 1.4v or something, although i'd be cool with 4.4 since even my 5960X only runs at 4.5ghz most of the time.

Do you think a 4.4ghz 6800K IPC wise would out-do the 5960X @ 4.5ghz + 4ghz cache? (assuming 6 cores running on each out of sheer fairness) I've noticed that 4.2ghz Cinebench 15 results on 6800K seem to turn out around 1,315 - 1,330 points or so (and i don't see any mention of cache clock either so that might increase if i can pump like 3.8ghz cache on 6800K) which is identical to the STOCK 3.5ghz boost speed result on my 5960X (just ran Cinebench 15 on stock clocked 5960X with stock cache and i got 1,304 points. With max overclock of 4.5ghz and with cache put to 4ghz i get just over 1,600 usually. 1,660 is my record) So it seems that an OC'ed 6800K SHOULD be actually fairly close to my 5960X even when i'm rendering youtube videos and stuff. Any opinions?


----------



## GreedyMuffin

I'd say don't.

And 1660 on 4500/4000 is extremely low on a 8 core. I get 1810/180 in MT/ST Cinebench R15 with my 5960X at 4500/4000 and with mem on 2400 12-12-12-35-1T.

I'm running windows 10 and no extra thingy is done. Check your settings and such.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GreedyMuffin*
> 
> I'd say don't.
> 
> And 1660 on 4500/4000 is extremely low on a 8 core. I get 1810/180 in MT/ST Cinebench R15 with my 5960X at 4500/4000 and with mem on 2400 12-12-12-35-1T.
> 
> I'm running windows 10 and no extra thingy is done. Check your settings and such.


Lol, for real. I was getting 1800 points @4.5, I get 1900 @4.7, 192 single core. anyways, I just want to know the magic sauce that intel used to get BW-E to have, it seems, as high a IPC gain on Haswell as Skylake? I drool at those physics score. I really want a 6900k. that thing would smoke my chip @4.3+


----------



## xarot

I don't get it. First one is a cold boot. Second one is after restart. Huge difference in VCore while CPU-Z shows the same.


----------



## Medusa666

I did consider the 6950X, but I love the 5960X for what it is, a beast.

Intel is asking too much for the 6950X in 1700$+ for it to be worth it, especially when Haswell-E can clock higher.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Clocking higher has nothing to do with it when a 4.3Ghz 6900k can handily beat out a 4.7GHz 5960x.


----------



## Medusa666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Clocking higher has nothing to do with it when a 4.3Ghz 6900k can handily beat out a 4.7GHz 5960x.


I understand that, but I have read and watched all the reviews. To me, for that small increase in performance I get from going to 6950X from my 4,6GHz 5960X considering there are not many applications out there that run with 10C/20T it just isn't worth it.

I was extremely close to pulling the trigger though, I had ordered and paid for a 6950X and almost sold the 5960X, but I changed my mind in the last minute when it became known that a good OC is around 4,3GHz and not more.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> I understand that, but I have read and watched all the reviews. To me, for that small increase in performance I get from going to 6950X from my 4,6GHz 5960X considering there are not many applications out there that run with 10C/20T it just isn't worth it.
> 
> I was extremely close to pulling the trigger though, I had ordered and paid for a 6950X and almost sold the 5960X, but I changed my mind in the last minute when it became known that a good OC is around 4,3GHz and not more.


The same could be said about 8 cores and 16 threads for most workloads.


----------



## Medusa666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The same could be said about 8 cores and 16 threads for most workloads.


Would the 6800K or 6850K be a good balance then?

Considering the IPC increase and 6C/12T.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Clocking higher has nothing to do with it when a 4.3Ghz 6900k can handily beat out a 4.7GHz 5960x.


From the benches im looking at 4.4Ghz BW-E matches a 4.5Ghz HW-E


----------



## HeadlessKnight

A 4.3 GHz BW-E with all things being equal will probably be a few percentages slower than a 4.7 GHz HW-E.
But to be fair 4.7 GHz as a 24/7 stable OC is very hard to find for HW-E. 4.2 GHz- 4.5 GHz is a more realistic expectation. Only the golden HW-E chips will clock 4.6 GHz+ 24/7 stable.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> From the benches im looking at 4.4Ghz BW-E matches a 4.5Ghz HW-E


Just go check what a 6900k can do @4.3 compared to a 4.7 5960x in 3DMark physics, spanks it...I can't crack 23000 points. those chips are crushing 24000...for example, this is faster than 4.9/5.0 5960x .http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8748235 depending on ram speed/cache and general benching settings..those guys pushing 4.4+ , 3.8+ on the cache, are living good imo..and, you can push the ram speeds...


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Just go check what a 6900k can do @4.3 compared to a 4.7 5960x in 3DMark physics, spanks it...I can't crack 23000 points. those chips are crushing 24000...for example, this is faster than 4.9/5.0 5960x . depending on ram speed/cache and general benching settings..those guys pushing 4.4+ are living good..


There aren't many results in to check anywhere, besides random posts around the forums.

Here are 3 subs from HWbot. [6900k]
http://hwbot.org/submission/3242764_blacksoft_3dmark___fire_strike_2x_geforce_gtx_1080_28928_marks
http://hwbot.org/submission/3242283_nicklas0912_3dmark___fire_strike_2x_geforce_gtx_980_24141_marks
http://hwbot.org/submission/3236637_joe90br_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_1080_21001_marks


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> There aren't many results in to check anywhere, besides random posts around the forums.
> 
> Here are 3 subs from HWbot. [6900k]
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3242764_blacksoft_3dmark___fire_strike_2x_geforce_gtx_1080_28928_marks
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3242283_nicklas0912_3dmark___fire_strike_2x_geforce_gtx_980_24141_marks
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3236637_joe90br_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_1080_21001_marks


Lol, I was late with the link http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8748235-- my chip @4.7 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8718332


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Lol, I was late with the link http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8748235


Yeah the firestrike physics seems to have a pretty nice gains. I'm seeing 5960's @ 4.9Ghz hitting 24000 while a 6900k hitting 24000 @ 4.3Ghz.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

It could it be Nvidia did tweaks to the Pascal architecture and improved PhysX performance with it? IIRC running 3DMark with the same CPU OC and AMD card makes the PhysX score a bit lower. So the GPU probably does seem to make a bit of a difference. This won't be proven right or wrong tell someone with 1080 and 5960X submit their score.
But I am thinking it is the TSX which was not working with Haswell-E and it is enabled with Broadwell-E so is shows the benefit in 3dmark.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Yeah the firestrike physics seems to have a pretty nice gains. I'm seeing 5960's @ 4.9Ghz hitting 24000 while a 6900k hitting 24000 @ 4.3Ghz.


I hit 24,700 or so with my 6950X @ 4.0Ghz, and considering i've not even messed with cache frequency that's not too shabby at all. In Cinebench R15 my 6950X @ 4.0Ghz scores the equivalent of 5960X @ 4.8Ghz.

Yes i was dumb enough to upgrade from a 5960X.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> It could it be Nvidia did tweaks to the Pascal architecture and improved PhysX performance with it? IIRC running 3DMark with the same CPU OC and AMD card makes the PhysX score a bit lower. So the GPU probably does seem to make a bit of a difference. This won't be proven right or wrong tell someone with 1080 and 5960X submit their score.
> But I am thinking it is the TSX which was not working with Haswell-E and it is enabled with Broadwell-E so is shows the benefit in 3dmark.


http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8856979, nah, that ain't it..


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I hit 24,700 or so with my 6950X @ 4.0Ghz, and considering i've not even messed with cache frequency that's not too shabby at all. In Cinebench R15 my 6950X @ 4.0Ghz scores the equivalent of 5960X @ 4.8Ghz.
> 
> Yes i was dumb enough to upgrade from a 5960X.


Well the 10 core would be the only one i would of upgraded to.


----------



## xarot

Here's CB on mine:


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Here's CB on mine:


I guess that 3DMark physics is BW-E's strong point. @4.3, it doesn't come near my chip @4.7. I hit 1900+, interesting....


----------



## Silent Scone

Similar story here.

4.3 / 3.6 at 2666 CAS 12.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I guess that 3DMark physics is BW-E's strong point. @4.3, it doesn't come near my chip @4.7. I hit 1900+, interesting....


I don't know how much the cache part makes a difference. Mine is only at 3.4 GHz.

Tried FS, only got 21987 pts: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12578209


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Similar story here.
> 
> 4.3 / 3.6 at 2666 CAS 12.


Yeah, that's like a 4.5+ 5960x, so, in Cinebench, it's about 200mhz+ faster than HW-E, but, in 3DMark physics, about 500+ faster? not bad though. I am still impressed..on average, it seems to be BW-E @4.3= 4.7 for HW-E...MC STILL hasn't gotten the 6900k in yet..







I am loving the Deluxe II though..


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Yeah, that's like a 4.5+ 5960x, so, in Cinebench, it's about +200mhzfaster than HW-E, but, in 3DMark physics, about 500+ faster?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Yeah, that's like a 4.5+ 5960x, so, in Cinebench, it's about +200mhzfaster than HW-E, but, in 3DMark physics, about 500+ faster? not bad though. I am still impressed..


By comparing my [email protected] and [email protected] in CPU-Z, the 6800K is ~5% faster in Single thread but ~%8 slower in Multithread in CPU-Z benchmark, I know its not the best benchmark but the results probably explain the better performance in 3DMark.

In 3DMark Firestrike, the 4.3GHz 6800K scores 9.9% higher in Physics test than a 4.5GHz 5820K.
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/8872007/fs/8611965


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Similar story here.
> 
> 4.3 / 3.6 at 2666 CAS 12.


2 extra cores really help:



It's early - we're comparing a mature HW-E production to early BW-E. For me, outside of the E5 unlocks, a 10 core unlocked processor is filling the bill very well... and can benchmark well too if that's relevant. The IPC is about the same as a 6700K. Frankly, for a gaming rig, a 4.8+GHz 6700K is the sweetspot IMO.


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 2 extra cores really help:
> 
> 
> 
> It's early - we're comparing a mature HW-E production to early BW-E. For me, outside of the E5 unlocks, a 10 core unlocked processor is filling the bill very well... and can benchmark well too if that's relevant. The IPC is about the same as a 6700K. Frankly, for a gaming rig, a 4.8+GHz 6700K is the sweetspot IMO.


Physics score much faster than 16 core/32 thread 4GHz ivy-e: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6108328
10 days ...i cant wait to test it
What is ur batch number? J or L?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GreedyMuffin*
> 
> I'd say don't.
> 
> And 1660 on 4500/4000 is extremely low on a 8 core. I get 1810/180 in MT/ST Cinebench R15 with my 5960X at 4500/4000 and with mem on 2400 12-12-12-35-1T.
> 
> I'm running windows 10 and no extra thingy is done. Check your settings and such.


Well the 1660 WAS quite some time ago, and was on Windows 8.1 not 10. It's been some time since i've benchmarked my 5960X. Perhaps scoring criteria have changed since then or something?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 2 extra cores really help:
> 
> 
> 
> It's early - we're comparing a mature HW-E production to early BW-E. For me, outside of the E5 unlocks, a 10 core unlocked processor is filling the bill very well... and can benchmark well too if that's relevant. The IPC is about the same as a 6700K. Frankly, for a gaming rig, a 4.8+GHz 6700K is the sweetspot IMO.


What do you think is the sweet spot for someone who games a lot but does a moderate but not heavy amount of video editing etc.. for rendering youtube videos and stuff in Handbrake H.264 and making custom intros in Blender etc..etc..?

My current 5960X hits 4.5ghz + 4.2ghz [email protected] 1.28v fairly comfortably on my RVE board (can't wait to see if my new Rampage V Black Edition gives any better results at all. Gonna sell my RVE if its at least equal which is extremely likely of course) and its definitely more than fast enough for me for rendering, but in a way i kinda wonder if i wouldn't be better off getting a Broadwell-E 6800K type chip for the faster single core perf and IPC etc.. and selling my 5960X which would save me a couple hundred even if i payed a bit over retail for a binned chip or something. The 4.4ghz 24/7 stable 6800K i can get would presumably give me closer to Skylake 6700K gaming results (especially with that new broadwell-E feature that lets you "rank" which cores clock the highest, so in loads that use one or two cores only like some games do you can program the CPU to shove the whole load on JUST the one or two cores that can hit 4.5 or maybe even 4.6ghz and downclock the ones not in use, effectively giving you a 4.5/4.6 Broadwell-E in non multi-thread optimized games) which is probably the ONLY thing i lamented about my 5960X, the fact that even a 4790K could top it in single core perf. and gaming results. When i first got it i was kicking myself for not just searching for a ~4.9 - 5ghz golden 4790K for gaming reasons.

I mean i suppose i MIGHT be able to afford a 6900K in the future, but i kinda doubt it as i'd have to probably sell my 5960X first and be without a PC for a time which would be troublesome, so i thought getting a 6800K now and maybe if i have trouble with rendering i could get a cheapo sandy xeon or something in a backup rig dedicated to video editing and rendering.


----------



## DarkIdeals

One other thing. Do you guys think a Broadwell-E chip in general (i guess 6800K most likely but maybe 6900K) would be worth paying a ~$40 premium over MSRP to buy a guaranteed binned one? As i mentioned i have a friend who can hook me up with a guaranteed 4.4 6800K @ 1.32v for $470. Whereas i can get a regular 6800K for $429 in some retail places (with full warranty too which is nice). I mean i'm PROBABLY guaranteed a 4.3ghz in all likelihood at reasonable voltage right? kinda wondering if it'd be worth it. Cuz now that i think about it, after i sell my old parts (my 5960X, my EVGA GTX 970 i had as dedicated physX before i upgraded from SLI TITAN X to my MSI Gaming X 1080, etc..) i SHOULD have JUST barely enough to get a retail price 6800K and also get a 2nd GTX 1080.

So that might be a more legit reason to sell my 5960X, being able to fund the 2nd 1080.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> One other thing. Do you guys think a Broadwell-E chip in general (i guess 6800K most likely but maybe 6900K) would be worth paying a ~$40 premium over MSRP to buy a guaranteed binned one? As i mentioned i have a friend who can hook me up with a guaranteed 4.4 6800K @ 1.32v for $470. Whereas i can get a regular 6800K for $429 in some retail places (with full warranty too which is nice). I mean i'm PROBABLY guaranteed a 4.3ghz in all likelihood at reasonable voltage right? kinda wondering if it'd be worth it. Cuz now that i think about it, after i sell my old parts (my 5960X, my EVGA GTX 970 i had as dedicated physX before i upgraded from SLI TITAN X to my MSI Gaming X 1080, etc..) i SHOULD have JUST barely enough to get a retail price 6800K and also get a 2nd GTX 1080.
> 
> So that might be a more legit reason to sell my 5960X, being able to fund the 2nd 1080.


Don't bother getting a binned 6800K if it's only going to be a temporary placeholder for more cores later on. Money towards more GPU power would be more important to me than a guarunteed clockspeed on the CPU.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> It's early - we're comparing a mature HW-E production to early BW-E. For me, outside of the E5 unlocks, a 10 core unlocked processor is filling the bill very well... and can benchmark well too if that's relevant. The IPC is about the same as a 6700K. Frankly, for a gaming rig, a 4.8+GHz 6700K is the sweetspot IMO.


The choice between HEDT also needs to factor how many PCIe cards and peripheral devices one uses. In the past running two cards or more favored the HEDT platforms - especially on low-end FPS. Nvidia supporting dual card SLI only on the latest cards has blurred the line somewhat. However, I find the desktop platforms lack sufficient IO resources for the setups I use. Simple things like running out of USB controller resources.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 2 extra cores really help:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's early - we're comparing a mature HW-E production to early BW-E. For me, outside of the E5 unlocks, a 10 core unlocked processor is filling the bill very well... and can benchmark well too if that's relevant. The IPC is about the same as a 6700K. Frankly, for a gaming rig, a 4.8+GHz 6700K is the sweetspot IMO.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


This is why it's best to take Firestrike, the overall score specifically with a few large granules







. Synthetic benchmarking needs to walk the plank!


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Don't bother getting a binned 6800K if it's only going to be a temporary placeholder for more cores later on. Money towards more GPU power would be more important to me than a guarunteed clockspeed on the CPU.


Well i doubt it'll be "just a placeholder" as i likely won't be able to afford to upgrade my stuff again for quite some time. It's just more of a "compromise" between gaming and single core program performance and video editing/rendering performance. The fact that an overclocked 6800K seems to reach damn close to what a stock 5960X does even in super CPU intensive things like Cinebench that use as many cores as you have period (Here's a link showing stock 5960X getting just over 1,300 just like i said mine did, from back when the Haswell-E came out. So i'm REALLY starting to wonder if perhaps something weird is going on with the increased the Cinebench scores on Haswell-E CPU people are claiming, like the peoople on here saying they got ~1500-1600 on stock 5960X compared to my ~1,300 http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/5 )

I'm taking a decent loss when i go to sell my Rampage V Extreme after my Rampage V Black Edition 10 comes in although i guess i'd make that loss up from the savings on selling the 5960X to get the 6800K. So i'm not likely to be upgrading for a decent time, especially since i LOVE ME some ASUS Black Edition boards, which might help me fight off the urge to bow down before the LGA ~3647 Skylake-E monster socket with the 48 lanes, PCI 4.0 etc..etc.. for a bit longer.

Basically, ALL i really want is a CPU that will provide me as good gaming performance as possible while ALSO giving me something "close" to what my current video editing/rendering speed is. Like right now i'm running my 5960X at stock speed, have been for several months actually; and i'm still not complaining about render times. So if a ~4.3-4.4ghz 6800K can get within maybe 5-10% of that stock 5960X speed while getting much closer to i7 6700K ~4.5ghz gaming speed that most people run their skylake "K" SKU CPUs at nowadays, i'd be pretty satisfied as a compromise, especially since the extra ~$300 i'd make in the difference from sale price of the 5960X minus seller fees and shipping etc.. compared to the ~$450 of the 6800K would give me enough to get that 2nd GTX 1080, and MAYBE even get a set of waterblocks for them....


----------



## DarkIdeals

Here's two more reviews of the 5960X showing ~1,300 point Cinebench R15 results at stock speed. Honestly kinda confused here if people are REALLY getting ~1,500+ stock score and near ~1,800 overclocked compared to my ~1,300 stock and ~1,600 overclocked.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/intel-core-i7-5960x-1276900/review/2

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Core-i7-5960X-vs-4960X-Performance-Comparison-588/page2


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Here's two more reviews of the 5960X showing ~1,300 point Cinebench R15 results at stock speed. Honestly kinda confused here if people are REALLY getting ~1,500+ stock score and near ~1,800 overclocked compared to my ~1,300 stock and ~1,600 overclocked.
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/intel-core-i7-5960x-1276900/review/2
> 
> https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Core-i7-5960X-vs-4960X-Performance-Comparison-588/page2


I got 1866 in CB15 with 6900k @ 4,4Ghz. The key is cache @ 3700mhz and high performance memory like 3200mhz cl14 etc...


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I got 1866 in CB15 with 6900k @ 4,4Ghz. The key is cache @ 3700mhz and high performance memory like 3200mhz cl14 etc...


Hmm, maybe that's it! I just checked my specs and apparently when i re-flashed my BIOS a couple days ago it set my 16GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDDR4 2666mhz C15 kit to 2133mhz stock "approved" X99 speed. That combined with stock cache and stock 3.5ghz CPU speed is likely a quite significant change.

I wonder how much i'd gain putting my RAM back at 2666mhz and setting CPU at 4.5ghz + 4ghz cache. I'll have to try that in a bit, got me curious now. I'm most curious of what the RAM effects though, as i'm trying to discern whether a 6800K will be able to reach or surpass a stock speed 5960X, so i'll want my RAM etc.. to be same speed as in the results other people are getting on 6800K chips to be an accurate comparison.

Although really, RAM speed doesn't effect real world video editing/rendering speed much at all right? So i might just upgrade my 16GB kit to a 32GB kit with the money i save "downgrading" to a six core 6800K, which might help negate some of the rendering/editing performance loss of dropping from 8 to 6 cores. Especially since you can get a ~3000mhz kit of like Ripjaws V for the same price as ~2400mhz dominator plats. I hate to give up the bling, but it might help i suppose lol.


----------



## Mhill2029

I'm getting some weird numbers from Intel Speedstep, oddly disabling it gives higher single threaded performance. It shouldn't make a difference if something requires the load on a single core. Tested on both the Rampage V Extreme and Asus WS-E X99, we are talking as much as 50points in Cinebench R15 single core test, which is a lot.

But yet it has no real effect on multi threaded tests.....something aint right here.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ocvn*
> 
> Physics score much faster than 16 core/32 thread 4GHz ivy-e: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6108328
> 10 days ...i cant wait to test it
> What is ur batch number? J or L?


J602C018
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> What do you think is the sweet spot for someone who games a lot but does a moderate but not heavy amount of video editing etc.. for rendering youtube videos and stuff in Handbrake H.264 and making custom intros in Blender etc..etc..?
> 
> My current 5960X hits 4.5ghz + 4.2ghz [email protected] 1.28v fairly comfortably on my RVE board (can't wait to see if my new Rampage V Black Edition gives any better results at all. Gonna sell my RVE if its at least equal which is extremely likely of course) and its definitely more than fast enough for me for rendering, but in a way i kinda wonder if i wouldn't be better off getting a Broadwell-E 6800K type chip for the faster single core perf and IPC etc.. and selling my 5960X which would save me a couple hundred even if i payed a bit over retail for a binned chip or something. The 4.4ghz 24/7 stable 6800K i can get would presumably give me closer to Skylake 6700K gaming results (especially with that new broadwell-E feature that lets you "rank" which cores clock the highest, so in loads that use one or two cores only like some games do you can program the CPU to shove the whole load on JUST the one or two cores that can hit 4.5 or maybe even 4.6ghz and downclock the ones not in use, effectively giving you a 4.5/4.6 Broadwell-E in non multi-thread optimized games) which is probably the ONLY thing i lamented about my 5960X, the fact that even a 4790K could top it in single core perf. and gaming results. When i first got it i was kicking myself for not just searching for a ~4.9 - 5ghz golden 4790K for gaming reasons.
> 
> I mean i suppose i MIGHT be able to afford a 6900K in the future, but i kinda doubt it as i'd have to probably sell my 5960X first and be without a PC for a time which would be troublesome, so i thought getting a 6800K now and maybe if i have trouble with rendering i could get a cheapo sandy xeon or something in a backup rig dedicated to video editing and rendering.


You miss very little (if anything) with the 5960X. It really is a very powerful CPU and Platform. I can't imagine the 5960X disappoints in any way. If you do upgrade, don;t side grade. Get a 6950X or stand pat and beef up your graphics or better yet... cooling.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> *The choice between HEDT also needs to factor how many PCIe cards and peripheral devices one uses*. In the past running two cards or more favored the HEDT platforms - especially on low-end FPS. Nvidia supporting dual card SLI only on the latest cards has blurred the line somewhat. However, I find the desktop platforms lack sufficient IO resources for the setups I use. Simple things like running out of USB controller resources.


This is SOOO true. Once you start with lot's of peripherals, Raid 5's or Raid 10s - it's HEDT for sure.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> This is why it's best to take Firestrike, the overall score specifically with a few large granules
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Synthetic benchmarking needs to walk the plank!


The physics score does single out pretty well tho.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> J602C018
> You miss very little (if anything) with the 5960X. It really is a very powerful CPU and Platform. I can't imagine the 5960X disappoints in any way. If you do upgrade, don;t side grade. Get a 6950X or stand pat and beef up your graphics or better yet... cooling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is SOOO true. Once you start with lot's of peripherals, Raid 5's or Raid 10s - it's HEDT for sure.
> The physics score does single out pretty well tho.


Naturally! It's a beast


----------



## Nizzen

BTW, Samsung SM961 nvme 1TB is up for preorder









MZVKW1T0HMLH-00000
1TB Samsung SM961
M.2 (22x80) PCIe 3.0 (x4) NVMe SSD
PCIe Gen3 8Gb/s Interface, up to 4 Lanes
MLC V-NAND
Read 3200MB/s
Write 1800MB/s
Data I/O Speed (4KB) Random Read Up to 450K IOPS, Random Write Up to 320K IOPS

http://www.flexxmemory.co.uk/solid-state-drives-ssd/samsung-sm961-polaris-1tb-m-2-2880-pci-e-3-0-x-4-nvme-solid-state-drive-ssd/

I ordered 2


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, maybe that's it! I just checked my specs and apparently when i re-flashed my BIOS a couple days ago it set my 16GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDDR4 2666mhz C15 kit to 2133mhz stock "approved" X99 speed. That combined with stock cache and stock 3.5ghz CPU speed is likely a quite significant change.
> 
> I wonder how much i'd gain putting my RAM back at 2666mhz and setting CPU at 4.5ghz + 4ghz cache. I'll have to try that in a bit, got me curious now. I'm most curious of what the RAM effects though, as i'm trying to discern whether a 6800K will be able to reach or surpass a stock speed 5960X, so i'll want my RAM etc.. to be same speed as in the results other people are getting on 6800K chips to be an accurate comparison.
> 
> Although really, RAM speed doesn't effect real world video editing/rendering speed much at all right? So i might just upgrade my 16GB kit to a 32GB kit with the money i save "downgrading" to a six core 6800K, which might help negate some of the rendering/editing performance loss of dropping from 8 to 6 cores. Especially since you can get a ~3000mhz kit of like Ripjaws V for the same price as ~2400mhz dominator plats. I hate to give up the bling, but it might help i suppose lol
> 
> 
> .


erm... you mentioned having a volt mod 1080 bios? Really?


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I wonder how much i'd gain putting my RAM back at 2666mhz and setting CPU at 4.5ghz + 4ghz cache. I'll have to try that in a bit, got me curious now. I'm most curious of what the RAM effects though, as i'm trying to discern whether a 6800K will be able to reach or surpass a stock speed 5960X, so i'll want my RAM etc.. to be same speed as in the results other people are getting on 6800K chips to be an accurate comparison.


I run my 5960X @ 4.6/4.2 and 2666C14 RAM and get ~1850 or so Cinebench R15


----------



## dansi

I think BW-E is better optimised at the Cache and RAM rather than IPC, which helps much on CB R15 and 3DM.
So if you can get HW-E up to 4000mhz cache and 2800 DDR4, it will make show the IPC gains from BW-E to HW-E is inline with expectations.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm... you mentioned having a volt mod 1080 bios? Really?


Yeah. So far i've only messed with increasing voltage through BIOS, haven't done anything on bypassing the hard 1.25v limit that Nvidia places. The uninformed about Pascal seem to think the hard 1.25v limit actually is super important, but it only matters for LHE, DICE, LN2, and MAYBE real good Cascade etc.. as even on water you aren't getting anywhere near that. The BIOS on bascally all GTX 1080 models (Strix, G1 Gaming, EVGA SC, etc...) are limited to the typical 120% TDP etc.. and have a voltage limit of roughly 1.065v, some cards with reference PCB are even hard to get over 1.06v (and even 500mv can make a ~40-50mhz difference sometimes in a best case scenario, depending on your other OC limitations) Most GTX 1080 are limited to around 2,050mhz on air, best i've really seen in any reviews is 2,088mhz; mine hits 2,150mhz mostly due to being able to hit 1.1 - 1.11v due to the modded BIOS. At 2,138mhz which is what my 24/7 OC is (super long sessions at 2,150mhz can sometimes cause some rare artifacting in certain games, it's 95% stable though but i like 2,138mhz better just for perfect stability) the card will tend to settle at 1.096v and fluctuate up to 1.1v at times. Interestingly enough, in less demanding games like Dark Souls 3 i was able to reach the same 2,138mhz overclock with only 1.075 - 1.08v since it seems to only use between ~65-80% GPU utilization.

I haven't done extensive VRM speed testing, but i was able to push it from stock 10,000mhz effective (1,250mhz on GPU before applying all the DDR multipliers etc..) to a quite nice 11,200mhz on air. I must say the air coolers are quite good compared to older generations too! The dual fan Twin Frozr cooler on mine kept it at a very nice 54C during my Dark Souls 3 testing with ~70% average GPU utilization even with that 2,138mhz OC at a 75% fan speed, which is surprisingly quiet frankly; even stock on a reference nvidia cooler is much louder than 75% on this. At stock ~50% fan speed it stays around 65C.

Here's some pics of my overclocking with furmark and game testing:

(2,138mhz during gaming)
https://i.imgur.com/ve1zRn1.jpg

(fooling around with memory, ran it to just over 11,000 with 2,126 core. I can get 2,138mhz + 11,200mhz as my current max, haven't screenshotted it yet tho. have to do that)
https://i.imgur.com/qBcAcll.jpg

(2,138mhz during furmark)
https://i.imgur.com/z8avifS.jpg


----------



## Jpmboy

So you did the bios mod in Hex? Do you have a Pascal bios tweeaker? My 1980 runs 2152 at stock, but as with all these cards, they high the power limit pretty quickly and down clock substantially.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> So you did the bios mod in Hex? Do you have a Pascal bios tweeaker? My 1980 runs 2152 at stock, but as with all these cards, they high the power limit pretty quickly and down clock substantially.


What model of 1080 do you have? Is it air cooled or is it in your chilled water loop? The BIOS i'm using is a slightly tweaked version of the MSI Gaming X 1080 BIOS. MSI already tweaked the voltage limits on it some, so it allows significantly higher clocks on average than on most other cards at same silicon lottery status.

And yeah power limit can become an issue too. Most 1080's are limited to ~220 watts, even the ASUS Strix that has the extra 6 pin (seemingly due to needing a lot of that extra 6 pins wattage to run all the RGB lighting, the two 4 pin case-fan headers on the card, the triple fan cooler etc..etc..) only gets to just over 220. The better cards do a tad better on power, like for example the EVGA FTW 1080 hits 255 watts or so with max power target, my card can handle just over 300 watts at max power target.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dansi*
> 
> I think BW-E is better optimised at the Cache and RAM rather than IPC, which helps much on CB R15 and 3DM.
> So if you can get HW-E up to 4000mhz cache and 2800 DDR4, it will make show the IPC gains from BW-E to HW-E is inline with expectations.


What do you mean by "inline with expectations" exactly though? You mean the ~10% IPC increase people have been estimating? I just really wish there was a way to discern EXACTLY how fast a ~4.3 or 4.4ghz 6800K with maybe 3.8ghz cache would be compared to like my 5960X @ 4.5ghz and 4.2ghz cache max overclock with same memoery speed etc..

I'm really weighing whether the increased single core perf on the 6800K (or MAYBE 6900K if i can swing a bargain on someone selling theirs after being unsatisfied with IPC gains or something etc..) and thus increased general GAMING performance more in line with the 6700K or so, would be worth dropping down to 6 cores, albeit 6 cores with ~10-12% faster IPC possibly. I figure if the 6800K is at least around as fast as the stock 3.5ghz 5960X in video rendering and such, and has a ~5-10% single core IPC increase that it may be worth it for me, especially since it'd satisfy my "gotta have the bigger number" OCD when it comes to PC parts lol

I mean if you think about it, if you get a ~10% IPC gain all around (single and multi-core) over equivalent Has-E, then for example; a 4.4ghz 6800K would be equivalent to a ~4.85ghz 5820K!!! (4400mhz x 1.10 = 4840mhz) which if i assume equal IPC of 5820K and 5960X (probably a couple percent weaker single core on the 5960X due to larger core count) means the 6800K would be ~7.5% faster in single and multi-thread than if i had my 5960X running at its 4.5ghz but with only 6 cores active.

Only problem is....those of us on here that have Broadwell-E seem to be getting a bit different numbers on how much faster clock for clock BW-E is over HW-E... So 10% isn't a confirmed deal as of yet really.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Wow...so this turns out to basically be the ONLY thread on Broadwell-E on the site. (at least with any frequent posting as i looked through the entire first page and a half or so and saw nothing but an old "which CPU is better 5820/6800/5930/6850" advice thread and this one.

I guess Broadwell-E is just really not that popular? Huh....guess that's why the supply isn't as bad as i figured it'd be so close to release, (unlike with GTX 1080/1070 lol...good luck getting those. had to stalk the nowinstock.net forums and turn on all kinds of text alerts etc.. to get my 1080.)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Wow...so this turns out to basically be the ONLY thread on Broadwell-E on the site. (at least with any frequent posting as i looked through the entire first page and a half or so and saw nothing but an old "which CPU is better 5820/6800/5930/6850" advice thread and this one.


You know I asked something similar a few pages back..lol

Still not sure to keep using the 5820k and get a Strix to go with it, then again I can get a 5960x for $400 cheaper than a 6900k, so I don't know what to do there either.
Still got 2 weeks to decide though...lol


----------



## m0oks

For anyone who's interested, I managed to get my chip stable @ 4.2ghz with only 1.19V but with RAM only @ 2333mhz.

Now I'm upping the RAM trying to get more than 3000mhz. Here's where I'm at right now.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> For anyone who's interested, I managed to get my chip stable @ 4.2ghz with only 1.19V but with RAM only @ 2333mhz.
> 
> Now I'm upping the RAM trying to get to 3000mhz or more. Here's where I'm at right now.


Nice, see if it's google stress app stable, feed my curiosity


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Nice, see if it's google stress app stable, feed my curiosity


Sorry haven't used that, I normally just use Memtest, will I need to boot into a linux distro to run the google app?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Sorry haven't used that, I normally just use Memtest, will I need to boot into a linux distro to run the google app?


Yes bud, I would recommend doing so with that setup. See the link in my sig for more details. It is literally a case of installing the distro, clicking the link to the app in the OP, running the command in terminal and adjusting the time to suit. 1 to 2 hours is sufficient.


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Yes bud, I would recommend doing so with that setup. See the link in my sig for more details. It is literally a case of installing the distro, clicking the link to the app in the OP, running the command in terminal and adjusting the time to suit. 1 to 2 hours is sufficient.


The fact that I can test all 128GB in just 1 or 2 hours is appealing. I'll do this and get back to you!

Can I install the distro onto a USB and run it off there? I don't really want to partition any of my existing hard drives.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> The fact that I can test all 128GB in just 1 or 2 hours is appealing. I'll do this and get back to you!
> 
> Can I install the distro onto a USB and run it off there? I don't really want to partition ay of my existing hard drives.


You can do if it suits you, yes. Although if stability is very marginal you are more likely to experience corruption than with a SATA drive. Given your testing with AIDA above I would think you should be ok with your current settings, though.


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> You can do if it suits you, yes. Although if stability is very marginal you are more likely to experience corruption than with a SATA drive. Given your testing with AIDA I would think you should be ok with your current settings, though.


Yeah fair point, yeah I'll just partition one of my drives. Will let you know how I go.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> The fact that I can test all 128GB in just 1 or 2 hours is appealing. I'll do this and get back to you!
> 
> Can I install the distro onto a USB and run it off there? I don't really want to partition any of my existing hard drives.


I think the fact your running 128Gb of ram @ 3000Mhz is something not to be snuffed at. That is certainly high five worthy matey!


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> For anyone who's interested, I managed to get my chip stable @ 4.2ghz with only 1.19V but with RAM only @ 2333mhz.
> 
> Now I'm upping the RAM trying to get more than 3000mhz. Here's where I'm at right now.


huh....that's a damn impressive feat. Especially with 128GB DDR4 at 3000mhz too!

I'm most interested in you getting such absurdly low voltage at 4.2ghz on a 10 core BW-E 6950X though. I'm debating whether to get a binned 6800K or 6900K if i can afford, rather than saving $50-60 and getting the retail chip and playing the lottery. If the binned chips can get 4.4ghz at ~1.33v or so with an AIO cooler then my 480/420/360 triple radiator EK Supremacy EVO etc.. setup SHOULD be able to achieve 4.4ghz at even lower voltage than that presumably. Although HOW MUCH lower is anybody's guess. I'm really curious if i could make 4.4ghz at less than 1.3v, and if i could, i wonder if it'd be possible to tap 4.5ghz with a 24/7 stable and safe voltage amount (i.e. under 1.4v for sure, preferrably under 1.375v. 1.35-1.36v range would be perfect.) But with the heat these things give off i'm unsure if it's even possible.

Not sure why but i REALLY want me a 4.5ghz BW-E chip lol. I guess it's my desire for as much single core and gaming etc.. performance as possible as well as trying to get as high multi-core as possible to try and get close to what my 5960X hits now at 4.5ghz + 4.2ghz cache.

Trying to decide whether to pull the trigger now on a binned 4.4ghz ~1.33v-ish, pull the trigger now on a retail sample and roll the dice, or wait and see if someone puts a 4.5ghz binned sample up for sale. Decisions decisions...


----------



## xarot

Yesterday I tried fiddling around with some BIOS power-related settings to see if there was a solution to running VCore higher than set in BIOS to no avail with my 6900K and RVE. I checked all voltages through AIDA after booting but forgot to check VCCSA as I had left it at AUTO this time (usually defaults to around 1.125 - 1.15 V). Left Prime95 running for 4 hours and just then I noticed that VCCSA was at 1.4V. Heh. CPU still works fine though...what a stupid mistake by me but then again the board isn't innocent either. Mobo is using vice and hammer method with auto-voltages.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Yesterday I tried fiddling around with some BIOS power-related settings to see if there was a solution to running VCore higher than set in BIOS to no avail with my 6900K and RVE. I checked all voltages through AIDA after booting but forgot to check VCCSA as I had left it at AUTO this time (usually defaults to around 1.125 - 1.15 V). Left Prime95 running for 4 hours and just then I noticed that VCCSA was at 1.4V. Heh. CPU still works fine though...what a stupid mistake by me but then again the board isn't innocent either. Mobo is using vice and hammer method with auto-voltages.


Yeah the auto voltages on ASUS boards are INSANE! Both my Rampage IV Black Edition and Rampage V Extreme over-compensate on ALL of the voltages when left to their own devices lol. Especially if you use like the "CPU Level up" function on like the OC Panel and whatnot. I did the CPU Level Up 4.2ghz option on my old i7 4820K and it put VCORE at iirc, 1.42-1.45v or so...(didn't notice it at the time, found out in logs later on) then i tried the 4.5ghz CPU level up option and it set it at 1.559v VCORE....

I was like " o.o........O_O! " as it slowly dawned on me that billions of pieces of silicon were screaming in agony like a tiny Alderan inside my CPU lol


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Nice, see if it's google stress app stable, feed my curiosity


Confirmed Stable 2.5hours!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I think the fact your running 128Gb of ram @ 3000Mhz is something not to be snuffed at. That is certainly high five worthy matey!


Yeah I can't seem to get it much higher than this for now (3074mhz), I probably can if I spent enough time tweaking and stuff but I think I've got it to a pretty damn good point which is stable and I'm happy with. Plus I have work to do! Need my PC









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> huh....that's a damn impressive feat. Especially with 128GB DDR4 at 3000mhz too!


Thanks, I'm pretty happy with the results and I think I managed to get quite a good 6950x chip! Watercooling was 100% necessary, tried to aircool it and even at stock speeds it struggled to keep it cool! EK Predator doing a great job now.

Final Stable results:


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> What model of 1080 do you have? Is it air cooled or is it in your chilled water loop? The BIOS i'm using is a slightly tweaked version of the MSI Gaming X 1080 BIOS. MSI already tweaked the voltage limits on it some, so it allows significantly higher clocks on average than on most other cards at same silicon lottery status.
> 
> And yeah power limit can become an issue too. Most 1080's are limited to ~220 watts, even the ASUS Strix that has the extra 6 pin (seemingly due to needing a lot of that extra 6 pins wattage to run all the RGB lighting, the two 4 pin case-fan headers on the card, the triple fan cooler etc..etc..) only gets to just over 220. The better cards do a tad better on power, like for example the EVGA FTW 1080 hits 255 watts or so with max power target, my card can handle just over 300 watts at max power target.


*Sooo... did you modify a bios or not?*
water cooled... with cold water if needed.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> For anyone who's interested, I managed to get my chip stable @ 4.2ghz with only 1.19V but with RAM only @ 2333mhz.
> 
> Now I'm upping the RAM trying to get more than 3000mhz. Here's where I'm at right now.


nice job m0ok!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Confirmed Stable 2.5hours!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I can't seem to get it much higher than this for now (3074mhz), I probably can if I spent enough time tweaking and stuff but I think I've got it to a pretty damn good point which is stable and I'm happy with. Plus I have work to do! Need my PC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'm pretty happy with the results and I think I managed to get quite a good 6950x chip! Watercooling was 100% necessary, tried to aircool it and even at stock speeds it struggled to keep it cool! EK Predator doing a great job now.
> Final Stable results:


the thing with memtest is that it is really not made for assessing the stability of a ram overclock - basically it is good for determining if a ram stick is bad. HCi Memtest Pro is very good but would take geologic time to run properly on 128GB even with 20 threads. The only option we have to test ram stability with 64 and 128GB is Google Stress App test. 1 to 2 hours and you know for sure.


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice job m0ok!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the thing with memtest is that it is really not made for assessing the stability of a ram overclock - basically it is good for determining if a ram stick is bad. HCi Memtest Pro is very good but would take geologic time to run properly on 128GB even with 20 threads. The only option we have to test ram stability with 64 and 128GB is Google Stress App test. 1 to 2 hours and you know for sure.


Thanks!

Yeah I noticed that when I ran Memtest overnight and realised that there has to be a better way (I was literally thinking, what do big companies do when they have 500GB+ of RAM? There's no way in hell they are Memtesting that for a month haha). So yeah when the Google one was recommended it all made sense! Will definitely be using that in the future if I get bored and I wanna see if I can get an extra few hundred mhz!


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Nice, see if it's google stress app stable, feed my curiosity


Which google stress app your're referring to?


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> Which google stress app your're referring to?


Details are in his Sig.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> Which google stress app your're referring to?


http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/0_20


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Details are in his Sig.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Details are in his Sig.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/0_20


Thanks...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Yeah I noticed that when I ran Memtest overnight and realised that there has to be a better way (I was literally thinking, what do big companies do when they have 500GB+ of RAM? There's no way in hell they are Memtesting that for a month haha). So yeah when the Google one was recommended it all made sense! Will definitely be using that in the future if I get bored and I wanna see if I can get an extra few hundred mhz!


to make that 128GB sing... dial up the cache a bit.


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> to make that 128GB sing... dial up the cache a bit.


Haven't fiddled with that yet! Will see what I can do!









EDIT: So far so good @ 3700. Stress test so far so good (only 10mins in). Will give it an hour then run Google Memtest if thats all good I'll stress it for 12hrs.
'

EDIT 2:

I love seeing this:

So. Much. Power. haha


----------



## Silent Scone

AIDA64 cache test is still pretty good on BWE. Also, again out of curiosity have you attempted 1T? I'm doubtful this will work for you, as that's really pushing the limits. If so however, that would be _very_ impressive! A memtweakit shot (or Gigabyte equivelent) would be good also


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Haven't fiddled with that yet! Will see what I can do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: So far so good @ 3700. Stress test so far so good (only 10mins in). Will give it an hour then run Google Memtest if thats all good I'll stress it for 12hrs.


3700 is great!. Probably no need to go higher until/unless you go higher with core also. 42/37 and 43/37 seems to be a sweetspot. 44/38 is also very "productive".









Question: how did you wind up with a BCLK of 102.5?


----------



## m0oks

That definitely increased my temps....by like 8C!

EDIT: Nevermind, had the wrong cooling profile set.


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> AIDA64 cache test is still pretty good on BWE. Also, again out of curiosity have you attempted 1T? I'm doubtful this will work for you, as that's really pushing the limits. If so however, that would be _very_ impressive! A memtweakit shot (or Gigabyte equivelent) would be good also


Sorry not sure what you mean? I'm running an Asus Deluxe 2 board. Sorry I'm not really up to date with all the tools and stuff, I used to OC a lot back in LGA775 days and did a little bit of 1150 but have since been out of the game until I desperately needed to upgdade my i7 930 I came from. Coming from the 930 to this is um....great?









EDIT: You mean 1T on the memory? I can give it a go. I'll double check the stability of this new Cache value and then give it a whirl. *shrug* who knows.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 3700 is great!. Probably no need to go higher until/unless you go higher with core also. 42/37 and 43/37 seems to be a sweetspot. 44/38 is also very "productive".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question: how did you wind up with a BCLK of 102.5?


Yeah I'd like to stay at the vCore I'm at now because it seems to be the sweetspot for my chip, if I wanna get to 43 then I gotta hit it with 1.25 or more, not worth it personally. Only reason I pushed up my BCLK a bit was because I just wanted to sit on that 4.2ghz mark, just for the sake of my OCD hahahah.

Still stable, 20mins in. Same vCore.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Sorry not sure what you mean? I'm running an Asus Deluxe 2 board


I thought you were using something else, sorry! Post it up anyway


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Sorry not sure what you mean? I'm running an Asus Deluxe 2 board. Sorry I'm not really up to date with all the tools and stuff, I used to OC a lot back in LGA775 days and did a little bit of 1150 but have since been out of the game until I desperately needed to upgdade my i7 930 I came from. Coming from the 930 to this is um....great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I'd like to stay at the vCore I'm at now because it seems to be the sweetspot for my chip, if I wanna get to 43 then I gotta hit it with 1.25 or more, not worth it personally. Only reason I pushed up my BCLK a bit was because I just wanted to sit on that 4.2ghz mark, just for the sake of my OCD hahahah.
> 
> Still stable, 20mins in. Same vCore.


yeah, with this platform, if you wander too far off a PEG/DMI of 100, other system buses can get screwy. Probably best to stay ay BCLK 100 until you lock down system-wide stability.


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I thought you were using something else, sorry! Post it up anyway


So you want me to try changing the memory command rate to 1T?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, with this platform, if you wander too far off a PEG/DMI of 100, other system buses can get screwy. Probably best to stay ay BCLK 100 until you lock down system-wide stability.


Yeah I've heard. I've heard though if you stay under 103 it's generally pretty safe if you have good components (e.g. a great PSU - something I have). I think I'm pretty close to system wide stability anyway so I think 102.5 should be ok.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> So you want me to try changing the memory command rate to 1T?
> Yeah I've heard. I've heard though if you stay under 103 it's generally pretty safe if you have good components (e.g. a great PSU - something I have). I think I'm pretty close to system wide stability anyway so I think 102.5 should be ok.


Yes bud. Note try, I'm doubtful this will work at all let alone off the bat. Worth a shot







.

Also mileage varies with PCI / DMI adjustment from system to system. Some GPU may not like any increase at all


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 3700 is great!. Probably no need to go higher until/unless you go higher with core also. 42/37 and 43/37 seems to be a sweetspot. 44/38 is also very "productive".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question: how did you wind up with a BCLK of 102.5?


Tried 3900 which was a nogo fail after a few mins, then bumped it down to 3800 which seems to be stable for the last 22minutes now. Obviously not by any means considered 'stable' yet, will obviously need to run it longer to verify. If it fails, I'll bump vcore up one notch, if it still fails I'll just bring it down to 3700.



I think 3800 should be sweet. Lets see what changing Memory to 1T does...brb...


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Yes bud. Note try, I'm doubtful this will work at all let alone off the bat. Worth a shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Also mileage varies with PCI / DMI adjustment from system to system. Some GPU may not like any increase at all


Your hunch was right, definitely didnt work straight off the bat. I can get into Windows fine. I got around 15 seconds on AIDA before MEM MANAGEMENT bluescreen. Played around with some of the voltages to see if i can actually get it to pass a few mins but no go, most i got out of it was around 30seconds and then i wasnt even getting a bluescreen, just straight black screen crash lol

I dont think theres a chance with this one.


----------



## m0oks

Anyway here's my stable settings. Pretty happy with it and I'll probably stick to this for the future. Memory benchmark attached.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Your hunch was right, definitely didnt work straight off the bat. I can get into Windows fine. I got around 15 seconds on AIDA before MEM MANAGEMENT bluescreen. Played around with some of the voltages to see if i can actually get it to pass a few mins but no go, most i got out of it was around 30seconds and then i wasnt even getting a bluescreen, just straight black screen crash lol
> 
> I dont think theres a chance with this one.


That is an optimistic start, actually


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> AIDA64 cache test is still pretty good on BWE. Also, again out of curiosity have you attempted 1T? I'm doubtful this will work for you, as that's really pushing the limits. If so however, that would be _very_ impressive! A memtweakit shot (or Gigabyte equivelent) would be good also


1T for me with dbl sided 8GB x8 Micron at 2666 was near impossible. IF he can do 1T with 8x16GB @ 3000, on a BW-E that's ground for me to roll the dice instantly...

EDIT: Wow, he can get into windows, without a instant restart/hardlock...... Ok... time to tear apart the system.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Anyway here's my stable settings. Pretty happy with it and I'll probably stick to this for the future. Memory benchmark attached.


getting better... time to tune some secondary timings if you are into that. Once you get it stable and demonstrate it... post up in SCon'e memory thread. http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/0_20

maybe he'll update it for ya.


----------



## coolbho3k

What's a good guide for secondary timings?


----------



## coolbho3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Haven't fiddled with that yet! Will see what I can do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: So far so good @ 3700. Stress test so far so good (only 10mins in). Will give it an hour then run Google Memtest if thats all good I'll stress it for 12hrs.
> '
> 
> EDIT 2:
> 
> I love seeing this:
> 
> So. Much. Power. haha


Hmm feeling a bit nervous with my 4.3 overclock and 1000W PSU and dual OC 1080s... what else are you running in that PC?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> What's a good guide for secondary timings?


what motherboard?


----------



## Synik

Unless he is using volt mod bios for video cards that seems like a lot of wattage for sli 1080


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> Unless he is using volt mod bios for video cards that seems like a lot of wattage for sli 1080


no such thing as a volt mod vbios for 1080.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no such thing as a volt mod vbios for 1080.


So x99 with 1080 sli overclocked uses almost 1000 watts? Doesnt make sense


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> So x99 with 1080 sli overclocked uses almost 1000 watts? Doesnt make sense


didn't say it made sense. But I can hook up a watt meter and check with one 1080. The accuracy of Corsair link is questionable.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Hmm feeling a bit nervous with my 4.3 overclock and 1000W PSU and dual OC 1080s... what else are you running in that PC?


A 1000W PSU is more than enough, My Corsair RM1000 was good enough for 2x Titan X (BIOS modded and pull ~330W each) and an i7 [email protected]


----------



## Silent Scone

The RM1000 is a single rail unit with over 80amps available on the 12v. Assuming it is fully working, it should have no problem running his system. The issue sounds more like instability under load transitioning.


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> That is an optimistic start, actually


Oh that's good news then. Where should I go from here? I've kind of hit the limit of my knowledge and wouldn't really know where to start to try and get 1T stable. What would have been the main factor of it being unstable? Not enough vCore to handle the transactions? Or...SA Volts? I tried bumping up the DIMM volts to 1.45 which didnt help, also tried fiddling with the system agent and a couple others and couldnt get it working.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> getting better... time to tune some secondary timings if you are into that. Once you get it stable and demonstrate it... post up in SCon'e memory thread. http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/0_20
> 
> maybe he'll update it for ya.


I definitely will







Gonna talk to him and see if there isnt a chance we can get 1T happening.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Hmm feeling a bit nervous with my 4.3 overclock and 1000W PSU and dual OC 1080s... what else are you running in that PC?


I'm running 2x Asus R9 390x OC Strix, a couple of SSD, 1 HDD and an EK Predator 240. A total of 9 fans, pretty standard, nothing high amps or anything. This is all on Asus Deluxe 2, 128GB RAM and 6950x. Will put my rig in my signature.

See my comment below regarding accuracy.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> didn't say it made sense. But I can hook up a watt meter and check with one 1080. The accuracy of Corsair link is questionable.


Actually, I'm quite impressed with it's accuracy. I'm hooked up to a UPS which is reporting the same wattage (+-20W or so). I also get a warning from my UPS saying there's less than 5mins of battery capacity whenever I start a stress test hahahah. It's a pretty beefy home grade UPS too! Need a big battery if you wanna last long pulling 1kw.....


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Oh that's good news then. Where should I go from here? I've kind of hit the limit of my knowledge and wouldn't really know where to start to try and get 1T stable. What would have been the main factor of it being unstable? Not enough vCore to handle the transactions? Or...SA Volts? I tried bumping up the DIMM volts to 1.45 which didnt help, also tried fiddling with the system agent and a couple others and couldnt get it working.
> I definitely will
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna talk to him and see if there isnt a chance we can get 1T happening.
> I'm running 2x Asus R9 390x OC Strix, a couple of SSD, 1 HDD and an EK Predator 240. A total of 9 fans, pretty standard, nothing high amps or anything. This is all on Asus Deluxe 2, 128GB RAM and 6950x. Will put my rig in my signature.
> 
> See my comment below regarding accuracy.
> Actually, I'm quite impressed with it's accuracy. I'm hooked up to a UPS which is reporting the same wattage (+-20W or so). I also get a warning from my UPS saying there's less than 5mins of battery capacity whenever I start a stress test hahahah. It's a pretty beefy home grade UPS too! Need a big battery if you wanna last long pulling 1kw.....


yeah - I have the 1500i on this rig (and a 1200i or two in reserve







). Ran corsair link for a while... until I got a Killawatt meter. With 3 780Ti Kingpins - overclocked and overvolted + a 5950X @ 4.8, true power draw didn;t exceed 1600W with 2 corsair 1200s hooked in using the "add2psu". Realize that a 1080 will not pull more than 250W max (even hard mods are not helping) and a 780Ti KPE could pull 800W alone. More likely with the modest OC you are running,









*Here's some data, just for a reality check:
*
6950x @ 4.4, AVX 4.3, cache 3.8, 64GB ram at 3400c14 w/ 1.45V, 1 GTX 1080 FE. 2 DCC pumps, 3 fans on the Corsair 1500i.
(the 1500i 's fan does not turn on until the power draw is > 750W... it has never turned on with the 1080. With 2 TitanX... yeah, it does)
Values are "at the wall". Assume 85% efficiency average.

Idle: 210W
Hi idle: 210W

3Dmk11 Extreme: Scene #1= 400W peak, Sc#2 = 396W peak.
Fire Strike Extreme: Sc#1 = 410W peak, #2 = 388, #3 (physics @ 4.4GHz) 324W peak, Combined = 432W
.

Your second 1080 would have to be pulling in excess of 500W - not gonna happen bro.


----------



## m0oks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - I have the 1500i on this rig (and a 1200i or two in reserve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). Ran corsair link for a while... until I got a Killawatt meter. With 3 780Ti Kingpins - overclocked and overvolted + a 5950X @ 4.8, true power draw didn;t exceed 1600W with 2 corsair 1200s hooked in using the "add2psu". Realize that a 1080 will not pull more than 250W max (even hard mods are not helping) and a 780Ti KPE could pull 800W alone. More likely with the modest OC you are running,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's some data, just for a reality check:
> *
> 6950x @ 4.4, AVX 4.3, cache 3.8, 64GB ram at 3400c14 w/ 1.45V, 1 GTX 1080 FE. 2 DCC pumps, 3 fans on the Corsair 1500i.
> (the 1500i 's fan does not turn on until the power draw is > 750W... it has never turned on with the 1080. With 2 TitanX... yeah, it does)
> Values are "at the wall". Assume 85% efficiency average.
> 
> Idle: 210W
> Hi idle: 210W
> 
> 3Dmk11 Extreme: Scene #1= 400W peak, Sc#2 = 396W peak.
> Fire Strike Extreme: Sc#1 = 410W peak, #2 = 388, #3 (physics @ 4.4GHz) 324W peak, Combined = 432W
> .
> 
> Your second 1080 would have to be pulling in excess of 500W - not gonna happen bro.


You may be quoting the wrong person here? I was merely chiming in saying that I've found the CORSAIR Link to be quite accurate in reporting the Wattage IN. I don't have a 1080, see my sig.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> You may be quoting the wrong person here? I was merely chiming in saying that I've found the CORSAIR Link to be quite accurate in reporting the Wattage IN. I don't have a 1080, see my sig.


yup, there's confusion. Saw the 1080s in coolb\hock post and went from there. Yup the 390's are fire breathers.


----------



## Kimir

lol those 1080 pulls nothing.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> lol those 1080 pulls nothing.


^^this. not even 200W ! ridiculous. We need a pascal bios tweaker!


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> So x99 with 1080 sli overclocked uses almost 1000 watts? Doesnt make sense


Haven't checked with my 1080s, but my 5960x with a 980 Ti SLI peaked just under 1100w from the wall. I'd imagine that just under 1000w from the wall can be expected with a high CPU and 1080 SLI overclock.

*This was total system draw*


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Haven't checked with my 1080s, but my 5960x with a 980 Ti SLI peaked just under 1100w from the wall. I'd imagine that just under 1000w from the wall can be expected with a high CPU and 1080 SLI overclock.
> 
> *This was total system draw*


That's odd. My old setup of i7 5960X @ 4.5ghz + 4.2ghz cache (1.3v vcore + 1.95v input. Have since got it down to 1.28v vcore) and SLI GTX TITAN X's @ 1,500mhz @ 1.22v plus all my water cooling setup (MCP655-B Pump, 480mm XSPC EX radiator, 420mm EK XTC radiator, 360mm HWL Black Ice GTX radiator. With 10x Corsair SP120 Quiet Editions running on the rads. 16GB 2666mhz DDR4 on Rampage V Extreme with both 8 and 4 pin plugged in.)

All with just an EVGA Supernova G2 1000w PSU, and i never had any trouble. Seems like i "should" be pulling at least about the same wattage as you, but never had any problems on that 1000w PSU.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> lol those 1080 pulls nothing.


The reference ones and such don't, for sure. (Even the Asus Strix and Gigabyte G1 etc.. only pull around 200-220 watts max.) My MSI Gaming X with voltage increased past the typical 1.06v VBIOS limitation can draw just over 300 watts though. (That's with voltage of 1.096v at 2,138mhz overclock and between 1.1 and 1.11v at 2,150mhz which is my max so far)

That's STILL not much in the grand scheme though; i mean even with TWO of the MSI Gaming X with that full voltage and power target etc.. you wouldn't be pulling more than maybe 800-850 watts max system total probably. And that's an awfully liberal estimate, probably more like 750-775w maybe.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> The reference ones and such don't, for sure. (Even the Asus Strix and Gigabyte G1 etc.. only pull around 200-220 watts max.) My MSI Gaming X with voltage increased past the typical 1.06v VBIOS limitation can draw just over 300 watts though. (That's with voltage of 1.096v at 2,138mhz overclock and between 1.1 and 1.11v at 2,150mhz which is my max so far)
> 
> That's STILL not much in the grand scheme though; i mean even with TWO of the MSI Gaming X with that full voltage and power target etc.. you wouldn't be pulling more than maybe 800-850 watts max system total probably.


nah, I don;t believe it pulls 300w. Show the measurement please. The TDP on that card is lower than 300. I see 1.1V on my FE and it barely uses 200W at 2187/11800 or 2202/10900
http://www.overclock.net/t/1360884/official-top-30-unigine-valley-benchmark-1-0/13000_20#post_25242910


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nah, I don;t believe it pulls 300w. Show the measurement please. The TDP on that card is lower than 300. I see 1.1V on my FE and it barely uses 200W at 2187/11800 or 2202/10900
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1360884/official-top-30-unigine-valley-benchmark-1-0/13000_20#post_25242910


The TDP on the card with the modified VBIOS is said by MSI to be 270 watts, with higher clock speed and power target raised etc.. it goes to 290 watts. Of course TDP is not 100% accurate to power draw, so here's some reviews showing power draw.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx1080_gtx1070_gaming_x_8g/10.htm

This review shows 326 watt load power draw with the card overclocked to 2,101mhz and just over 11,000mhz effective memory speed.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx1080_gtx1070_gaming_x_8g/4.htm

(this page shows the overclock to prove it was running at the higher core/vram speeds)

Also, here's GamersNexus with their review sample card (that doesn't have the modified VBIOS. Really unsure why MSI didn't give the modified BIOS cards for review. Perhaps they hadn't finished tweaking it by the time of release. Which explains the whole "BIOS version was changed, they're trying to cheat!" controversy with retail cards having a newer BIOS revision number than the review samples.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVZ3yqcSx4

Note he says that the power target only raises 107% max. (9:40 or so in the video) He also can only get the card to 1.062v, which again proves he doesn't have the modified VBIOS like mine does that hits 1.1v Here's a pic of my card with the custom VBIOS (his doesn't have it, again) reaching 121% power target, significantly higher than the 107% review cards get to on their normal BIOS. (and this is only at 2,126mhz core, although i do have memory at just over 11,000)

http://i.imgur.com/NzLlEHY.jpg

Here's the written GamersNexus review of the card, and you'll note he again states the card has "a tdp nearing 300 watt" even on his normal VBIOS limited to 107% and less voltage since its a review sample


----------



## DarkIdeals

Merged this post with the above one to save space. Might have to refresh to see the whole thing, sorry.


----------



## Silent Scone

Those reviews show the power draw of the entire system.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> The TDP on the card with the modified VBIOS is said by MSI to be 270 watts, with higher clock speed and power target raised etc.. it goes to 290 watts. Of course TDP is not 100% accurate to power draw, so here's some reviews showing power draw.
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx1080_gtx1070_gaming_x_8g/10.htm
> 
> This review shows 326 watt load power draw with the card overclocked to 2,101mhz and just over 11,000mhz effective memory speed.
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx1080_gtx1070_gaming_x_8g/4.htm
> 
> (this page shows the overclock to prove it was running at the higher core/vram speeds)
> 
> Also, here's GamersNexus with their review sample card (that doesn't have the modified VBIOS. Really unsure why MSI didn't give the modified BIOS cards for review. Perhaps they hadn't finished tweaking it by the time of release. Which explains the whole "BIOS version was changed, they're trying to cheat!" controversy with retail cards having a newer BIOS revision number than the review samples.)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVZ3yqcSx4
> 
> Note he says that the power target only raises 107% max. (9:40 or so in the video) He also can only get the card to 1.062v, which again proves he doesn't have the modified VBIOS like mine does that hits 1.1v Here's a pic of my card with the custom VBIOS (his doesn't have it, again) reaching 121% power target, significantly higher than the 107% review cards get to on their normal BIOS. (and this is only at 2,126mhz core, although i do have memory at just over 11,000)
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/NzLlEHY.jpg
> 
> Here's the written GamersNexus review of the card, and you'll note he again states the card has "a tdp nearing 300 watt" even on his normal VBIOS limited to 107% and less voltage since its a review sample


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Those reviews show the power draw of the entire system.


Yes LOL









"Power consumption of the system will be measured at both idle and loaded states, taking into account the peak voltage of the system with each video card installed."


----------



## Silent Scone

There are always casualties in graph wars.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Those reviews show the power draw of the entire system.


No they don't. Or at least shouldn't. If they are showing entire system then it has to be a card with stock BIOS, which since most review cards DO have stock BIOS i suppose the sites i saw could be the same. As i've personally seen my card and five other MSI Gaming X cards from friends who have them at high 200s in power consumption. As i said, MSI themselves have officially stated this card has a TDP of 270 watts stock and 290 watt when things are pumped in afterburner.

Plus the gamersnexus video and text review state that their card even using stock BIOS without the extra voltage allotment that the new modified VBIOS from MSI gives, had a TDP of over 250 watts. In general though, TDP is a seperate thing from actual power consumption, while it IS usually close, it's not a 100% accurate deal.

Perhaps the main difference here is the voltage, at least it seems that way. It's abundantly clear that nearly every reviewer was sent an inferior card without the modified VBIOS, which is why 90% of reviews can't get over 2050mhz or so on the card and every person i've talked to that owns a retail one gets well over 2,100mhz; and is also why the whole "ASUS and MSI are cheating with seperate BIOS for reviewers and retail!" conspiracy theory started; except people were thinking that the Review cards were FASTER than the Retail ones; not realizing that the "0.3% speed increase" the review cards had was simply due to the older .27 BIOS reviewers had forcing the card into "OC Mode' that had a higher GPU Boost 3.0 clock speed than the Retail newer BIOS which shipped with the card in "Gaming Mode" that had a lower GPU Boost 3.0 clock speed. But overall retail cards have a higher TDP, have a significantly larger power target increase available, and have a much higher voltage ceiling than the standard BIOS.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Yes LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Power consumption of the system will be measured at both idle and loaded states, taking into account the peak voltage of the system with each video card installed."


Yes LOL, just take one sentence from one review and try to make someone look stupid. Why don't you go call MSI and ask them yourself, it'll be a great laugh when they tell you that the card does indeed use that much wattage on its own in retail samples with overclocking and voltage increases.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Yes LOL, just take one sentence from one review and try to make someone look stupid. Why don't you go call MSI and ask them yourself, it'll be a great laugh when they tell you that the card does indeed use that much wattage on its own in retail samples with overclocking and voltage increases.


I tested now with my system:
Rampage V extreme
6900k @ stock
Msi 1080 gaming extreme @ stock
Watercooling @ cpu
3440x1440p @100hz

285w load in overwatch for the entire system!


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Yes LOL, just take one sentence from one review and try to make someone look stupid. Why don't you go call MSI and ask them yourself, it'll be a great laugh when they tell you that the card does indeed use that much wattage on its own in retail samples with overclocking and voltage increases.


I tested now with my system:
Rampage V extreme
6900k @ stock
Msi 1080 gaming extreme @ stock
Watercooling @ cpu
3440x1440p @100hz

285w load in overwatch for the entire system!

291w ingame in Battlefield 4 multiplayer.

Looks like I do not need 2x antec HCP 1300w psu


----------



## [email protected]

A more objective look at power consumption: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,review-33557-10.html


----------



## m0oks

Wow that's pretty low lol your power bill will love you.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> The TDP on the card with the modified VBIOS is said by MSI to be 270 watts, with higher clock speed and power target raised etc.. it goes to 290 watts. Of course TDP is not 100% accurate to power draw, so here's some reviews showing power draw.
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx1080_gtx1070_gaming_x_8g/10.htm
> 
> This review shows 326 watt load power draw with the card overclocked to 2,101mhz and just over 11,000mhz effective memory speed.
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx1080_gtx1070_gaming_x_8g/4.htm
> 
> (this page shows the overclock to prove it was running at the higher core/vram speeds)
> 
> Also, here's GamersNexus with their review sample card (that doesn't have the modified VBIOS. Really unsure why MSI didn't give the modified BIOS cards for review. Perhaps they hadn't finished tweaking it by the time of release. Which explains the whole "BIOS version was changed, they're trying to cheat!" controversy with retail cards having a newer BIOS revision number than the review samples.)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVZ3yqcSx4
> 
> Note he says that the power target only raises 107% max. (9:40 or so in the video) He also can only get the card to 1.062v, which again proves he doesn't have the modified VBIOS like mine does that hits 1.1v Here's a pic of my card with the custom VBIOS (his doesn't have it, again) reaching 121% power target, significantly higher than the 107% review cards get to on their normal BIOS. (and this is only at 2,126mhz core, although i do have memory at just over 11,000)
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/NzLlEHY.jpg
> 
> Here's the written GamersNexus review of the card, and you'll note he again states the card has "a tdp nearing 300 watt" even on his normal VBIOS limited to 107% and less voltage since its a review sample


Believe what you wish. I tend to believe what we measure here...

yes - I know those reviews. For example the Overclockers review claims 2101 and 320W during Heaven 4.0... they also claim 116FPS in that test at 1080P.
Using the same CPU, and an FE card, I get 130FPS and lower wattage overall (they do measure system-wide power). One can use a lot of wattage for error correction.







\

2101 / 11200


http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-4-0-scores/3260_20#post_25243211

Lastly... *you keep mentioning this "non-stock bios"*... if you know how to flash these cards then you know how to save the OEM bios. Please post the OEM bios for the Gamer X.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 6950x @ 4.4, AVX 4.3, cache 3.8, 64GB ram at 3400c14 w/ 1.45V.


Jpmboy, what voltage did you end up using for 4.4Ghz stable and cache @3.8? Just looking for ballpark, thanks.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Jpmboy, what voltage did you end up using for 4.4Ghz stable and cache @3.8? Just looking for ballpark, thanks.


1.34V adaptive for core, 1.32 offset for cache.







Before running over 1.3 cache on a new release... get the ITP.








Not that we know 1.3 cache is an issue, but it is getting up there. cache at 3.7 is only 1.22-ish volts.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 1.34V adaptive for core, 1.32 offset for cache.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before running over 1.3 cache on a new release... get the ITP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that we know 1.3 cache is an issue, but it is getting up there. cache at 3.7 is only 1.22-ish volts.


thanks for the info. 50 is well worth it for that ITP







I hope my CPU don't require an LN2 to get 4.4G haha.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> That's odd. My old setup of i7 5960X @ 4.5ghz + 4.2ghz cache (1.3v vcore + 1.95v input. Have since got it down to 1.28v vcore) and SLI GTX TITAN X's @ 1,500mhz @ 1.22v plus all my water cooling setup (MCP655-B Pump, 480mm XSPC EX radiator, 420mm EK XTC radiator, 360mm HWL Black Ice GTX radiator. With 10x Corsair SP120 Quiet Editions running on the rads. 16GB 2666mhz DDR4 on Rampage V Extreme with both 8 and 4 pin plugged in.)
> 
> All with just an EVGA Supernova G2 1000w PSU, and i never had any trouble. Seems like i "should" be pulling at least about the same wattage as you, but never had any problems on that 1000w PSU.


Hopefully the information I provided didn't in some way imply that I wanted that number to be true. It just was.

You're configuration and mine were not similar in very many ways other than maybe one or two major components, which were configured completely differently. When running benchmarks, my 5960x sees 4.8+, 1.5v+ regularly and my 980 Tis saw voltage increases as well when I still had them.

I'm not exactly sure how much electrical load your list of radiators added to you overall power consumption, but my 5 x 360 rads are very very efficient in this area.







Two D5 pumps and 25 fans might add a very small portion to the peak number I saw as well.

The number I provided was a peak that I hit during a benchmark to simply say, it can happen. I did not regularly draw anywhere near that amount.

I'm more than confident that my old setup would have been more than fine with a 1000w PSU, especially when you factor in a bit of overhead.


----------



## Synik

happy that I got a good 6800k. It can do 4.5 ghz but the voltage and temp not worth the extra 0.1 ghz IMO. Happy with 4.4 ghz. Just need to find a stable voltage. Testing 1.35 so far and cache at 3.7. 3.8 cache requires more than 1.3 cache volt and increases temperature too much. Cache volt is set to 1.23. Lots of tuning and stabiity test left to do.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> happy that I got a good 6800k. It can do 4.5 ghz but the voltage and temp not worth the extra 0.1 ghz IMO. Happy with 4.4 ghz. Just need to find a stable voltage. Testing 1.35 so far and cache at 3.7. 3.8 cache requires more than 1.3 cache volt and increases temperature too much. Cache volt is set to 1.23. Lots of tuning and stabiity test left to do.


Where did you get your 6800K? Was it a siliconlottery one, or purchased as retail? What core voltage did you need to hit that 4.5ghz?

I'm looking into getting a 4.5ghz capable 6800K, but all siliconlottery has are 4.4ghz binned models sadly. Wondering if their 4.4 binned models will reach 4.5ghz at a safe 24/7 voltage on my custom 480/420/360 rad water loop...


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Where did you get your 6800K? Was it a siliconlottery one, or purchased as retail? What core voltage did you need to hit that 4.5ghz?
> 
> I'm looking into getting a 4.5ghz capable 6800K, but all siliconlottery has are 4.4ghz binned models sadly. Wondering if their 4.4 binned models will reach 4.5ghz at a safe 24/7 voltage on my custom 480/420/360 rad water loop...


Got it at microcenter. Not sure if it matters but had similar batch number as one I saw on Youtube that hit 4.5 ghz at 1.45 volts. At work so I can let you know later. It was around 1.4 volts and my h110I gtx would hit 80c not on max but noticeable fan speed so backed off as I wanted to run silent. I can try it again later tonight with everything full blast. Realbench crashed at 15 minutes so would need to up voltage a little more but I was also running my 980 ti in sli without knowing it needs to be off.

I got 2 hours stable Realbench at 4.4 at 1.35 v and 3.7 cache at 1.25 v. May try lowering volts a bit more but temps never hit 80. Max on one core was 76 running fans at 1200 rpm on silent fan profile


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m0oks*
> 
> Oh that's good news then. Where should I go from here? I've kind of hit the limit of my knowledge and wouldn't really know where to start to try and get 1T stable. What would have been the main factor of it being unstable? Not enough vCore to handle the transactions? Or...SA Volts? I tried bumping up the DIMM volts to 1.45 which didnt help, also tried fiddling with the system agent and a couple others and couldnt get it working.
> I definitely will
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna talk to him and see if there isnt a chance we can get 1T happening.
> I'm running 2x Asus R9 390x OC Strix, a couple of SSD, 1 HDD and an EK Predator 240. A total of 9 fans, pretty standard, nothing high amps or anything. This is all on Asus Deluxe 2, 128GB RAM and 6950x. Will put my rig in my signature.
> 
> See my comment below regarding accuracy.
> Actually, I'm quite impressed with it's accuracy. I'm hooked up to a UPS which is reporting the same wattage (+-20W or so). I also get a warning from my UPS saying there's less than 5mins of battery capacity whenever I start a stress test hahahah. It's a pretty beefy home grade UPS too! Need a big battery if you wanna last long pulling 1kw.....


I run 3200mhz 14-15-15-33-1T with a TREF of 31500. That's on a 5930k. You can definitely run 1T.

*edit*

I didn't see you had 128gb of RAM.... you might have a hard time running 1T with 128gb. Up your RAM volts to 1.45 and your System Agent to 1.25. Throw a little voltage into the cache too. I've seen it help stability with RAM.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Yes LOL, just take one sentence from one review and try to make someone look stupid. Why don't you go call MSI and ask them yourself, it'll be a great laugh when they tell you that the card does indeed use that much wattage on its own in retail samples with overclocking and voltage increases.


Dude. No GTX 1080 draws even close to 300w. Seriously, shut up already. You're getting annoying. As is your attitude.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> Got it at microcenter. Not sure if it matters but had similar batch number as one I saw on Youtube that hit 4.5 ghz at 1.45 volts. At work so I can let you know later. It was around 1.4 volts and my h110I gtx would hit 80c not on max but noticeable fan speed so backed off as I wanted to run silent. I can try it again later tonight with everything full blast. Realbench crashed at 15 minutes so would need to up voltage a little more but I was also running my 980 ti in sli without knowing it needs to be off.
> 
> I got 2 hours stable Realbench at 4.4 at 1.35 v and 3.7 cache at 1.25 v. May try lowering volts a bit more but temps never hit 80. Max on one core was 76 running fans at 1200 rpm on silent fan profile


Ok, cool. Thanks for the info. I ordered the 4.4ghz Binned i7 6800K from siliconlottery and it is guaranteed to hit 4.4ghz at 1.344v core voltage (or lower) so hopefully i'll get a good sample that hits it at ~1.3v or something, especially since they do their testing on an H105 240mm AIO cooler and i have the triple radiator setup with 480mm, 420mm, and 360mm radiators (total of 1,260mm of radiator space) which should keep temps significantly lower and presumably allow same frequency at slightly lower voltage than on an AIO.

Basically all i care about is getting the 6800K to 4.5ghz at a "safe for everyday use voltage" of like 1.375v or lower. (i'd settle for anything 1.4v or less though since i can jsut get the intel tuning plan for $35 to get a free replacement)

I'm honestly considering getting the Broadwell-E De-lidding tool from D8aur's site when it comes out (he's supposedly considering mass producing it). It uses a solid aluminum block that grips the CPU and a special thumb screw and plate that will "push" on the IHS from an angle, moving it ~1mm from its normal position, then you turn the CPU around and do the same to the other side, and that "loosens" the glue under the IHS allowing it to come off even with the Soldered on die! Then you just use a razor blade or something to scrape the indium solder off the die and apply some Cool Laboratory Liquid Ultra and on a 6950X 10 core he got 6 degrees C lower average temps and 8 degrees C lower max temps under load! That could very well give me the little push i need to hit 24/7 stable voltaged 4.5ghz on a 6800K!


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I run 3200mhz 14-15-15-33-1T with a TREF of 31500. That's on a 5930k. You can definitely run 1T.
> 
> *edit*
> 
> I didn't see you had 128gb of RAM.... you might have a hard time running 1T with 128gb. Up your RAM volts to 1.45 and your System Agent to 1.25. Throw a little voltage into the cache too. I've seen it help stability with RAM.
> Dude. No GTX 1080 draws even close to 300w. Seriously, shut up already. You're getting annoying. As is your attitude.


Dude. HE is the one with the attitude mocking me, i simply replied in kind. And its people with childish "pics or get out" nonsense are the annoying ones lol. I got absolute confirmation from MSI that their card uses that wattage and i've confirmed it on my PC watt readings too as have multiple other people. Go look at gamersnexus review and Jayz2Cents review, he states the same; that the card is listed at 270w TDP at stock and 290w TDP with max power target lifted, with Gamersnexus stating that their card WITHOUT extra voltage limit was capable of passing 250w. The only reason this 1080 uses this much is that it has a much higher voltage limit of around 1.11v in the VBIOS compared to 1.065 on basically every other 1080.

EDIT: Look, i don't mean any offense here. Not trying to be rude. But i KNOW for a fact that this card draws just at 300watts or so. And got confirmation from several sources including the manufacturer. If you guys don't believe me go get the card and pump it to 1.1v


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Ok, cool. Thanks for the info. I ordered the 4.4ghz Binned i7 6800K from siliconlottery and it is guaranteed to hit 4.4ghz at 1.344v core voltage (or lower) so hopefully i'll get a good sample that hits it at ~1.3v or something, especially since they do their testing on an H105 240mm AIO cooler and i have the triple radiator setup with 480mm, 420mm, and 360mm radiators (total of 1,260mm of radiator space) which should keep temps significantly lower and presumably allow same frequency at slightly lower voltage than on an AIO.
> 
> Basically all i care about is getting the 6800K to 4.5ghz at a "safe for everyday use voltage" of like 1.375v or lower. (i'd settle for anything 1.4v or less though since i can jsut get the intel tuning plan for $35 to get a free replacement)
> 
> I'm honestly considering getting the Broadwell-E De-lidding tool from D8aur's site when it comes out (he's supposedly considering mass producing it). It uses a solid aluminum block that grips the CPU and a special thumb screw and plate that will "push" on the IHS from an angle, moving it ~1mm from its normal position, then you turn the CPU around and do the same to the other side, and that "loosens" the glue under the IHS allowing it to come off even with the Soldered on die! Then you just use a razor blade or something to scrape the indium solder off the die and apply some Cool Laboratory Liquid Ultra and on a 6950X 10 core he got 6 degrees C lower average temps and 8 degrees C lower max temps under load! That could very well give me the little push i need to hit 24/7 stable voltaged 4.5ghz on a 6800K!


Whoa... I wonder if his tool will work with Haswell-E. Have some CRAP temps with my 5930k.

Super cool that this tool was made.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Dude. HE is the one with the attitude mocking me, i simply replied in kind. And you people with your childish "pics or get out" nonsense are the annoying ones lol. I got absolute confirmation from MSI that their card uses that wattage and i've confirmed it on my PC watt readings too as have multiple other people. Go look at Jayz2Cents review, he states the same; that the card is listed at 270w TDP at stock and 290w TDP with max power target lifted. The only reason this 1080 uses this much is that it has a much higher voltage limit of around 1.11v in the VBIOS compared to 1.065 on basically every other 1080.


Jay2Cents is a moron. Utterly.

Really bad person to use as an example. He drilled a motherboard....literally ALL his credibility died when that mobo did.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Whoa... I wonder if his tool will work with Haswell-E. Have some CRAP temps with my 5930k.
> 
> Super cool that this tool was made.


It does indeed. It has two sides to the metal block, kinda like a "casette tape" Side A has Broadwell-E and you flip it over and Side B has Haswell-E, they are different sizes to fit the CPU


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Jay2Cents is a moron. Utterly.
> 
> Really bad person to use as an example. He drilled a motherboard....literally ALL his credibility died when that mobo did.


I know he's a moron. That doesn't change the fact that he got his info straight from MSI, and like him or not is considered "important enough" to get access to info most aren't from companies.

Like i said, i mean no offense or rudeness. But i know that this card uses that wattage; only at high voltage though. Consider Pascal as like Broadwell-E, they are both on brand new 16nm and 14nm process which causes much DENSER and hotter chips. So voltage raises result in MUCH higher heat per mv of added VCORE. So at 1.1v the 1080 gets WAY higher power usage to keep the card cool etc..


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> It does indeed. It has two sides to the metal block, kinda like a "casette tape" Side A has Broadwell-E and you flip it over and Side B has Haswell-E, they are different sizes to fit the CPU


Bro that's awesome. Thanks for the info.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I know he's a moron. That doesn't change the fact that he got his info straight from MSI, and like him or not is considered "important enough" to get access to info most aren't from companies.


Fair enough. Hehe.

It's hard for me to see a 180w card pull 300w and over with relatively the same BIOS as all other cards. Even if it is a custom MSI card.

That's like 55% more wattage.... it just doesn't seem right. Nothing against you, you seem solid.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Whoa... I wonder if his tool will work with Haswell-E. Have some CRAP temps with my 5930k.
> 
> Super cool that this tool was made.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf8V_UulpBk

EDIT: wrong video sorry. might have to refresh to get the right one

Here you go! There's the vid of him using the tool to de-lid a 6950X!


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Fair enough. Hehe.
> 
> It's hard for me to see a 180w card pull 300w and over with relatively the same BIOS as all other cards. Even if it is a custom MSI card.
> 
> That's like 55% more wattage.... it just doesn't seem right. Nothing against you, you seem solid.


I didn't manage to edit it into the post in time, but the reason for the MSI using such higher wattage is that it has such higher voltage limit. Nearly ALL 1080 models are limited to 1.06v to 1.065v or so in the VBIOS. But this MSI with modded bios limits allows up to around 1.11v max. My card sits at 1.096v most of the time at 2,150mhz. When i pump memory to 11,200mhz (max i can go) it hits 1.1v solid typically. This causes it to use the entire "107% TDP" that you get when you raise power limit to the max 107% the slider will go. You'll notice that 107% of 270 watts = 288.9 watts which is just under 300. Which is what i get with it overclocked so high with that extra voltage. If i don't touch voltage my max OC is ~2,088 - 2,100mhz or so and ~11,000mhz max memory; and voltage stays around 1.075v max, and wattage stays at more like 85-90% TDP at most (~225 - 235 watts at most)


----------



## Silent Scone

Worth pointing out that specification for TDP rating is used pretty loosely with some vendors. The meaning varies, and largely doesn't even relate to the maximum power consumption. So throwing these numbers around without the proper testing equipment is pointless. Raja posted a link earlier from Toms Hardware, who just happen to have the right equipment and approach.

This is also the Broadwell-E thread, not Pascal thread.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Worth pointing out that specification for TDP rating is used pretty loosely with some vendors. The meaning varies, and largely doesn't even relate to the power consumption.


Yeah indeed, that's true. I think i mentioned that before. However i have seen the card use around 280 - 290 watts from a kill-a-watt; so it really does seem like it can hit those levels.

Remember that Broadwell-E due to having the super dense 14nm process gets WAY hotter at the same voltage compared to Haswell-E which is part of why it's so overclock limited. Pascal is the same! 16nm makes it SUPER dense especially on that tiny 317mm2 die. This high density means its MUCH harder to dissipate the heat of the 1080 than older cards. And in turn this means that every little bit of voltage you add will add nearly double the temperature increase that you'd see on Maxwell! So at 1.11v you're looking at a nice temp increase and a nice wattage increase for the cooler to try and dissipate that massive heat output. if you see what i mean.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I didn't manage to edit it into the post in time, but the reason for the MSI using such higher wattage is that it has such higher voltage limit. Nearly ALL 1080 models are limited to 1.06v to 1.065v or so in the VBIOS. But this MSI with modded bios limits allows up to around 1.11v max. My card sits at 1.096v most of the time at 2,150mhz. When i pump memory to 11,200mhz (max i can go) it hits 1.1v solid typically. This causes it to use the entire "107% TDP" that you get when you raise power limit to the max 107% the slider will go. You'll notice that 107% of 270 watts = 288.9 watts which is just under 300. Which is what i get with it overclocked so high with that extra voltage. If i don't touch voltage my max OC is ~2,088 - 2,100mhz or so and ~11,000mhz max memory; and voltage stays around 1.075v max, and wattage stays at more like 85-90% TDP at most (~225 - 235 watts at most)


Hmmm. I see what you mean now. I really can't argue with those numbers. Voltage + Clock speed does make wattage go up exponentially.

It's nice to see your 1080 does 2100+ with 1.1v. I get around 1.026v at 2050 so hopefully once we get some bioses to play with we can both go even higher.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Hmmm. I see what you mean now. I really can't argue with those numbers. Voltage + Clock speed does make wattage go up exponentially.
> 
> It's nice to see your 1080 does 2100+ with 1.1v. I get around 1.026v at 2050 so hopefully once we get some bioses to play with we can both go even higher.


Yeah the voltage limitations and temperature are really the golden chance for GTX 1080s, if you want higher than the agonizing ~2050mhz wall most cards stick at, you usually have to raise the VBIOS voltage limit of 1.065v max, and try to keep temps as low as humanly possible!

This is why GamersNexus was able to get their founders 1080 that wouldn't go over ~2,060mhz normally, to get to 2,164mhz or so just by adding an EVGA 980 TI AIO unit to it to lower temps. The lower temps thereby increased the voltage limit (founder cards are auto-controlled with voltage. With low temps you can apparently hit around 1.08v on it, although its tough to do that on air. So usually air cooled founder 1080 is stuck at the same ~1.065v range) They even managed to push the 1080 founders to 2,201mhz by downclocking the memory frequency by ~500mhz from the base 10,000mhz to ~9,500mhz which freed up extra watts and volts etc..

So i think that cards like the MSI with extra ~1.11v max voltage will be great with water cooling! I'm hoping for 2,200mhz + 11,000mhz memory personally. The Galax HOF 1080 has hit 2,200mhz on air so i'm optimistic. (the Galax HOF is another card with the higher VBIOS voltage limit. Only three that are confirmed are t he MSI Gaming, EVGA Classified, and Galax HOF. Although some people are spreading rumors that the Gigabyte Xtreme has some sort of higher VBIOS voltage limit)


----------



## DarkIdeals

But yeah, here's the correct video for how to De-Lid Haswell-E and Broadwell-E chips guys! I had the wrong video posted earlier, corrected it though. FIgured i'd repost so people who missed it or got the wrong vid can see it now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf8V_UulpBk

(apparently he got a TEN DEGREE CELSIUS drop on Haswell-E 5960X by the way! So it seems even more effective on HW-E than on BW-E)


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> But yeah, here's the correct video for how to De-Lid Haswell-E and Broadwell-E chips guys! I had the wrong video posted earlier, corrected it though. FIgured i'd repost so people who missed it or got the wrong vid can see it now.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf8V_UulpBk


So cool. So damn cool.

I have a 10c difference on my worst core with my 5930k. I am seriously considering this.

It's holding me back bigtime. While my best core is at 75c this one is at 85c... sometimes even more.

That's basically why I can't go over 1.4v with AVX. It's that damn crap core. Hehe.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Yeah the voltage limitations and temperature are really the golden chance for GTX 1080s, if you want higher than the agonizing ~2050mhz wall most cards stick at, you usually have to raise the VBIOS voltage limit of 1.065v max, and try to keep temps as low as humanly possible!
> 
> This is why GamersNexus was able to get their founders 1080 that wouldn't go over ~2,060mhz normally, to get to 2,164mhz or so just by adding an EVGA 980 TI AIO unit to it to lower temps. The lower temps thereby increased the voltage limit (founder cards are auto-controlled with voltage. With low temps you can apparently hit around 1.08v on it, although its tough to do that on air. So usually air cooled founder 1080 is stuck at the same ~1.065v range) They even managed to push the 1080 founders to 2,201mhz by downclocking the memory frequency by ~500mhz from the base 10,000mhz to ~9,500mhz which freed up extra watts and volts etc..
> 
> So i think that cards like the MSI with extra ~1.11v max voltage will be great with water cooling! I'm hoping for 2,200mhz + 11,000mhz memory personally. The Galax HOF 1080 has hit 2,200mhz on air so i'm optimistic. (the Galax HOF is another card with the higher VBIOS voltage limit. Only three that are confirmed are t he MSI Gaming, EVGA Classified, and Galax HOF. Although some people are spreading rumors that the Gigabyte Xtreme has some sort of higher VBIOS voltage limit)


I did read the Gamers Nexus review. Interesting results for sure.

Kind of makes me want to play with my FE a bit more. Lol.

I really want to put an AIO on it. You're so right when it comes to temps and voltage. Cool technology, annoying to enthusiasts however.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> So cool. So damn cool.


I know! lol. I would pay an arm and a leg for one of these haha! I can't believe people like siliconlottery aren't already trying to get their hands on one of these. I'd totally pay ~$50-60 for them to de-lid for me if this tool was expensive or i couldn't get one for whatever reason etc..

Makes me wanna not sell my 5960X lol. My 5960X has always sat at either stock or 4.5ghz @ 1.28v most of the time since i never found it really worth it to go 4.6ghz since i needed ~1.375v+ and had to raise input voltage from 1.95v to like 1.98v etc.. which caused ~10C temp increases across the board from the higher voltage.

I did love to benchmark it though. With 4.6ghz core and 4.3ghz cache + 3000mhz DDR4 i got a Cinebench R15 score of 1,814 points and 184 points in single core!

http://i.imgur.com/SkTiG5L.png

Makes me almost regret trying to sell it and get the ~4.5ghz 6800K instead lol.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I did read the Gamers Nexus review. Interesting results for sure.
> 
> Kind of makes me want to play with my FE a bit more. Lol.
> 
> I really want to put an AIO on it. You're so right when it comes to temps and voltage. Cool technology, annoying to enthusiasts however.


I kinda wonder if you could modify like the EK Predator or the Swiftech H240X Prestige etc.. to fit on a GPU?!?! That would be pretty damn cool i must admit lol. All you'd have to do is take the EK Predator or Swiftech unit and unscrew the fittings from the EK Supremacy MX CPU waterblock that comes on it and buy a GPU "universal block" and attach that to the fittings instead. (since the predator and swiftech are open loops that are just pre-built like an AIO you can take them apart etc.. and they have quick disconnect fittings which is fantastic)

Speaking of quick disconnect, did you hear about the new EK waterblocks for the Strix 1080? They're selling it with fluid pre-filled in it and a quick disconnect fitting attached to it already for ~$20 extra, so if you have an AIO like the EK Predator on your CPU you can just pop the quick disconnect on the predator and pop your GPU block into the loop and you're good to go. Seems like "open AIO" units are actually catching up to custom loops haha.

If you have a founders edition card though, you might want to look into an actual water block or something instead of an AIO. You can get like the "EK Thermosphere" which is a universal reference waterblock but much larger than the tiny little uniblocks we're used to seeing; it cools the VRM too in addition to the core. And looks much better imo.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> So cool. So damn cool.
> 
> I have a 10c difference on my worst core with my 5930k. I am seriously considering this.
> 
> It's holding me back bigtime. While my best core is at 75c this one is at 85c... sometimes even more.
> 
> That's basically why I can't go over 1.4v with AVX. It's that damn crap core. Hehe.


Yeah that would definitely benefit from a de-lid then! Too bad you don't have a 6850K actually, because Broadwell-E introduced a new technology for "core ranking" which is where the OS will be able to tell you which of your cores are the "Best cores" that can OC highest. And you can program it to, whenever you are running a single threaded type program or game that only uses one two or three cores etc.., that the CPU will instead of spreading the load on all 6 cores with ~25% load on all 6 of them; it'll put the ENTIRE load on just the two "best cores" and will allow you to overclock more.

Like say your 5930K can hit 4.6ghz with all 6 cores, but can't hit 4.7ghz because of that bad ~85C core. With this core ranking ability, the CPU would take the entire load and put it on your best two cores and clock them up to 4.7ghz or even 4.8ghz, and then DOWNclock or possibly disable the other 3-4 cores, in order to provide the two or three cores with the load on them with the entire voltage/wattage of the whole CPU. VERY useful in certain situations. It's basically like how pro overclockers turn off all but one or two cores in order to hit like ~6ghz+ on an 8 core CPU, it helps you get a higher clocked CPU than you usually would in programs that aren't using all yoru cores.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I kinda wonder if you could modify like the EK Predator or the Swiftech H240X Prestige etc.. to fit on a GPU?!?! That would be pretty damn cool i must admit lol. All you'd have to do is take the EK Predator or Swiftech unit and unscrew the fittings from the EK Supremacy MX CPU waterblock that comes on it and buy a GPU "universal block" and attach that to the fittings instead. (since the predator and swiftech are open loops that are just pre-built like an AIO you can take them apart etc.. and they have quick disconnect fittings which is fantastic)
> 
> Speaking of quick disconnect, did you hear about the new EK waterblocks for the Strix 1080? They're selling it with fluid pre-filled in it and a quick disconnect fitting attached to it already for ~$20 extra, so if you have an AIO like the EK Predator on your CPU you can just pop the quick disconnect on the predator and pop your GPU block into the loop and you're good to go. Seems like "open AIO" units are actually catching up to custom loops haha.
> 
> If you have a founders edition card though, you might want to look into an actual water block or something instead of an AIO. You can get like the "EK Thermosphere" which is a universal reference waterblock but much larger than the tiny little uniblocks we're used to seeing; it cools the VRM too in addition to the core. And looks much better imo.


That would be cool. For sure. I really like the look of the Swiftech 240x.

I have a Phobya 200mm Rad that would be PERFECT for a 1080 I think. That's the beauty of these cards, we won't need much rad space to cool them.

I thought the thermosphere was not compatible with the 1080's? Full water block doesn't seem to be worth it this time around. Looks only ya know?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> That would be cool. For sure. I really like the look of the Swiftech 240x.
> 
> I have a Phobya 200mm Rad that would be PERFECT for a 1080 I think. That's the beauty of these cards, we won't need much rad space to cool them.
> 
> I thought the thermosphere was not compatible with the 1080's? Full water block doesn't seem to be worth it this time around. Looks only ya know?


Oh? You might be right, i haven't checked if the thermosphere fits the 1080. I just assumed it did since we're talking about a reference board and the thermosphere has fit virtually every reference card since the 700 series iirc.

Interesitngly, MSI is actually selling a 1080 called the "EK Seahawk" which is just their Gaming X card like i have with the ~1.11v modified VBIOS voltage limit, but instead of having a single 8 pin with reference board just with a corsair H55 on it like the regualr MSI seahawk has; this is the full 8 + 6 pin Gaming X card with a nice looking custom EK Waterblock installed on it! It even has a laser etched EK logo and the MSI dragon laser etched on the block etc.. its a nice plexi nickel block too! $800 on newegg currently. They ran out though when the pre-orders went live a few days ago.

Kinda pissed me off that MSI didn't tell us the EK Seahawk 1080 was coming as i would've never bought my Gaming X for $720 if i knew that i could've saved $80+ off the cost of a Gaming X + EK full cover block ($720 + ~$130 for full cover block + $35 for backplate = $885. much more expensive, and its probably not even the nice laser etched custom block either!)

Another interesting thing is that Jacob from EVGA confirmed that there will be "Several versions of the 1080 Hydro Copper" and would "neither confirm nor deny that a GTX 1080 Classified Hydro Copper exists and/or is in the works" i'd jump on a 1080 hydro copper classified in a SECOND lol.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Oh? You might be right, i haven't checked if the thermosphere fits the 1080. I just assumed it did since we're talking about a reference board and the thermosphere has fit virtually every reference card since the 700 series iirc.
> 
> Interesitngly, MSI is actually selling a 1080 called the "EK Seahawk" which is just their Gaming X card like i have with the ~1.11v modified VBIOS voltage limit, but instead of having a single 8 pin with reference board just with a corsair H55 on it like the regualr MSI seahawk has; this is the full 8 + 6 pin Gaming X card with a nice looking custom EK Waterblock installed on it! It even has a laser etched EK logo and the MSI dragon laser etched on the block etc.. its a nice plexi nickel block too! $800 on newegg currently. They ran out though when the pre-orders went live a few days ago.
> 
> Kinda pissed me off that MSI didn't tell us the EK Seahawk 1080 was coming as i would've never bought my Gaming X for $720 if i knew that i could've saved $80+ off the cost of a Gaming X + EK full cover block ($720 + ~$130 for full cover block + $35 for backplate = $885. much more expensive, and its probably not even the nice laser etched custom block either!)
> 
> Another interesting thing is that Jacob from EVGA confirmed that there will be "Several versions of the 1080 Hydro Copper" and would "neither confirm nor deny that a GTX 1080 Classified Hydro Copper exists and/or is in the works" i'd jump on a 1080 hydro copper classified in a SECOND lol.


Anything said by me about the Thermosphere would just be speculation ATM. However I do remember seeing posts saying it needs to be modded to fit. That's what I'm going on, hehe.

The Seahawk looks amazing. It's the one card I'd want over my FE. I can see how you'd have a little buyers remorse over that one. Haha. I heard EVGA was releasing the Hybrid Kit for the 1080 as well.

Seems like we have many, many water options now. Those quick disconnect models you were talking about sound just sickeningly cool.


----------



## Kimir

You guys have to learn how to edit your post and use multi quote to avoid doing consecutive posts.


----------



## Jpmboy

delidding a soldered CPU IHS is good for only one purpose - direct to die cooling. otherwise what are you gonna do? Put CLU on it?








More cracked silicon than happy delidders. You still need to heat the IHS even with a mircometer drift. (it's a standard machine shop technique - blue print an engine, you'll know first hand







)


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> You guys have to learn how to edit your post and use multi quote to avoid doing consecutive posts.


I know... I'm on my Note 5. Apologies for the extra posts. It's possible to do multi quotes and the like, it gets harder the more you do it though.

Laziness.... hehe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> delidding a soldered CPU IHS is good for only one purpose - direct to die cooling. otherwise what are you gonna do? Put CLU on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cracked silicon than happy delidders. You still need to heat the IHS even with a mircometer drift. (it's a standard machine shop technique - blue print an engine, you'll know first hand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


I'd do direct die of course. I have a Raystorm on my 5930k now so cooling direct die would be a matter of a few more turns of the screws.

I'm still very interested. I'd like to try this, I don't want to kill a 5930k though....


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Dude. HE is the one with the attitude mocking me, i simply replied in kind. And its people with childish "pics or get out" nonsense are the annoying ones lol. *I got absolute confirmation from MSI that their card uses that wattage* and i've confirmed it on my PC watt readings too as have multiple other people. Go look at gamersnexus review and Jayz2Cents review, he states the same; that the card is listed at 270w TDP at stock and 290w TDP with max power target lifted, with Gamersnexus stating that their card WITHOUT extra voltage limit was capable of passing 250w. The only reason this 1080 uses this much is that it has a much higher voltage limit of around 1.11v in the VBIOS compared to 1.065 on basically every other 1080.
> 
> EDIT: Look, i don't mean any offense here. Not trying to be rude. But i KNOW for a fact that this card draws just at 300watts or so. And got confirmation from several sources including the manufacturer. If you guys don't believe me go get the card and pump it to 1.1v


Same place you got a vmod bios from?

*Pics are proof*... kinda dispels the BS.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I know... I'm on my Note 5. Apologies for the extra posts. It's possible to do multi quotes and the like, it gets harder the more you do it though.
> 
> Laziness.... hehe
> I'd do direct die of course. I have a Raystorm on my 5930k now so cooling direct die would be a matter of *a few more turns of the screws.*
> 
> I'm still very interested. I'd like to try this, I don't want to kill a 5930k though....


sorry man - that's just so wrong! you need to use shims or the die will crack. Report back with how you do going direct to die bareback.


----------



## alawadhi3000

A mod really has to clean the thread.


----------



## Jpmboy

unfortunately "fantasy" is not a TOS violation.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> sorry man - that's just so wrong! you need to use shims or the die will crack. Report back with how you do going direct to die bareback.


Ok ok.... Yeah a shim would be a great idea.

You are completely correct.

Thanks for the reminder. We won't be finding out how my CPU did with direct contact without a shim. Hehe.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Ok ok.... Yeah a shim would be a great idea.
> 
> You are completely correct.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder. We won't be finding out how my CPU did with direct contact without a shim. Hehe.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> unfortunately "fantasy" is not a TOS violation.


I see it more as stupidity actually, but hey I believe him if he says so.


----------



## lilchronic




----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*


This thing rocks. Saw it an passed over it. Now it's slightly viable.

Thx for the post.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*


aren't these specific to each CPU SKU? eg, the PCB thickness alone is really different between HWE, SLK and BWE.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> aren't these specific to each CPU SKU? eg, the PCB thickness alone is really different between HWE, SLK and BWE.


x99. Im sure they will come out with one for BWE


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Same place you got a vmod bios from?
> 
> *Pics are proof*... kinda dispels the BS.


Jeez man. What about THE CARD COMES WITH A VMOD BIOS don't you get? ALL of the MSI gaming X cards have that bios. They ALL hit ~1.1v max and settle in the 1.09v - 1.096v range on average.

Here's me hitting 2,152mhz with 1.093v, well above the limits other cards have of 1.06 - 1.065v range. With the new update which now has 121% TDP limit now, raising wattage even farther.

http://i.imgur.com/ygSDdp3.jpg

Here's info with MSI themselves stating the card comes with a modified VBIOS

http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2454-exclusive-with-msi-new-gtx-1080-twin-frozr-vi-overclocking

Some people, i swear....


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> x99. Im sure they will come out with one for BWE


Here's the tool i mentioned before, except the Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake etc... LGA1150/1151 etc.. verson

https://www.caseking.de/der8auer-delid-die-mate-fsd8-015.html

The LGA 2011-V3 one is supposed to be available in the near future. Not sure about the die guard pictured above, been some time since i've even heard about it. I've heard people swear by it though, so it seems to be a good product.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Here's me hitting 2,152mhz with 1.093v, well above the limits other cards have of 1.06 - 1.065v range. With the new update which now has 121% TDP limit now, raising wattage even farther.


Out of curiosity, what did you gain with this extra voltage?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Jeez man. What about THE CARD COMES WITH A VMOD BIOS don't you get? ALL of the MSI gaming X cards have that bios. They ALL hit ~1.1v max and settle in the 1.09v - 1.096v range on average.
> 
> Here's me hitting 2,152mhz with 1.093v, well above the limits other cards have of 1.06 - 1.065v range. With the new update which now has 121% TDP limit now, raising wattage even farther.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/ygSDdp3.jpg
> 
> Here's info with MSI themselves stating the card comes with a modified VBIOS
> 
> http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2454-exclusive-with-msi-new-gtx-1080-twin-frozr-vi-overclocking
> 
> Some people, i swear....


Keep believing what you like to...
not sure what you think is modified.. the FE runs at 1.09V out of the box. lol - yeah, some people..









take this to the 1080 thread...

edit: the gamersnexus article is prospective and says absolutely *ZERO* about power use or anything. lool...Kids.


----------



## lilchronic

Just to add my 2 cents on the 1080 hitting 300W i have no doubt it can. even after reading the toms hardware review. A unlocked power limit card with higher voltage can definitely hit that much wattage.

People with unmoded card's may hit 1.1v but the card is probably still being limited by the TDP.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Just to add my 2 cents on the 1080 hitting 300W i have no doubt it can. even after reading the toms hardware review. A unlocked power limit card with higher voltage can definitely hit that much wattage.
> 
> People with unmoded card's may hit 1.1v but the card is probably still being limited by the TDP.


yup - even with an e-power franken1080... it's barely pulling over 275.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yup - even with an e-power franken1080... it's barely pulling over 275.


You have one modded?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> You have one modded?


Me? no.









do you?

http://hwbot.org/newsflash/3646_nvidia_gtx_1080_gets_uncorked_hardware_mod_guide/

guys - even *MSI says* it's power consumption is 180 watts.


----------



## Synik

Here are my results with 4.5ghz @ 1.44 volt and 3.7ghz cache @ 1.3volts if anyone is interested.

Note that the geekbench is 32bit (trial version).


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 1.34V adaptive for core, 1.32 offset for cache.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before running over 1.3 cache on a new release... get the ITP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that we know 1.3 cache is an issue, but it is getting up there. cache at 3.7 is only 1.22-ish volts.


did you get one made in Malaysia? My Batch# is J611C052, not sure when I can have it up and running but really hope I can hit 4.4 on my 6950x.

edit: by the way we should lock this thread and put a link to it on an actual Broadwell-E club led by Jpmboy







unless there is already one that I'm not aware of.


----------



## DADDYDC650

I'm thinking of buying a 6800k @4.4Ghz using almost 1.35v for $470 (siliconlottery). Is this a good OC or would I be better off saving $40 and buying one from newegg/amazon and overclocking myself?


----------



## vibraslap

Thought I'd post some results from my build coming together finally.



Currently running at 2400 14-14-14-34 because I didn't see improvements at 2800 and 3200 was unstable. Any tips are welcome


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm thinking of buying a 6800k @4.4Ghz using almost 1.35v for $470 (siliconlottery). Is this a good OC or would I be better off saving $40 and buying one from newegg/amazon and overclocking myself?


I keep seeing posts that 4.4GHz is more rare but not sure with the 6800k since it has less cores. If I could pay an extra $40 to get a guaranteed 4.4GHz chip I would do it in a heart beat on a 6950x. One thing I'm worried about though is that these chips just came out and I know about silicon chips settling down after a bit but not sure about Broadwell-E. How long do they guarantee the chip to run at that speed for?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Me? no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you?
> 
> http://hwbot.org/newsflash/3646_nvidia_gtx_1080_gets_uncorked_hardware_mod_guide/
> 
> guys - even *MSI says* it's power consumption is 180 watts.


That's the card right out of the box with out changing the voltage and power slider.

I don't even have a 1080 but all im saying is that once you start upping voltage and overclocking the power required get's higher and higher. You should know this man.

The toms hardware review said it was around 215W when overclocked on a stock bios. remove the power limit and add voltage with a modded bios you get even more power draw.

My 780Ti runs @ 1.025v @1045Mhz and pulls 215W according to msi ab. When upping voltage to 1.212v it goes up to 315w. That's 100W for almost 200mv.

I know it's not the new efficient pascal but it still relates.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Thought I'd post some results from my build coming together finally.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently running at 2400 14-14-14-34 because I didn't see improvements at 2800 and 3200 was unstable. Any tips are welcome


Did you try T2 on 3200 yet?


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm thinking of buying a 6800k @4.4Ghz using almost 1.35v for $470 (siliconlottery). Is this a good OC or would I be better off saving $40 and buying one from newegg/amazon and overclocking myself?


For $40 definitely. I am fortunate to both have microcenter $400 minus $30 with motherboard purchase (asus deluxe ii for $400 which is also cheaper then other sites) and got one of those chips. If you have microcenter nearby then I would roll the dice. Otherwise go with binned IMO


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> For $40 definitely. I am fortunate to both have microcenter $400 minus $30 with motherboard purchase (asus deluxe ii for $400 which is also cheaper then other sites) and got one of those chips. If you have microcenter nearby then I would roll the dice. Otherwise go with binned IMO


I'm starting to wonder if Microcenter sells their processors at a loss on purpose to have customers by the other stuff, I'm so grateful that I have one near me.


----------



## coolbho3k

Ouch... when running The Divison my computer shut off with my BIOS complaining about power surge on boot.

2x 1080s in SLI with a +75/+250 OC and a 6950X at 4.3 on an X99 Deluxe II... I'm running it on a 1000W EVGA PSU (one 12V rail, it should be fine...). Only a few fans and an H110i GTX and an Intel 750 and few USB devices running otherwise, nothing else.

My PSU should be able to handle it. Bad PSU?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Ouch... when running The Divison my computer shut off with my BIOS complaining about power surge on boot.
> 
> 2x 1080s in SLI with a +75/+250 OC and a 6950X at 4.3 on an X99 Deluxe II... I'm running it on a 1000W EVGA PSU (one 12V rail, it should be fine...). Only a few fans and an H110i GTX and an Intel 750 and few USB devices running otherwise, nothing else.
> 
> My PSU should be able to handle it. Bad PSU?


How have you tested your cpu overclock? Im thinking it has something to do with that.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Ouch... when running The Divison my computer shut off with my BIOS complaining about power surge on boot.
> 
> 2x 1080s in SLI with a +75/+250 OC and a 6950X at 4.3 on an X99 Deluxe II... I'm running it on a 1000W EVGA PSU (one 12V rail, it should be fine...). Only a few fans and an H110i GTX and an Intel 750 and few USB devices running otherwise, nothing else.
> 
> My PSU should be able to handle it. Bad PSU?


Shutting off is usually a sign of bad PSU, disable the SLI/remove one card to test.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Ouch... when running The Divison my computer shut off with my BIOS complaining about power surge on boot.
> 
> 2x 1080s in SLI with a +75/+250 OC and a 6950X at 4.3 on an X99 Deluxe II... I'm running it on a 1000W EVGA PSU (one 12V rail, it should be fine...). Only a few fans and an H110i GTX and an Intel 750 and few USB devices running otherwise, nothing else.
> 
> My PSU should be able to handle it. Bad PSU?


Disable the anti-surge setting in UEFI and check again. If disabling it prevents the shutdowns, likely some type of polling error occurring due to multiple monitoring tools hammering the IO.


----------



## Mr-Dark

Hello

Can someone answer this ? ( 6800k or 6850k )..

Can we use 64GB of Tz 3200mhz C14 kit without problem's ? or we need to tweak the memory controller as Hw-E ?

what about 3Ghz memory ? 125Mhz BLCK needed for that or its fine as Skylake ?

Can someone post cinebench score for 6800k & 6850k ?

How the Strix x99 board ?


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Can someone answer this ? ( 6800k or 6850k )..
> 
> Can we use 64GB of Tz 3200mhz C14 kit without problem's ? or we need to tweak the memory controller as Hw-E ?
> 
> what about 3Ghz memory ? 125Mhz BLCK needed for that or its fine as Skylake ?
> 
> Can someone post cinebench score for 6800k & 6850k ?
> 
> How the Strix x99 board ?


JPM is using the 64GB TZ 3200c14 kit on his BW-E setup, he couldn't run it at the same speed as on his HW-E setup but now he's at 3400c14-16-16 with a little juice.
3200 & 3400 is fine on strap 100 for BW-E.


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> JPM is using the 64GB TZ 3200c14 kit on his BW-E setup, he couldn't run it at the same speed as on his HW-E setup but now he's at 3400c14-16-16 with a little juice.
> 3200 & 3400 is fine on strap 100 for BW-E.


Thanks bro

I mean 3200C14 with just XMP ON, no tweak at all.. the worst part on this platform is the memory stability..lol


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Thanks bro
> 
> I mean 3200C14 with just XMP ON, no tweak at all.. the worst part on this platform is the memory stability..lol


Only XMP, I don't know and I doubt JPM ever used it too. You still may have to tweak VSA, I'll let someone with BW-E confirm that too you.


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Only XMP, I don't know and I doubt JPM ever used it too. You still may have to tweak VSA, I'll let someone with BW-E confirm that too you.


Thanks, I'm asking about the XMP as i had tons of problem from the memory tweak thing.. My current 5820k is fine with XMP and 64GB Dom Plat @2666mhz



Was hoping for 128GB @3ghz on the Bw-E but that wont happen.. maybe Skylake-E ?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> That's the card right out of the box with out changing the voltage and power slider.
> 
> I don't even have a 1080 but all im saying is that once you start upping voltage and overclocking the power required get's higher and higher. You should know this man.
> 
> The toms hardware review said it was around 215W when overclocked on a stock bios. remove the power limit and add voltage with a modded bios you get even more power draw.
> 
> My 780Ti runs @ 1.025v @1045Mhz and pulls 215W according to msi ab. When upping voltage to 1.212v it goes up to 315w. That's 100W for almost 200mv.
> 
> I know it's not the new efficient pascal but it still relates.


But that's the thing... voltage/power limit. All I know is that a bunch of guys running these are not hitting that wattage. Marc_0053's MSI card is a good one. I'll see if he can measure the power consumption with and without the resistor shunt (removes PL),








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Hello
> Can someone answer this ? ( 6800k or 6850k )..
> Can we use 64GB of Tz 3200mhz C14 kit without problem's ? or we need to tweak the memory controller as Hw-E ?
> what about 3Ghz memory ? 125Mhz BLCK needed for that or its fine as Skylake ?
> Can someone post cinebench score for 6800k & 6850k ?
> How the Strix x99 board ?


I did not try XMP on the 64GB kit. I can give it a shot for ya... but honestly, setting manual is quite easy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> JPM is using the 64GB TZ 3200c14 kit on his BW-E setup, he couldn't run it at the same speed as on his HW-E setup but now he's at 3400c14-16-16 with a little juice.
> 3200 & 3400 is fine on strap 100 for BW-E.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Only XMP, I don't know and I doubt JPM ever used it too. You still may have to tweak VSA, I'll let someone with BW-E confirm that too you.


^^ These. It really seems that 3400 is the sweetspot for BWE. Praz has 64GB running at lower voltage than I do.


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> But that's the thing... voltage/power limit. All I know is that a bunch of guys running these are not hitting that wattage. Marc_0053's MSI card is a good one. I'll see if he can measure the power consumption with and without the resistor shunt (removes PL),
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not try XMP on the 64GB kit. I can give it a shot for ya... but honestly, setting manual is quite easy.
> 
> ^^ These. It really seems that 3400 is the sweetspot for BWE. Praz has 64GB running at lower voltage than I do.


Testing stability & fail & tweak & test & fail.......forever.. last time i do that i just wast 1 week on the memory thing and at the end I change the whole platform from 5820k to 6700k duo to the memory problem's









i'm ordering the 6800k this week, but the board not available here yet ( Rampage 10 )..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Testing stability & fail & tweak & test & fail.......forever.. last time i do that i just wast 1 week on the memory thing and at the end I change the whole platform from 5820k to 6700k duo to the memory problem's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm ordering the 6800k this week, but the board not available here yet ( Rampage 10 )..


A week? nah - we'll get you thru it quicker than that... but you will need to use linux mint and GSAT.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> did you get one made in Malaysia? My Batch# is J611C052, not sure when I can have it up and running but really hope I can hit 4.4 on my 6950x.


Yes - it's from Malaysia.


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> A week? nah - we'll get you thru it quicker than that... but you will need to use linux mint and GSAT.


Yea, HCI @32gb fail on me after 10h all time.. that pushing me crazy to change the whole build to 6700k..lol

what yo think about the Gskill Tz 3200 C14 kit 32Gb kit ? 2 from that so the total 64GB... the only reason for using 2 is 8 stick look way better than 4 stick on the Rampage 10


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Yea, HCI @32gb fail on me after 10h all time.. that pushing me crazy to change the whole build to 6700k..lol
> 
> what yo think about the Gskill Tz 3200 C14 kit 32Gb kit ? 2 from that so the total 64GB... the only reason for using 2 is 8 stick look way better than 4 stick on the Rampage 10


you know what I think about combining two kits...


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you know what I think about combining two kits...


Heheh, I know but there is no 64GB kit from Gskill at that speed...

My Dom Plat 32GB *2 working fine on the Garbage deluxe now..


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

I like the way 4 sticks look compared to 8 sticks of ram on a motherboard myself. I like the gap.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Heheh, I know but there is no 64GB kit from Gskill at that speed...
> 
> My Dom Plat 32GB *2 working fine on the Garbage deluxe now..
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


XMP does work with THIS 64GB GSKILL kit



loaded optimized defaults, set boot drive, selected XMP - did nothing else.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> I like the way 4 sticks look compared to 8 sticks of ram on a motherboard myself. I like the gap.


a full house is pretty tho...


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> XMP does work with THIS 64GB GSKILL kit
> 
> 
> 
> loaded optimized defaults, set boot drive, selected XMP - did nothing else.


Thanks + rep!

Good to hear that.. I think my build is complete now..


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> XMP does work with THIS 64GB GSKILL kit
> 
> 
> 
> loaded optimized defaults, set boot drive, selected XMP - did nothing else.


What program displays all the info on the right side of the monitor?


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Did you try T2 on 3200 yet?


Yes, first attempted overclock was with the X.M.P. profile. It defaulted to 3200 14-14-14-34 T2 and 4000Mhz cpu clock. It failed AIDA64 stability test with these settings and bluescreened a couple of times before I decided I needed to try something else.

I'd like to get my memory clocked around where other people are saying its capable of. I saw someone recently in this thread talking about 3400? Is there any setting I should be adjusting besides DRAM voltage and speed to achieve these kind of results?


----------



## Baasha

Is there a proper OC guide for the 6950X? I'm still looking for the best 64GB RAM kit (>3200Mhz) - so if someone can recommend a really good one, I want to get it.

Just got my 6950X yesterday - will the Kraken X60 still fit the CPU (since it fits the 5960X)?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Thought I'd post some results from my build coming together finally.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently running at 2400 14-14-14-34 because I didn't see improvements at 2800 and 3200 was unstable. Any tips are welcome


Moar voltage! DDR4 can do 1.45v 24/7. Go to town...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> What program displays all the info on the right side of the monitor?


AID64 OSD.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Is there a proper OC guide for the 6950X? I'm still looking for the best 64GB RAM kit (>3200Mhz) - so if someone can recommend a really good one, I want to get it.
> 
> Just got my 6950X yesterday - will the Kraken X60 still fit the CPU (since it fits the 5960X)?


yes it will fit. Just tighten carefully.

Raja's got a 6950X guide... i can;t do the link atm tho. Check the OP in SCone's memory thread.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Is there a proper OC guide for the 6950X? I'm still looking for the best 64GB RAM kit (>3200Mhz) - so if someone can recommend a really good one, I want to get it.
> 
> Just got my 6950X yesterday - will the Kraken X60 still fit the CPU (since it fits the 5960X)?


Did none of the GSKILL ones I linked you tickle your fancy?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> I like the way 4 sticks look compared to 8 sticks of ram on a motherboard myself. I like the gap.


The London look.


----------



## MR-e

^









or maybe it's mabeline?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Did none of the GSKILL ones I linked you tickle your fancy?


quad channel kit 3200Mhz cl14 64GB

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232347

And 128GB 3200Mhz cl14
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232334


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolbho3k*
> 
> Ouch... when running The Divison my computer shut off with my BIOS complaining about power surge on boot.
> 
> 2x 1080s in SLI with a +75/+250 OC and a 6950X at 4.3 on an X99 Deluxe II... I'm running it on a 1000W EVGA PSU (one 12V rail, it should be fine...). Only a few fans and an H110i GTX and an Intel 750 and few USB devices running otherwise, nothing else.
> 
> My PSU should be able to handle it. Bad PSU?


Did you overclock CPU cache as well?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> quad channel kit 3200Mhz cl14 64GB
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232347


You knows


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The London look.


ah... i miss London.


----------



## vibraslap

I was hesitant to do that as my ram was advertised at 3200mhz 14-14-14-34 at 1.35v (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232220) but I can't say I really know what I am doing.

Does anyone know any good, more technically-focused overclocking resources? Something that explains what all these values actually mean and how they effect each other? I'd really like to learn the whole hardware pipeline and actually understand this ****. I've looked around here and can't seem to locate anything like what I'm looking for.(I could just be showing my ignorance here...)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I was hesitant to do that as my ram was advertised at 3200mhz 14-14-14-34 at 1.35v (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232220) but I can't say I really know what I am doing.
> 
> Does anyone know any good, more technically-focused overclocking resources? Something that explains what all these values actually mean and how they effect each other? I'd really like to learn the whole hardware pipeline and actually understand this ****. I've looked around here and can't seem to locate anything like what I'm looking for.(I could just be showing my ignorance here...)


It's pretty complicated to REALLY understand ram timings/intervals etc. Raja has posted some guides. But before going there, enter bios, load optimized defaults, reset you boot drive - post back into bios, load the XMP again... and test. Sometimes XMP needs a clean slate to load correctly. If that does not work, post back.









give the op *here* a read


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> It's pretty complicated to REALLY understand ram timings/intervals etc. Raja has posted some guides. But before going there, enter bios, load optimized defaults, reset you boot drive - post back into bios, load the XMP again... and test. Sometimes XMP needs a clean slate to load correctly. If that does not work, post back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> give the op *here* a read


Oh I'm fully aware of how complicated this stuff is. I'm a programmer by trade, but I've been very interested in hardware and how it works since I started thinking about this build 4 months ago, so I'd be eager to sink my teeth into the dirty details.

And the steps you describe are essentially what I did.

Updated bios to 0601, booted default setting, stability tested. Passed.

Rebooted, changed overclocking mode to X.M.P. changed no other settings. X.M.P. changed my core multiplier to 40x, and RAM to 3200Mhz, 14-14-14-34. Stability tested, FAILED. Also experienced random chrome crashes and 2 bluescreens before reverting back to defaults.

Rebooted, changed overclocking mode to manual, changed CPU multiplier to 44x, changed RAM to 2400Mhz 14-14-14-34, automatic voltage, stability tested. Passed.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Oh I'm fully aware of how complicated this stuff is. I'm a programmer by trade, but I've been very interested in hardware and how it works since I started thinking about this build 4 months ago, so I'd be eager to sink my teeth into the dirty details.
> 
> And the steps you describe are essentially what I did.
> 
> Updated bios to 0601, booted default setting, stability tested. Passed.
> 
> Rebooted, changed overclocking mode to X.M.P. changed no other settings. X.M.P. changed my core multiplier to 40x, and RAM to 3200Mhz, 14-14-14-34. Stability tested, FAILED. Also experienced random chrome crashes and 2 bluescreens before reverting back to defaults.
> 
> Rebooted, changed overclocking mode to manual, changed CPU multiplier to 44x, changed RAM to 2400Mhz 14-14-14-34, automatic voltage, stability tested. Passed.


Did you get a bugcheck error when it blue screened? Or was it clock watchdog, IRQ error...? For XMP what was the VSA (system agent) voltage. My 3200c14 64GB kit on XMP with auto VSa was 0.85V VSA... you may need ot increase thisto 0.95-1.15V on BWE.

I can post the JDEC document later (bad reading). Did you read Raja's guide: https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?33488-Maximus-VI-Series-UEFI-Guide-for-Overclocking
It's applicable to BWE too.

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?33488-Maximus-VI-Series-UEFI-Guide-for-Overclocking&p=269764&viewfull=1#post269764


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Did you get a bugcheck error when it blue screened? Or was it clock watchdog, IRQ error...? For XMP what was the VSA (system agent) voltage. My 3200c14 64GB kit on XMP with auto VSa was 0.85V VSA... you may need ot increase thisto 0.95-1.15V on BWE.
> 
> I can post the JDEC document later (bad reading). Did you read Raja's guide: https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?33488-Maximus-VI-Series-UEFI-Guide-for-Overclocking
> It's applicable to BWE too.
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?33488-Maximus-VI-Series-UEFI-Guide-for-Overclocking&p=269764&viewfull=1#post269764


Thanks for the responses and links.

The error I got from the bluescreen was something like "Unhandled thread exception error" I have it written down at home, I'll verify later. As to the VSA voltage I honestly have no clue. I'm going to try overclocking it again tonight and i'll post in more detail.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Thanks for the responses and links.
> 
> The error I got from the bluescreen was something like "Unhandled thread exception error" I have it written down at home, I'll verify later. As to the VSA voltage I honestly have no clue. I'm going to try overclocking it again tonight and i'll post in more detail.


Download WhoCrashed, it will read the memory dumps and tell you what was the error code, its free.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Download WhoCrashed, it will read the memory dumps and tell you what was the error code, its free.


Sweet, thanks! Will this work on past crashes or does it need to be installed/running during the crash to do its reporting?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Sweet, thanks! Will this work on past crashes or does it need to be installed/running during the crash to do its reporting?


it and "bluescreeen viewer" read the minidump file.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Sweet, thanks! Will this work on past crashes or does it need to be installed/running during the crash to do its reporting?


It will work with the past crashes unless you deleted them, with every crash the windows creates a dump file which can be used to diagnose why it happened, the app reads these files.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> It will work with the past crashes unless you deleted them, with every crash the windows creates a dump file which can be used to diagnose why it happened, the app reads these files.


if you are into this level stuff, check out "sysinternals.com" or https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals


----------



## Ragsters

Anyone running 3200mhz ram with xmp profile?


----------



## sabishiihito

This is the craziest thing I've ever personally experienced trying to bench memory. Never had this happen with Haswell-E, for sure.


----------



## Silent Scone

It's resetting NVRAM. If clearing the CMOS does not help, look at your sub timings again.


----------



## [email protected]

Failing training and retrying. Too tight.


----------



## Jpmboy

yeah... totally unfamiliar to me.


----------



## Gdourado

Does broadwell-e work with the Asus OC socket to overclock the cache?


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> did you get one made in Malaysia? My Batch# is J611C052, not sure when I can have it up and running but really hope I can hit 4.4 on my 6950x.
> 
> edit: by the way we should lock this thread and put a link to it on an actual Broadwell-E club led by Jpmboy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unless there is already one that I'm not aware of.










we have a same 6950x batch. I will get it next Tuesday. Do you try with ur cpu yet?


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Sweet, thanks! Will this work on past crashes or does it need to be installed/running during the crash to do its reporting?


Checked the dumps using WhoCrashed, turns out they were caused by Nvidia drivers... Strange.

Anyway, I just attempted getting to 3200 again with my ram using manual setting 14-14-14-34 1T, here's the result...



Peak package temp might have hit 95, and it looks like one of the cores passed 90 at one point as well... pretty hot O.C...

But my latency was like 63ms


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ocvn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have a same 6950x batch. I will get it next Tuesday. Do you try with ur cpu yet?


I didn't want to install it on my sabertooth because I have to drain my loop. I am going to completely redo my loop and CaseLabs pedestal not coming until Monday. Let me know if you get it installed first and your results


----------



## vibraslap

Just tried to push 4.5Ghz @ 2400Mhz 14-14-14-34 CR1, couldn't get it stable running up to 1.382V, temps seemed pretty low though, topping out at about 70C.

Do y'all recommend pushing that voltage higher or could I harm my CPU?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Just tried to push 4.5Ghz @ 2400Mhz 14-14-14-34 CR1, couldn't get it stable running up to 1.382V, temps seemed pretty low though, topping out at about 70C.
> 
> Do y'all recommend pushing that voltage higher or could I harm my CPU?


the first thing to do is back down and find a low but stable OC to work off of.

Clrcmos, enter bios and set manual voltyage control (disable cpu SVID). Set 1.275V vcore and 42 multi, synch all cores. Reboot... if it wilol post, increase the multip-lier until it fails to post. Enter bios and back off one multi. Now you know what voltage hte cpu needs to post at that multiplier. Boot to windows and run AID64. If your temps exceed 80C, at 1.275V you need to either lower voltage and multiplier, or get batter cooling. POst back with how you do focussing on just core and vcore first. .. than we can move on to a low but stable ram OC with cache still on auto.


----------



## vibraslap

I've got a stable OC at 4.4Ghz 2400MHz 14-14-14-34 1CR, 1.34375V, cache on auto,

I just wanted to see if i could push my chip to the limit.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I've got a stable OC at 4.4Ghz 2400MHz 14-14-14-34 1CR, 1.34375V, cache on auto,
> 
> I just wanted to see if i could push my chip to the limit.


stable to what?


----------



## vibraslap

Using AIDA64 for stability testing, haven't had it fail yet on those settings. One core runs a little hot, just peaking over 80 sometimes, mostly keep mid 60s though.

Here's my currently running test, ran it for longer last night


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Checked the dumps using WhoCrashed, turns out they were caused by Nvidia drivers... Strange.
> 
> Anyway, I just attempted getting to 3200 again with my ram using manual setting 14-14-14-34 1T, here's the result...
> 
> 
> 
> Peak package temp might have hit 95, and it looks like one of the cores passed 90 at one point as well... pretty hot O.C...
> 
> But my latency was like 63ms


48ms here.... heh.

Don't use AIDA Stability Test. It's useless. Unless things have changed.....


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> 48ms here.... heh.
> 
> Don't use AIDA Stability Test. It's useless. Unless things have changed.....


Things haven't changed, basic encoding is much more stressful than AIDA64.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Things haven't changed, basic encoding is much more stressful than AIDA64.


Oh hell yeah. Handbraking off gives the CPU a work out.

I figured things hadn't changed..... lol.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> 48ms here.... heh.
> 
> Don't use AIDA Stability Test. It's useless. Unless things have changed.....


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Things haven't changed, basic encoding is much more stressful than AIDA64.


Not to mention, it gives much lower temps.


----------



## lilchronic

Aida64 is a good stress test. The thing is you cant rely on just one stability test, run multiple.

My routine when i first get a cpu is 15 min of aida64 and 15min of realbench. once i pass both test's i move on to 2+hours for each.
I will also throw in many other benchmarks like XTU, x265. ect

Once i get the core clock stable i start working on cache clocks. So i run aida64 cache only test for 2+hours to see what the cache can do.
Also i enable xmp settings and test cache again but with both cache and the memory stress test checked in aida64

Once i have cache stable i move on to the memory and run hci memtest.

And that's it my system never crashes.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Aida64 is a good stress test. The thing is you cant rely on just one stability test, run multiple.
> 
> My routine when i first get a cpu is 15 min of aida64 and 15min of realbench. once i pass both test's i move on to 2+hours for each.
> I will also throw in many other benchmarks like XTU, x265. ect
> 
> Once i get the core clock stable i start working on cache clocks. So i run aida64 cache only test for 2+hours to see what the cache can do.
> Also i enable xmp settings and test cache again but with both cache and the memory stress test checked in aida64
> 
> Once i have cache stable i move on to the memory and run hci memtest.
> 
> And that's it my system never crashes.


No Prime95 AVX run these days?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> No Prime95 AVX run these days?


Nope never. Most stressfull thing i probably ever ran was HWbot Y-Cruncher.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Nope never. Most stressfull thing i probably ever ran was HWbot Y-Cruncher.


Thanks. So things must have changed.
I remember running Prime95 AVX version overnight back in Sandy/Ivy Bridge days. Heh.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Thanks. So things must have changed.
> I remember running Prime95 AVX version overnight back in Sandy/Ivy Bridge days. Heh.


Ivy bridge is when things changed.


----------



## Ragsters

I just bought a 3200 ram kit for my 6800k. What should I try to make it run at said speed. XMP profile seems to crash my system.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> I just bought a 3200 ram kit for my 6800k. What should I try to make it run at said speed. XMP profile seems to crash my system.


What motherboard? Should work with xmp. is the timing correct? Might be bad ram


----------



## PowerK

Can you guys please advise which memory I should choose for my Broadwell-E system between the two below ?

DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28
http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10

DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36
http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3200mhz-c16-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b3200c16

Prices are about the same.


----------



## -terabyte-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Can you guys please advise which memory I should choose for my Broadwell-E system between the two below ?
> 
> DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28
> http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10
> 
> DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36
> http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3200mhz-c16-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b3200c16
> 
> Prices are about the same.


I would get the 3200 one for sure.


----------



## Martin778

Isn't [email protected] actually the same stuff as [email protected] with different XMP profiles loaded?


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> What motherboard? Should work with xmp. is the timing correct? Might be bad ram


I have the asrock x99e-itx.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-terabyte-*
> 
> I would get the 3200 one for sure.


I'd take my chances on the 2400 C10 bin to be honest. Those could be Hynix. Or some nice B die


----------



## Silent Scone

Found these in stock on Amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01ACOCFFG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1.

Only two left.


----------



## hamdanisutan

I want a 6900K but dang 1200+ I think I will be getting a used 5960X


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> I have the asrock x99e-itx.


Did you try t2 timing? Did you keep the rest of the system at default clock? The motherboard supports those speeds but it is dual channel so maybe something isnt playing nice together. My guess is something wrong with the ram.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> Did you try t2 timing? Did you keep the rest of the system at default clock? The motherboard supports those speeds but it is dual channel so maybe something isnt playing nice together. My guess is something wrong with the ram.


Here is kinda the back story. This is a brand new build. I had bought a set of the dual channel Gskill 3000Mhz ram (15 cas). When I put both sticks in, one of the sticks would not even recognize at any setting. First thought was that the ram was bad so I returned them. I now have a Corsair 3200mhz kit (16 cas) and although they both get recognized, the system will not boot with the XMP profile. Everything turns on like it is fine but the screen stays black. Keeping everything on default (2133 mhz) ram seems fine.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> Here is kinda the back story. This is a brand new build. I had bought a set of the dual channel Gskill 3000Mhz ram (15 cas). When I put both sticks in, one of the sticks would not even recognize at any setting. First thought was that the ram was bad so I returned them. I now have a Corsair 3200mhz kit (16 cas) and although they both get recognized, the system will not boot with the XMP profile. Everything turns on like it is fine but the screen stays black. Keeping everything on default (2133 mhz) ram seems fine.


Asrock probably didn't update their bios to support broadwell with high freq ram is my guess. I bet if you put them in the newer x99 refresh boards it will work fine.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Isn't [email protected] actually the same stuff as [email protected] with different XMP profiles loaded?


I'm wondering the same thing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> I'd take my chances on the 2400 C10 bin to be honest. Those could be Hynix. Or some nice B die


Good point. Ah... decisions, decisions..
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Found these in stock on Amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01ACOCFFG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1.
> 
> Only two left.


I'm afraid it's a dual channel kit.
http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14q-32gtz


----------



## d4nim4l

I am building a replacement for my aging 2500k rig, and I ordered parts for a 6900k broadwell-e build. Reading through this thread, I started to worry about the ram I ordered:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232296

Any opinions on this kit in an X99-A II board?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Can you guys please advise which memory I should choose for my Broadwell-E system between the two below ?
> 
> DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28
> http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10
> 
> DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36
> http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3200mhz-c16-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b3200c16
> 
> Prices are about the same.


Ok. I've done some digging around and found an informative article here.
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory-performance-speed-latency

True latency (ns) = clock cycle time (ns) x number of clock cycles (CL)

So, for *DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28*
1,200 MHz = 1,200,000,000 Hz
Clock cycle time (ns) = 1 / 1,200,000,000 * 10^9 = 0.83 ns
True latency (ns) = 0.833 (ns) * 10 (CL) = *8.33 ns*

For *DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36*
1,600 MHz = 1,600,000,000 Hz
Clock cycle time (ns) = 1 / 1,600,000,000 * 10^9 = 0.625 ns
True latency (ns) = 0.625 (ns) * 16 (CL) = *10 ns*


----------



## [email protected]

More simple:

(CAS*2000) / MemFreq = tCL


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Can you guys please advise which memory I should choose for my Broadwell-E system between the two below ?
> 
> DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28
> http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10
> 
> DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36
> http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3200mhz-c16-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b3200c16
> 
> Prices are about the same.


never mind! you found the info yourself.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> More simple:
> 
> (CAS*2000) / MemFreq = tCL


so what's the fastest memory frequency should I try on an R5E10? QVL is only up to 2800 but R5E is 3333 I think.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Ok. I've done some digging around and found an informative article here.
> http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory-performance-speed-latency
> 
> True latency (ns) = clock cycle time (ns) x number of clock cycles (CL)
> 
> So, for *DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28*
> 1,200 MHz = 1,200,000,000 Hz
> Clock cycle time (ns) = 1 / 1,200,000,000 * 10^9 = 0.83 ns
> True latency (ns) = 0.833 (ns) * 10 (CL) = *8.33 ns*
> 
> For *DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36*
> 1,600 MHz = 1,600,000,000 Hz
> Clock cycle time (ns) = 1 / 1,600,000,000 * 10^9 = 0.625 ns
> True latency (ns) = 0.625 (ns) * 16 (CL) = *10 ns*


So... I think I'll opt for DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28 because I think it can clock to 3200 MHz with 16-18-18-36 with ease while DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36 may not clock at 2400 MHz with CL10-12-12-28 timing. Besides, CPU + motherboard may not reach DDR4-3200 MHz.
CPU and motherboard I'll be using are 6950X and ASUS Rampage V Edition 10.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> So... I think I'll opt for DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28 because I think it can clock to 3200 MHz with 16-18-18-36 with ease while DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36 may not clock at 2400 MHz with CL10-12-12-28 timing. Besides, CPU + motherboard may not reach DDR4-3200 MHz.
> CPU and motherboard I'll be using are 6950X and ASUS Rampage V Edition 10.


I'm setting up exactly the same thing and was about to get the 2400 until I re-read the crucial full article. I decided to go with 3200 CL15 instead. Initially I was going to get 3600 or 4000 but I don't even know if the thing will boot up with it.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm setting up exactly the same thing and was about to get the 2400 until I re-read the crucial full article. I decided to go with 3200 CL15 instead. Initially I was going to get 3600 or 4000 but I don't even know if the thing will boot up with it.


Which memory would that be ? 3200 CL15
Can you share a link?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Which memory would that be ? 3200 CL15
> Can you share a link?


CMD16GX4M4B3200C15

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00T7XSHN8/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467010795&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=CMD16GX4M4B3200C15


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> CMD16GX4M4B3200C15
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00T7XSHN8/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467010795&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=CMD16GX4M4B3200C15


Thanks. FWIW, DDR4-3200 CL15
True latency = 0.625*15 = 9.375 ns which is better than 3200 with CL16. But 2400 with CL10 looks better. Heh.

DDR4-2400 CL10 = 8.333 ns
DDR4-3600 CL16 = 10 ns
DDR4-3600 CL15 = 9.375 ns

For the heck of it, DDR4-3200 CL14 = 8.75 ns
To have a better latency than DDR4-2400 CL10, DDR4-3200 needs to be CL13 (8.125 ns)


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Thanks. FWIW, DDR4-3200 CL15
> True latency = 0.625*15 = 9.375 ns which is better than 3200 with CL16. But 2400 with CL10 looks better. Heh.
> 
> DDR4-2400 CL10 = 8.333 ns
> DDR4-3600 CL16 = 10 ns
> DDR4-3600 CL15 = 9.375 ns
> 
> For the heck of it, DDR4-3200 CL14 = 8.75 ns
> To have a better latency than DDR4-2400 CL10, DDR4-3200 needs to be CL13 (8.125 ns)


But more frequency, more bandwidth = faster in real world programs. Almost allways


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> But more frequency, more bandwidth = faster in real world programs. Almost allways


Hmm.. I'm not sure. Talking about bandwidth, lower latency also increases effective bandwidth. Besides, X99 platform already has massive bandwidth from quad channel memory.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Thanks. FWIW, DDR4-3200 CL15
> True latency = 0.625*15 = 9.375 ns which is better than 3200 with CL16. But 2400 with CL10 looks better. Heh.
> 
> DDR4-2400 CL10 = 8.333 ns
> DDR4-3600 CL16 = 10 ns
> DDR4-3600 CL15 = 9.375 ns
> 
> For the heck of it, DDR4-3200 CL14 = 8.75 ns
> To have a better latency than DDR4-2400 CL10, DDR4-3200 needs to be CL13 (8.125 ns)


Going by your profile, you game. Games like raw frequency. So in turn so should you. X99 is all about bandwidth.


----------



## CerN

Sitting on a Rampage IV Black Edition with a 4930k @ 4,5ghz at the moment.
Sort of tempted to upgrade, as I have an opportunity to sell my old motherboard and CPU for a decent price.

Would you guys say the 6850k is a nice upgrade to the 4930k? Is the single-thread performance notably better?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Going by your profile, you game. Games like raw frequency. So in turn so should you. X99 is all about bandwidth.


I maybe mistaken but I thought latency was just as important in DDR SDRAM because effective bandwith is a combined result of latency and frequency.
Benefit from memory contollers moved & integrated into CPUs (from Athlon64 days) is a good example of this.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> But more frequency, more bandwidth = faster in real world programs. Almost allways


Not always, as bandwidth in this context comes from tBurst. There are trade-offs between that, tCL, and any back to back delay.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> so what's the fastest memory frequency should I try on an R5E10? QVL is only up to 2800 but R5E is 3333 I think.


3400 c14 is running fine (with 3200c14, 64GB). Not sure whether you can run higher freqs for 24/7 just yet... maybe as kits improve?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> So... I think I'll opt for DDR4-2400 CL10-12-12-28 because I think it can *clock to 3200 MHz with 16-18-18-36 with ease while* DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-36 may not clock at 2400 MHz with CL10-12-12-28 timing. Besides, CPU + motherboard may not reach DDR4-3200 MHz.
> CPU and motherboard I'll be using are 6950X and ASUS Rampage V Edition 10.


Famous last words.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Thanks. FWIW, DDR4-3200 CL15
> True latency = 0.625*15 = 9.375 ns which is better than 3200 with CL16. But 2400 with CL10 looks better. Heh.
> 
> DDR4-2400 CL10 = 8.333 ns
> DDR4-3600 CL16 = 10 ns
> DDR4-3600 CL15 = 9.375 ns
> 
> For the heck of it, DDR4-3200 CL14 = 8.75 ns
> To have a better latency than DDR4-2400 CL10, DDR4-3200 needs to be CL13 (8.125 ns)


It's not that simple. 32bit and 64bit systems are affected differently. x99 is about bandwidth... go with the highest frequency and lowest CAS ram you can afford.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I'm wondering the same thing.
> Good point. Ah... decisions, decisions..
> I'm afraid it's a dual channel kit.
> http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14q-32gtz


What's the difference between a quad channel labeled memory kit of 4 sticks and 4 sticks of dual channel labeled memory? I thought quad channel was just 4 sticks running on a 2011 socket motherboard?


----------



## Kimir

It mean they have been paired and tested as/on quad channel motherboard/system configuration.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> It mean they have been paired and tested as/on quad channel motherboard/system configuration.


So the only difference is that G.Skill supposedly goes out of their way to test 4 sticks of memory in a 2011 mobo and label it quad?


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> So the only difference is that G.Skill supposedly goes out of their way to test 4 sticks of memory in a 2011 mobo and label it quad?


Which is important because signal integrity of quad and dual channel systems differ. Next time they validate a kit this way, I will suggest they punch the air a few times and shout "Who's your daddy?"


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Which is important because signal integrity of quad and dual channel systems differ. Next time they validate a kit this way, I will suggest they punch the air a few times and shout "Who's your daddy?"


Lol, very nice. Guess I'll go ahead and make sure I purchase quad labeled memory. Sucks because the only 32GB quad kit I see with 14 CAS is steel and red colored Tridentz. Not sure if that's the best colored match with an Asus Strix x99 mobo.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> What's the difference between a quad channel labeled memory kit of 4 sticks and 4 sticks of dual channel labeled memory? I thought quad channel was just 4 sticks running on a 2011 socket motherboard?


As far as I know its exactly the same thing.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> As far as I know its exactly the same thing.


Who to believe? The Almighty Raja from Asus or the Great Artah?!?!


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 3400 c14 is running fine (with 3200c14, 64GB). Not sure whether you can run higher freqs for 24/7 just yet... maybe as kits improve?
> Famous last words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. 32bit and 64bit systems are affected differently. x99 is about bandwidth... go with the highest frequency and lowest CAS ram you can afford.


Nice! I don't know about 64GB though, 32GB is overkill for me already as it is.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Lol, very nice. Guess I'll go ahead and make sure I purchase quad labeled memory. Sucks because the only 32GB quad kit I see with 14 CAS is steel and red colored Tridentz. Not sure if that's the best colored match with an Asus Strix x99 mobo.


Make sure you view the QVL on GSKILL website for more info.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Who to believe? The Almighty Raja from Asus or the Great Artah?!?!


Almighty>Great...


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Make sure you view the QVL on GSKILL website for more info.


Which is more up to date usually. The motherboard QVL or G.Skill's QVL?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Who to believe? The Almighty Raja from Asus or the Great Artah?!?!


Definitely Raja!

edit: Adding this link to someone that tested dual vs quad bandwidth, reliability of the source? Not sure...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Which is more up to date usually. The motherboard QVL or G.Skill's QVL?


Depends on the vendor, G.SKill have very recently added all the QVL information to their new kits.


----------



## colac

can't get above 4.3GHz.

3200 XMP RAM Gskill running in xmp @ 1.35v
MSI Pro Carbon
i7-6850K
1.35V
Speed step off
hyperthreading off

Every time I try and go to 4.4ghz, even at 1.45V, computer blue screens within seconds of boot


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *colac*
> 
> can't get above 4.3GHz.
> 
> 3200 XMP RAM Gskill running in xmp @ 1.35v
> MSI Pro Carbon
> i7-6850K
> 1.35V
> Speed step off
> hyperthreading off
> 
> Every time I try and go to 4.4ghz, even at 1.45V, computer blue screens within seconds of boot


according to Raja's link 75% of the broadwell-e chips are only friendly to 4.3GHz.


----------



## colac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> according to Raja's link 75% of the broadwell-e chips are only friendly to 4.3GHz.


well that explains it lol


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Besides, CPU + motherboard may not reach DDR4-3200 MHz.
> CPU and motherboard I'll be using are 6950X and ASUS Rampage V Edition 10.


Hello

It will be dependent on the CPU. The R5E10 has no problem with a stable memory speed of 3200MHz.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Definitely Raja!
> 
> edit: Adding this link to someone that tested dual vs quad bandwidth, reliability of the source? Not sure...
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html


My question was more along the lines of why newegg lists a kit of 4 sticks as quad and another 4 stick kit as dual. As Raja pointed out, it basically comes down to testing done by G.Skill.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> My question was more along the lines of why newegg lists a kit of 4 sticks as quad and another 4 stick kit as quad. As Raja pointed out, it basically comes down to testing done by G.Skill.


For me I only trust Amazon and newegg posts as far as I can throw them. I always go to the manufacturer's info if I can find it.


----------



## Synik

From what I understand is quad is tested as quad so almost always works. Dual channel that comes as four sticks packaged together should work almost always in quad since made in same manufactuering process but has more chances of having issues since not tested together. Separate but same dual channel kits have good chance of working in quad but there is even more of a chance it wont. Completely different dual channel kits have even lower rate of working in quad.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> From what I understand is quad is tested as quad so almost always works. Dual channel that comes as four sticks packaged together should work almost always in quad since made in same manufactuering process but has more chances of having issues since not tested together. Separate but same dual channel kits have good chance of working in quad but there is even more of a chance it wont. Completely different dual channel kits have even lower rate of working in quad.


Makes sense. Wish retailers would make things a little clearer sometimes.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Makes sense. Wish retailers would make things a little clearer sometimes.


yes and edit the mistakes/misinformation


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> I like the way 4 sticks look compared to 8 sticks of ram on a motherboard myself. I like the gap.


My OCD kills me if I don't fill all the slots even if it means it will perform worse


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> *What's the difference between a quad channel labeled memory kit of 4 sticks and 4 sticks of dual channel labeled memory?* I thought quad channel was just 4 sticks running on a 2011 socket motherboard?


Lol - I actually thought this was a rhetorical question...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Thanks. So things must have changed.
> I remember running Prime95 AVX version overnight back in Sandy/Ivy Bridge days. Heh.


Nothing has changed. Realbench, Prime95 and IBT are the testing utilities for a CPU.

Period.

Anything else is, well, wrong.

You're taking advice from someone who DOESN'T test AVX stability? Meaning his CPU isn't 100% stable.... that's not someone I'd trust.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Nothing has changed. Realbench, Prime95 and IBT are the testing utilities for a CPU.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Anything else is, well, wrong.
> 
> You're taking advice from someone who DOESN'T test AVX stability? Meaning his CPU isn't 100% stable.... that's not someone I'd trust.


If the cpu is stable in programs you use, then the cpu is stable enough









No cpu is 100% stable, period


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> If the cpu is stable in programs you use, then the cpu is stable enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No cpu is 100% stable, period


"Stable enough" is not something I like to even say. It's for damn sure something I'd never actually put into practice.

I do know what you mean, however my overclocked CPU's can do everything a stock CPU can. Everything. That's stable.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> "Stable enough" is not something I like to even say. It's for damn sure something I'd never actually put into practice.
> 
> I do know what you mean, however my overclocked CPU's can do everything a stock CPU can. Everything. That's stable.


So can mine


----------



## Ragsters

Can anyone help me? Since I can't run my new system using the XMP profile (3200Mhz, Cas 16) on my ram what should I do? Should I buy 2400Mhz and save $40? Should I try to set my own settings on the ram? My system is:

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/JJ6mGf


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> Can anyone help me? Since I can't run my new system using the XMP profile (3200Mhz, Cas 16) on my ram what should I do? Should I buy 2400Mhz and save $40? Should I try to set my own settings on the ram? My system is:
> 
> http://pcpartpicker.com/list/JJ6mGf


set the ram up manually before trying to exchange for 2400. Need bios screen shots so we can see the specifics of your OC.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> set the ram up manually before trying to exchange for 2400. Need bios screen shots so we can see the specifics of your OC.


Everything is stock, and most likely will be stock for awhile, except for the ram which will be the XMP profile.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> Everything is stock, and most likely will be stock for awhile, except for the ram which will be the XMP profile.


so enter bios, Load Optimized Defaults and repost to bios. Select XMP ans set your boot drive priority (change nothing else). Hit F10 to save and reboot... will it boot to windows? If not: if it fails post, what post code? If it fails windows... BSOD or reboot to Repair?


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> Everything is stock, and most likely will be stock for awhile, except for the ram which will be the XMP profile.


If what JPMboy told you didn't work, don't use the XMP settings for the RAM, use manual settings.

For starters set these settings:-

RAM Speed to 2800MHz
tCL, tRCD, tRP to 15
tRAS to 36
VCCSA on offset +0.1V
Rest on auto

Then see if it boots.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Nothing has changed. Realbench, Prime95 and IBT are the testing utilities for a CPU.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Anything else is, well, wrong.
> 
> You're taking advice from someone who DOESN'T test AVX stability? Meaning his CPU isn't 100% stable.... that's not someone I'd trust.


Interesting point actually.
I'm a gamer. From my first AVX suppoted processor which was 2600K back in 2011, I've never utilized AVX in real world scenario.
For the last 5-6 years of my PC usage, AVX was used *only* when I used Prime95 and/or LinX for stability tests.
So, what exactly is the AVX stability are you talking about? Please enlighten me.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Interesting point actually.
> I'm a gamer. From my first AVX suppoted processor which was 2600K back in 2011, I've never utilized AVX in real world scenario.
> For the last 5-6 years of my PC usage, AVX was used *only* when I used Prime95 and/or LinX for stability tests.
> So, what exactly is the AVX stability are you talking about? Please enlighten me.


video encoding will use AVX, AVX2 and FMA3 instruction sets


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> so enter bios, Load Optimized Defaults and repost to bios. Select XMP ans set your boot drive priority (change nothing else). Hit F10 to save and reboot... will it boot to windows? If not: if it fails post, what post code? If it fails windows... BSOD or reboot to Repair?


I believe I have already tried this. When system reboots screen stays black. I have to do a hard shutdown.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> If what JPMboy told you didn't work, don't use the XMP settings for the RAM, use manual settings.
> 
> For starters set these settings:-
> 
> RAM Speed to 2800MHz
> tCL, tRCD, tRP to 15
> tRAS to 36
> VCCSA on offset +0.1V
> Rest on auto
> 
> Then see if it boots.


I will try this later today.


----------



## PowerK

Nice summary here on latency and frequency.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hXCogI15jJpz_0DBigyrufsU2mvsfzanS86DVPwmJ-s/edit#gid=0


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> I believe I have already tried this. When system reboots screen stays black. I have to do a hard shutdown.


You try booting to safe mode to see if it blacks out?


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Does Broadwell-E support TSX-NI or not? Because it is not mentioned in Intel's website. It is mentioned only in the mainstream 5775C specs sheet.
I can't imagine a $1750 processor that is meant for multithreading and still has no support for TSX-NI. What Intel is thinking?

http://ark.intel.com/products/94456/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-25M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/88040/Intel-Core-i7-5775C-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz


----------



## mr2cam

Got my 5820k to 4.8ghz at only 1.335 volts, think I will hold off for now, would hate to get a bad overclocking chip :\


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> video encoding will use AVX, AVX2 and FMA3 instruction sets


Thanks for clearing that up for me.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> You try booting to safe mode to see if it blacks out?


It wont even boot to the bios.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> It wont even boot to the bios.


misread your post I thought it goes into windows. your ram shows it's 3000 you tried running it at that speed?


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> misread your post I thought it goes into windows. your ram shows it's 3000 you tried running it at that speed?


This is the kit I have now. Yes I tried to use the XMP profile as well as trying to manually set the voltage and timing to the XMP setting.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> This is the kit I have now. Yes I tried to use the XMP profile as well as trying to manually set the voltage and timing to the XMP setting.


set the ram voltage to 1.36 or 1.37 already?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> It will be dependent on the CPU. The R5E10 has no problem with a stable memory speed of 3200MHz.


Deluxe II here with 4x8GB 3400 CAS14, no problems here and the sticks are allowing me to reduce the spacing on seconds so there is room for improvement. I can't imagine there are many, if any at all Broadwell-E CPU that are aren't able to do 3200 in some form.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I'm wondering the same thing.
> Good point. Ah... decisions, decisions..
> I'm afraid it's a dual channel kit.
> http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14q-32gtz


Yes, it is. However I'm having no issues here. I would still recommend that people go by QVL for their platform all the same.


----------



## CerN

What do you guys reckon, performance difference, 4930k vs 6850k.
Got a 4930k at 4,5ghz at the moment, on the fence...

Might also get a 5930k for a decent price. I guess the typical OC on those are 4,6 - 4,7ghz? And BW-E seems to sit around 4,3 - 4,4.

Damn difficult choice...


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> This is the kit I have now. Yes I tried to use the XMP profile as well as trying to manually set the voltage and timing to the XMP setting.


You tried my settings? You need 1.35V for the RAM also, if it didn't boot try 2600MHz.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You tried my settings? You need 1.35V for the RAM also, if it didn't boot try 2600MHz.


Yes 1.35v. I haven't tried 2600mhz yet but at that point I would rather buy a 2400mhz kit at 1.2v.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> Yes 1.35v. I haven't tried 2600mhz yet but at that point I would rather buy a 2400mhz kit at 1.2v.


Try 1.36 or 1.37 just for the test though. I have experienced ram causing that especially in XMP mode and it was voltage starved for some reason. They were Kingston predator modules 3000 but you may be running into the same thing. I researched it and people were running it at the correct voltage except for one post from another forum I found and I tried it and it worked. This was in an RVE motherboard. I have another friend on an MSI motherboard that ran into a similar issue and his ram was rated at 1.35v 3000MHz but he couldn't get it to run past 2400MHz until he tried 1.4v at 3200MHz.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Try 1.36 or 1.37 just for the test though. I have experienced ram causing that especially in XMP mode and it was voltage starved for some reason. They were Kingston predator modules 3000 but you may be running into the same thing. I researched it and people were running it at the correct voltage except for one post from another forum I found and I tried it and it worked. This was in an RVE motherboard. I have another friend on an MSI motherboard that ran into a similar issue and his ram was rated at 1.35v 3000MHz but he couldn't get it to run past 2400MHz until he tried 1.4v at 3200MHz.


i
will definitely try it when I get home from work today. I also want to thank you for the help. I will keep you posted.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> i
> will definitely try it when I get home from work today. I also want to thank you for the help. I will keep you posted.


What kit did you end up buying?


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> video encoding will use AVX, AVX2 and FMA3 instruction sets


Tried with 6950x today and pass [email protected] OCCT, it was hard to pass. got the bsod watchdog time out every time if i tried to lower voltage below 1.33V. increase vccin 1.96V no help. Motherboard x99e-ws. any tips friend? whats the difference with pass OCCT and realbench? max temp with RB was around 65 but OCCT give me >80


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> video encoding will use AVX, AVX2 and FMA3 instruction sets


Hello

A 5 - 6 hour encode with Handbrake will fulfill this requirement.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Deluxe II here with 4x8GB 3400 CAS14, no problems here and the sticks are allowing me to reduce the spacing on seconds so there is room for improvement. I can't imagine there are many, if any at all Broadwell-E CPU that are aren't able to do 3200 in some form.
> Yes, it is. However I'm having no issues here. I would still recommend that people go by QVL for their platform all the same.


You dont seem like a QVL type of guy... lol.

Recommendations can be different from what we do ourselves however. 
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> What do you guys reckon, performance difference, 4930k vs 6850k.
> Got a 4930k at 4,5ghz at the moment, on the fence...
> 
> Might also get a 5930k for a decent price. I guess the typical OC on those are 4,6 - 4,7ghz? And BW-E seems to sit around 4,3 - 4,4.
> 
> Damn difficult choice...


5930k average is about 4.4-4.5. Definitely not any higher. 4.6+ is not easy to obtain.

Unless you are getting a golden sample expect 4.4-4.5.


----------



## tistou77

My 5930K is OK at 4.6ghz and 1.232v (Aida64 2h, Realbench and HCI Memtest 700%)








I wanted to go to 6850K, but with their very low OC, I keep my 5930K

And it's not a roxor, I saw 5820K or 5930K, even better


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> My 5930K is OK at 4.6ghz and 1.232v (Aida64 2h, Realbench and HCI Memtest 700%)


And? You're one of the lucky ones. ;-)

Seriously... my chip is a dog.... 1.375v for 4.4ghz.

1.232 for 4.6? Ridiculous. Jealous.

I'd probably have your chip at 4.8 just volted out bigtime. Hehe.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ocvn*
> 
> Tried with 6950x today and pass [email protected] OCCT, it was hard to pass. got the bsod watchdog time out every time if i tried to lower voltage below 1.33V. increase vccin 1.96V no help. Motherboard x99e-ws. any tips friend? whats the difference with pass OCCT and realbench? max temp with RB was around 65 but OCCT give me >80


Lol - like the doctor says... if it hurts then don;t do that!.









I've not needed OCCT or p95 for obtaining a stable 24/7 overclock - and never had a crash from instability in normal use: x264, 30 threads - 3+ hours. HCI memtest and/or GSAT, x265 p-mode, 4K 12 threads (uses 20GB ram), benchmarks, y-cruncher, a few loops of IBT. I DO have AVX offset down to 42 on a 44 OC, and 41 on a 4300 OC.

Link to x264 stability test: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gpMyj43ZFjSzJ4Nm0xT3pobjA
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> A 5 - 6 hour encode with Handbrake will fulfill this requirement.


Yeah - it does pretty well at for this purpose. I was encoding a 4K GoPro for the iPAD (cart racing with the nephews... I'm the "problem" uncle







) and it really did give the rig a workout.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> And? You're one of the lucky ones. ;-)
> 
> Seriously... my chip is a dog.... 1.375v for 4.4ghz.
> 
> 1.232 for 4.6? Ridiculous. Jealous.
> 
> I'd probably have your chip at 4.8 just volted out bigtime. Hehe.


So you run 1.375v and tested that with prime95?

The worst chip i had needed 1.35vcore / 2.05vccin for 4.5Ghz. And that was barley attainable with reallbench as my temps were in the low 80°c range. With prime95 it can push temps to 100°c+ at that voltage.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I've got a stable OC at 4.4Ghz 2400MHz 14-14-14-34 1CR, 1.34375V, cache on auto,
> 
> I just wanted to see if i could push my chip to the limit.


So I was saying I have a stable overclock at these settings and thats true but...

The temps are out of control.

Running Prime95 for not even 10 min and I hit 90C easy. AIDA64 is more forgiving, but as others have said, if your not testing your cpu for all use cases, whats the point?

I'm using a h100i v2 for cooling right now and I was wondering, how much better does it get for a AIO cooler? I've thought about going to a 280mm radiator model with 4 fans for push pull, but would the results even be appreciable?(~10C or more) Please tell me I don't need some huge suitcase of radiators or one of these next to my PC to improve my cooling.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What kit did you end up buying?



This is the kit I have now.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Try 1.36 or 1.37 just for the test though. I have experienced ram causing that especially in XMP mode and it was voltage starved for some reason. They were Kingston predator modules 3000 but you may be running into the same thing. I researched it and people were running it at the correct voltage except for one post from another forum I found and I tried it and it worked. This was in an RVE motherboard. I have another friend on an MSI motherboard that ran into a similar issue and his ram was rated at 1.35v 3000MHz but he couldn't get it to run past 2400MHz until he tried 1.4v at 3200MHz.


So Im at 2600mhz at 1.35 v and cas 15. The only thing I have done was run 3dmark Firestrike and everything seems to be running fine.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> So Im at 2600mhz at 1.35 v and cas 15. The only thing I have done was run 3dmark Firestrike and everything seems to be running fine.


On a 3200mhz kit?

Not sure why someone hasn't said this yet.... there is no way your CPU can't do 3200mhz. I haven't even seen a Haswell-E that cant do XMP 3200mhz, let alone a Broadwell-E.

Something is wrong. Big time.

Also, don't take this the wrong way.... but 2600 @ CAS 15 is horrible for a BW-E. I'd continue trying to figure this out, get another RAM Kit ASAP. I doubt it's your CPU or Mobo. Have you tested each stick individually?

If not, get going. I'm pretty sure you'll find one or two or even three work at 3200mhz. Definitely a RAM issue. Update your BIOS before you do all this, set "Load Optimized Defaults", reboot and flash BIOS.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> On a 3200mhz kit?
> 
> Not sure why someone hasn't said this yet.... there is no way your CPU can't do 3200mhz. I haven't even seen a Haswell-E that cant do XMP 3200mhz, let alone a Broadwell-E.


I've gone through a few 5960X I couldn't get 3200 stable on no matter how much VCCSA tweaking.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> I've gone through a few 5960X I couldn't get 3200 stable on no matter how much VCCSA tweaking.


Should have Intel Tuning Plan 1 time no questions replacemented those bad boys.

After testing his sticks individually, if he has no success.... he should do the same.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> On a 3200mhz kit?
> 
> Not sure why someone hasn't said this yet.... there is no way your CPU can't do 3200mhz. I haven't even seen a Haswell-E that cant do XMP 3200mhz, let alone a Broadwell-E.
> 
> Something is wrong. Big time.
> 
> Also, don't take this the wrong way.... but 2600 @ CAS 15 is horrible for a BW-E. I'd continue trying to figure this out, get another RAM Kit ASAP. I doubt it's your CPU or Mobo. Have you tested each stick individually?
> 
> If not, get going. I'm pretty sure you'll find one or two or even three work at 3200mhz. Definitely a RAM issue. Update your BIOS before you do all this, set "Load Optimized Defaults", reboot and flash BIOS.


I ahve been doing a lot of research on this and its definitely a lot more common than you think. Are you even on Brodwell-e?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> I ahve been doing a lot of research on this and its definitely a lot more common than you think. Are you even on Brodwell-e?


No.

Buy a tuning plan and replace the chip. You shouldn't have to deal with a dud.

My advice anyway.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> I ahve been doing a lot of research on this and its definitely a lot more common than you think. Are you even on Brodwell-e?


Are you using that Asrock board as per the other G.Skill thread? I think I remember warning you about hunting for dual channel kits.

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/index.asp?cat=Memory


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Are you using that Asrock board as per the other G.Skill thread? I think I remember warning you about hunting for dual channel kits.


I kinda remember that. I think I remember saying that my motherboard (AsrockX99e-itx) only takes two dims. Anyway, Im currently at 2800Mhz with cas16 and 1.35v.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Should have Intel Tuning Plan 1 time no questions replacemented those bad boys.
> 
> After testing his sticks individually, if he has no success.... he should do the same.


Back in 2014, I would say it was considerably rare to find a chip that could do 3200 with ease, far from being a "dud."


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Running Prime95 for not even 10 min and I hit 90C easy. AIDA64 is more forgiving, but as others have said, if your not testing your cpu for all use cases, whats the point?


Last versions of P95 v28.xx inject insane currents in Motherboards. This software is dangerous, even with good water cooling.
This is an extreme test according to me which can't be realistic, even if you use softwares with AVX/AVX/FM3 instructions.
I would suggest you to use OCCT.
It is tougher to pass than RealBench and Aida64 and doesn't produce any insane temps as with P95 v28.xx.


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> I ahve been doing a lot of research on this and its definitely a lot more common than you think. Are you even on Brodwell-e?


not sure what a lot of research entails but there were about 3 ppl total in this thread that immediately said on day 1 that the BW-E IMC is terrible and cant handle this and that andblah blah blah

but I have run 3200kits, also OCd them to 3400 with zero issues on.. a large # of 6950xs

People just don't know how to get their kits running.


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Last versions of P95 v28.xx inject insane currents in Motherboards. This software is dangerous, even with good water cooling.
> This is an extreme test according to me which can't be realistic, even if you use softwares with AVX/AVX/FM3 instructions.
> I would suggest you to use OCCT.
> It is tougher to pass than RealBench and Aida64 and doesn't produce any insane temps as with P95 v28.xx.


Or just run P95 v27.9.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Last versions of P95 v28.xx inject insane currents in Motherboards. This software is dangerous, even with good water cooling.
> This is an extreme test according to me which can't be realistic, even if you use softwares with AVX/AVX/FM3 instructions.
> I would suggest you to use OCCT.
> It is tougher to pass than RealBench and Aida64 and doesn't produce any insane temps as with P95 v28.xx.


Yeah I tried again last night and it pushed 100C pretty much instantly. I think I need to re-seat my cooler regardless. I'm going to do so tonight and try OCCT and a different version of P95 and I'll report back the outcome.

Thanks for you input!

As a side note, does anyone know anything about Broadwell-E's temp limits/temp shutdown threshold?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Or just run P95 v27.9.


yep, good suggestion.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Yeah I tried again last night and it pushed 100C pretty much instantly. I think I need to re-seat my cooler regardless. I'm going to do so tonight and try OCCT and a different version of P95 and I'll report back the outcome.
> 
> Thanks for you input!
> 
> As a side note, does anyone know anything about Broadwell-E's temp limits/temp shutdown threshold?


You will throttle at Tjmax.


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Bwe will throttle at 100C


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> not sure what a lot of research entails but there were about 3 ppl total in this thread that immediately said on day 1 that the BW-E IMC is terrible and cant handle this and that andblah blah blah
> 
> but I have run 3200kits, also OCd them to 3400 with zero issues on.. a large # of 6950xs
> 
> People just don't know how to get their kits running.


Hello

Should post up some HCI screenshots.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> not sure what a lot of research entails but there were about 3 ppl total in this thread that immediately said on day 1 that the BW-E IMC is terrible and cant handle this and that andblah blah blah
> 
> but I have run 3200kits, also OCd them to 3400 with zero issues on.. a large # of 6950xs
> 
> People just don't know how to get their kits running.


Thats why im here. If XMP is not working Im here so people can help me get them where they need to be.


----------



## eatthermalpaste

pm me w hardware/kit info and current voltages


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> Thats why im here. If XMP is not working Im here so people can help me get them where they need to be.


Your issue is not really relevant to that fascinating fragment of baseless information, not sure who he was talking to. That board was never designed with BWE in mind, and the kit you are using is not listed for it. That's two factors in your struggle, the other is if that board even has OC socket capabilities. I would like to assume so as there are kits listed there at the frequencies you are trying to achieve under it's QVL


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Last versions of P95 v28.xx inject insane currents in Motherboards. This software is dangerous, even with good water cooling.
> This is an extreme test according to me which can't be realistic, even if you use softwares with AVX/AVX/FM3 instructions.
> I would suggest you to use OCCT.
> It is tougher to pass than RealBench and Aida64 and doesn't produce any insane temps as with P95 v28.xx.


It is by no means dangerous by what it is, you just have to know what you are doing and decide to stick to lower clocks and voltage or possibly face the consequences. I still run latest P95 and LinX but that's just me, things have changed a bit with BW-E since the AVX multiplier can be throttled.


----------



## eatthermalpaste

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/?cat=Memory

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9391/the-asrock-x99e-itx-ac-review-36-threads

Has OC socket, memory can be OCd, top speeds around 3333 in the QVL for the board. Issue is that anything over 3000 on the kits there is a 4-8GB kit, no 16GBs over 3200. You may be able to get it to work but it might require some higher voltages, and pushing more on the IMC as well. That QVL seems to have more attention paid to it than any other qvl ive seen and is pretty up to date.. so they probably cant manage kits over 3200 16GB on that thing.

edit: also just realized your kit is 2x16 not 2x8.. pretty excessive its going to be harder to get 16GB DIMMs working especially on a mobo like that. Need to keep the density in mind as well as the bandwidth when working with an itx board

I'd suggest to you getting a kit with a lower bandwidth, or staying that high but going down to 8GB. Otherwise if you stick with this kit you are going to need to push the system agent pretty hard as well as the sticks themselves.. without getting any gains on timings.

If there's a BIOS on it that supports BW-E, that board is in the same boat as every single other board other than the 'refresh' models.. but those really don't have many differences. Not sure what 'that board wasnt made with broadwell-e in mind' even means.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/?cat=Memory
> 
> If there's a BIOS on it that supports BW-E, that board is in the same boat as every single other board other than the 'refresh' models.. but those really don't have many differences. Not sure what 'that board wasnt made with broadwell-e in mind' even means.


And that is fine, wouldn't expect you to. Mind me asking who you work for?


----------



## DarkIdeals

If he has 2x16GB then presumably they should be dual ranked, depending on brand. You said they are G. Skill didn't you @Ragsters? What IC are they?

Broadwell-E seems to (for the most part) be kinda limited to 3000-3200, i've talked to people saying they hit 3300 / 3333mhz on Some Samsungn ICs. (i'd kill for some Elpida Hypers in DDR4 3000+....you can dream right?) I managed to hit 3000mhz C16 on my 4x8GB Dominator Platinum Samsung IC so far on a 6800K. Not looking like i'll get any farther though.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> If he has 2x16GB then presumably they should be dual ranked, depending on brand. You said they are G. Skill didn't you @Ragsters? What IC are they?
> 
> Broadwell-E seems to (for the most part) be kinda limited to 3000-3200, i've talked to people saying they hit 3300 / 3333mhz on Some Samsungn ICs. (i'd kill for some Elpida Hypers in DDR4 3000+....you can dream right?) I managed to hit 3000mhz C16 on my 4x8GB Dominator Platinum Samsung IC so far on a 6800K. Not looking like i'll get any farther though.


This is my kit now.

Right now I have the kit at the same latency but at 2800Mhz.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> This is my kit now.
> 
> Right now I have the kit at the same latency but at 2800Mhz.


AHH that's right. Forgot you had Vengeance....hmm, don't recall off the top of my head what IC vengeance DDR4's usually use. But idk, you SHOULD be able to hit 3000mhz on it without issue. 3200 is iffy but 3000 should be fine imo. Are you able to run C16 -17 3000mhz? Perhaps you'll need ~1.4v to get a decent 3k-mhz+ speeds.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Or just run P95 v27.9.


this is not the way to do this.
Just use the latest Prime95 and use the commands to disable FMA3 and AVX. Details on how are in the undoco.txt file, zero obviously disables. Put that command into the local.txt file. This way you get rid of all bugs that have been fixed while giving you an option to test without FMA3 or AVX.

CpuSupportsAVX=0 or 1
CpuSupportsFMA3=0 or 1
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Should post up some HCI screenshots.


I asked weeks ago... lot's of BS and no evidence of anything.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> not sure what a lot of research entails but there were about 3 ppl total in this thread that immediately said on day 1 that the BW-E IMC is terrible and cant handle this and that andblah blah blah
> 
> but I have run 3200kits, also OCd them to 3400 with zero issues on.. a large # of 6950xs
> 
> People just don't know how to get their kits running.


bullsheet.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> not sure what a lot of research entails but there were about 3 ppl total in this thread that immediately said on day 1 that the BW-E IMC is terrible and cant handle this and that andblah blah blah
> 
> but I have run 3200kits, also OCd them to 3400 with zero issues on.. a large # of 6950xs
> 
> People just don't know how to get their kits running.


I would agree, I had trouble my first day or so with a 6950x, but eventually found the IMC to be better than Haswell. Running 3000CAS14 128G. I am able to run "stable" at 3200CAS14 (ran for 10+ days like that), but stressapp would eventually show temperature dependent single bit corruption. So, I dialed it back to 3000. The RAM was not "overheating", just as it got hot under stress, it could take the OC.

Overall the 6950x @ 4.4/3.7 (CPU/Cache) has been extremely stable, runs cool, spins up from idle faster, but with a few notable exceptions gives me performance VERY similar in raw compute terms as my 5960x @ 4.7/4.2.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I would agree, I had trouble my first day or so with a 6950x, but eventually found the IMC to be better than Haswell. Running 3000CAS14 128G. I am able to run "stable" at 3200CAS14 (ran for 10+ days like that), but stressapp would eventually show temperature dependent single bit corruption. So, I dialed it back to 3000. The RAM was not "overheating", just as it got hot under stress, it could take the OC.
> 
> Overall the 6950x @ 4.4/3.7 (CPU/Cache) has been extremely stable, runs cool, spins up from idle faster, but with a few notable exceptions gives me performance VERY similar in raw compute terms as my 5960x @ 4.7/4.2.


Active airflow and perhaps not testing for stupendous amounts of time would be my advice.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Active airflow and perhaps not testing for stupendous amounts of time would be my advice.


Airflow already handled, the run-time is "work-work" not benching/stressing. Once I got it stable, I put it to work.

I would periodically re-run stressapp to check for memory issues. Re-reading my post, I can see how that looks like I ran stressapp for 10 days...


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I would agree, I had trouble my first day or so with a 6950x, but eventually found the IMC to be better than Haswell. Running 3000CAS14 128G. I am able to run "stable" at 3200CAS14 (ran for 10+ days like that), but stressapp would eventually show temperature dependent single bit corruption. So, I dialed it back to 3000. The RAM was not "overheating", just as it got hot under stress, it could take the OC.
> 
> Overall the 6950x @ 4.4/3.7 (CPU/Cache) has been extremely stable, runs cool, spins up from idle faster, but with a few notable exceptions gives me performance VERY similar in raw compute terms as my 5960x @ 4.7/4.2.


Would you mind posting your AIDA64 stress test and Prime95 load temps so I have a reference to go against for my own thermal issues? Whats your cooling set up? Memory speed/timings at that clock speed?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I would agree, I had trouble my first day or so with a 6950x, but eventually found the IMC to be better than Haswell. Running 3000CAS14 128G. I am able to run "stable" at 3200CAS14 (ran for 10+ days like that), but stressapp would eventually show temperature dependent single bit corruption. So, I dialed it back to 3000. The RAM was not "overheating", just as it got hot under stress, it could take the OC.
> 
> Overall the 6950x @ 4.4/3.7 (CPU/Cache) has been extremely stable, runs cool, spins up from idle faster, but with a few notable exceptions gives me performance VERY similar in raw compute terms as my 5960x @ 4.7/4.2.


I assume when you say similar performance between 4.4/3.7 6950X and 4.7/4.2 5960X that you mean without considering the extra 2 cores on the 6950X right? As 10 cores would obviously increase the overall compute performance of it, so i'm assuming you mean with only 8 cores active on both right?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I would agree, I had trouble my first day or so with a 6950x, but eventually found the IMC to be better than Haswell. Running 3000CAS14 128G. I am able to run "stable" at 3200CAS14 (ran for 10+ days like that), but stressapp would eventually show temperature dependent single bit corruption. So, I dialed it back to 3000. The RAM was not "overheating", just as it got hot under stress, it could take the OC.
> 
> Overall the 6950x @ 4.4/3.7 (CPU/Cache) has been extremely stable, runs cool, spins up from idle faster, but with a few notable exceptions gives me performance VERY similar in raw compute terms as my 5960x @ 4.7/4.2.












same conclusion here. The 6950X @ 4.4/3.8 does blow past my 5960x (still on-the-job at 4.7/4.2) in any threaded benchmark like 3D mark Physics and the like.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Would you mind posting your AIDA64 stress test and Prime95 load temps so I have a reference to go against for my own thermal issues? Whats your cooling set up? Memory speed/timings at that clock speed?


Not easy to do quickly, I'm back into linux. Cooling is an EK full-board block for the Rampage 5 Extreme with a 420 + 240 rad (loop includes 2 video cards as well).

Aida64 Temps from memory and from seeing it fully loaded in linux:
peak is 70-72C
Average is 60-65C

I don't run Prime95, if Aida and RealBench pass, I move on to linux, starting with stressapp which usually requires a little more cache/dram voltage somewhere than aida and then on to my personal work-load examples.

4.4CPU 1.325v adaptive
3.7Cache 1.290v (offset)
SA=-0.06V offset (yes, minus, Auto was driving this up higher than needed)
LLC=5
BCLK=100
DDR4 128G 3000-14-14-14-34-2T 1.35v (sticker values for this ram - which Haswell could never do with these same sticks on this same board)


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I assume when you say similar performance between 4.4/3.7 6950X and 4.7/4.2 5960X that you mean without considering the extra 2 cores on the 6950X right? As 10 cores would obviously increase the overall compute performance of it, so i'm assuming you mean with only 8 cores active on both right?


You have to have a work-load that can specifically use these extra 2 cores... (which I do), so yes and no...

The yes is that if your work-load scales well, then its 1:1 and a 6900x and an an above average OC'd 5960x should be nearly identical with the 6950x beating them both. I do have examples of that that I use and I see ~18-20% speed up you'd expect with 2 more cores and imperfect scaling owing to shared resources.

The no is that things like RealBench's image editing and encoding seem to produce very similar numbers between a 4.4 6950x. The OC I lost gets made up by IPC and 2 more cores it seems when more typical imperfect scaling that you see normally is considered.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> You have to have a work-load that can specifically use these extra 2 cores... (which I do), so yes and no...
> 
> The yes is that if your work-load scales well, then its 1:1 and a 6900x and an an above average OC'd 5960x should be nearly identical with the 6950x beating them both. I do have examples of that that I use and I see ~18-20% speed up you'd expect with 2 more cores and imperfect scaling owing to shared resources.
> 
> The no is that things like RealBench's image editing and encoding seem to produce very similar numbers between a 4.4 6950x. The OC I lost gets made up by IPC and 2 more cores it seems when more typical imperfect scaling that you see normally is considered.


I just got my siliconlottery binned (4.4ghz) i7 6800K and i'm curious of how it will compare to my 4.5ghz + 4.3 cache 5960X overall. I'm mostly also just curious of how broadwell-E's extra IPC makes it fare against Haswell-E in general.

My reasoning behind getting the 6800K was that a 4.4ghz 6800K SHOULD be able to hit the same level of multi-threaded performance as a STOCK speed 5960X in rendering and such (which is good enough for me as i've had my 5960X at stock for some time and it renders just fine speed-wise for me) but while also getting me closer to the 6700K in single threaded and gaming etc.. performance due to the IPC increase. But it's hard to find objective info on exactly HOW much of an improvement BW-E is over HW-E clock for clock with identical core count, let alone comparing different core counts...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I just got my siliconlottery binned (4.4ghz) i7 6800K and i'm curious of how it will compare to my 4.5ghz + 4.3 cache 5960X overall. I'm mostly also just curious of how broadwell-E's extra IPC makes it fare against Haswell-E in general.
> 
> My reasoning behind getting the 6800K was that a 4.4ghz 6800K SHOULD be able to hit the same level of multi-threaded performance as a STOCK speed 5960X in rendering and such (which is good enough for me as i've had my 5960X at stock for some time and it renders just fine speed-wise for me) but while also getting me closer to the 6700K in single threaded and gaming etc.. performance due to the IPC increase. But it's hard to find objective info on exactly HOW much of an improvement BW-E is over HW-E clock for clock with identical core count, let alone comparing different core counts...


Indeed... Intel obviously focused on specific instructions and work-loads that it improved... So, you really have to try stuff to know.

Out of curiosity when I got it, I did things like this:

Code:



Code:


// compile with g++ -O3 for_loop.cc -o for_loop
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<stdint.h>

int main(void)
{
    volatile uint64_t a=1,b=1,c=1;   
    for(uint64_t i=0;i<10000000000ull;i++) {
        a = (a + b * c)*i;
        c = a + b;
        b = c + a;        
    }
    printf("a %llu b %llu c %llu\n",a,b,c);
    exit(0);
}

5960x @ 4.4/4.0 (didn't do the 4.7 machine, but this sort of work load is 1:1 linear)
time ./for_loop
a 14112393696577847627 b 9059408354752924673 c 13393758731884628662
61.686u 0.004s 1:01.75 99.8% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

6950x @ 4.4/3.7
time ./for_loop
a 14112393696577847627 b 9059408354752924673 c 13393758731884628662
54.818u 0.001s 0:54.87 99.8% 0+0k 24+0io 0pf+0w


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Indeed... Intel obviously focused on specific instructions and work-loads that it improved... So, you really have to try stuff to know.
> 
> Out of curiosity when I got it, I did things like this:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> // compile with g++ -O3 for_loop.cc -o for_loop
> #include<stdio.h>
> #include<stdlib.h>
> #include<stdint.h>
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> volatile uint64_t a=1,b=1,c=1;
> for(uint64_t i=0;i<10000000000ull;i++) {
> a = (a + b * c)*i;
> c = a + b;
> b = c + a;
> }
> printf("a %llu b %llu c %llu\n",a,b,c);
> exit(0);
> }
> 
> 5960x @ 4.4/4.0 (didn't do the 4.7 machine, but this sort of work load is 1:1 linear)
> time ./for_loop
> a 14112393696577847627 b 9059408354752924673 c 13393758731884628662
> 61.686u 0.004s 1:01.75 99.8% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> 
> 6950x @ 4.4/3.7
> time ./for_loop
> a 14112393696577847627 b 9059408354752924673 c 13393758731884628662
> 54.818u 0.001s 0:54.87 99.8% 0+0k 24+0io 0pf+0w


Do you think you could run the test with just 6 or 8 cores active on the 6950X at 4.4 / 3.7 speed? That would give a better idea of how it compares to an equivalent core count or higher core count Haswell-E chip.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Do you think you could run the test with just 6 or 8 cores active on the 6950X at 4.4 / 3.7 speed? That would give a better idea of how it compares to an equivalent core count or higher core count Haswell-E chip.


"for_loop"? That is a completely single-thread function, I'd put money on zero impact to disabling cores for that. Or did you mean something else?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> "for_loop"? That is a completely single-thread function, I'd put money on zero impact to disabling cores for that. Or did you mean something else?


Oh, sorry. I had no idea what the specific test you were running was. I thought it was a multi-threaded one. I'm not familiar with the list of numbers you posted, so i had no idea what program/test it was.

That's interesting though. That test is completely single threaded then? That's a quite nice indication of overall IPC then! Good to know...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Oh, sorry. I had no idea what the specific test you were running was. I thought it was a multi-threaded one. I'm not familiar with the list of numbers you posted, so i had no idea what program/test it was.
> 
> That's interesting though. That test is completely single threaded then? That's a quite nice indication of overall IPC then! Good to know...


The third number is "wall-clock" time in (minutes:seconds:milli-seconds) format for comparison sake.

Here's another contrived test with threads - feel free to critique or find flaws that might produce non-linear results in my code, I really just smashed this together right now, so I am sure its less than perfect:

Code:



Code:


#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <pthread.h>

#define TOTAL 10000ull
#define INNER 10000000ull

void *thread_func(void *ptr)
{
    uint64_t *addr = (uint64_t *)ptr;
    volatile uint64_t a=1,b=1,c=1;   
    while(1) {
        for(uint64_t i=0;i<INNER;i++) {
            a = (a + b * c)*i;
            c = a + b;
            b = c + a;        
        }

        uint64_t prior = __sync_add_and_fetch(addr,1ull);
        if(prior >= TOTAL) {
            printf("Thread %lld complete\n",pthread_self());
            printf("a %llu b %llu c %llu\n",a,b,c);
            pthread_exit(0);
        }
    }
}

int main(int argc, char **argv) 
{
    int thread_count = strtol(argv[1],NULL,10);
    printf("Running with %d threads\n",thread_count);

    pthread_t *thread_pool = new pthread_t[thread_count];
    volatile uint64_t common_counter = 0;

    for(int i=0;i<thread_count;i++) {
        pthread_create(&thread_pool[i],NULL,thread_func,(void *)&common_counter);
    }

    for(int i=0;i<thread_count;i++) {
        pthread_join(thread_pool[i],NULL);
    }
    printf("All threads complete (counter = %llu)\n",common_counter);
    exit(0);    
}

5960x @ 4.4/4.0
time ./multi_thread 8
All threads complete (counter = 10007)
616.657u 0.011s *1:17.17* 799.0% 0+0k 24+0io 0pf+0w

time ./multi_thread 16
Running with 16 threads
All threads complete (counter = 10015)
675.358u 0.011s *0:42.28* 1597.3% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

*sanity check, this should certainly NOT be faster and likely slower than 16 on this CPU*
time ./multi_thread 20
Running with 20 threads
All threads complete (counter = 10019)
675.818u 0.005s *0:42.32* 1596.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
*yep*

6950x @ 4.4/3.7
time ./multi_thread 8
All threads complete (counter = 10007)
549.889u 0.018s *1:08.82* 799.0% 0+0k 24+0io 0pf+0w

time ./multi_thread 16
Running with 16 threads
All threads complete (counter = 10015)
603.635u 0.026s *0:37.80* 1596.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

time ./multi_thread 10
Running with 10 threads
All threads complete (counter = 10009)
549.767u 0.010s *0:55.05* 998.6% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

time ./multi_thread 20
Running with 20 threads
All threads complete (counter = 10019)
622.426u 0.059s *0:31.38* 1983.6% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Indeed... Intel obviously focused on specific instructions and work-loads that it improved... So, you really have to try stuff to know.
> 
> Out of curiosity when I got it, I did things like this:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> // compile with g++ -O3 for_loop.cc -o for_loop
> #include<stdio.h>
> #include<stdlib.h>
> #include<stdint.h>
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> volatile uint64_t a=1,b=1,c=1;
> for(uint64_t i=0;i<10000000000ull;i++) {
> a = (a + b * c)*i;
> c = a + b;
> b = c + a;
> }
> printf("a %llu b %llu c %llu\n",a,b,c);
> exit(0);
> }
> 
> 5960x @ 4.4/4.0 (didn't do the 4.7 machine, but this sort of work load is 1:1 linear)
> time ./for_loop
> a 14112393696577847627 b 9059408354752924673 c 13393758731884628662
> 61.686u 0.004s 1:01.75 99.8% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> 
> 6950x @ 4.4/3.7
> time ./for_loop
> a 14112393696577847627 b 9059408354752924673 c 13393758731884628662
> 54.818u 0.001s 0:54.87 99.8% 0+0k 24+0io 0pf+0w


^^Nice post, I'd be interested to see any other functions you tested and the results.

As for my build, it seems my so called "stable" 4.4Ghz overclock is not doing very well. It failed OCCT pretty much instantly. I pushed back to stock cache settings, RAM back to CR2, and 43x multi and now OCCT fails due to the cpu going over 85C.

I feel like my cooler isn't doing its job properly. I re-seated it today before I ran these tests, so that's definitely not the problem... Corsair Link reports my pump is pushing 2800rpm but my fan is only at 780-820? I have it configured in CL at fixed 100% speed. Corsair's website says these fans should go up to 2500rpm?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> ^^Nice post, I'd be interested to see any other functions you tested and the results.
> 
> As for my build, it seems my so called "stable" 4.4Ghz overclock is not doing very well. It failed OCCT pretty much instantly. I pushed back to stock cache settings, RAM back to CR2, and 43x multi and now OCCT fails due to the cpu going over 85C.
> 
> I feel like my cooler isn't doing its job properly. I re-seated it today before I ran these tests, so that's definitely not the problem... Corsair Link reports my pump is pushing 2800rpm but my fan is only at 780-820? I have it configured in CL at fixed 100% speed. Corsair's website says these fans should go up to 2500rpm?


I posted a quick multi-thread contrived test, but it seems it got moderated... The other stuff I do, I am afraid I can't share.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I posted a quick multi-thread contrived test, but it seems it got moderated... The other stuff I do, I am afraid I can't share.


Oooh, secret agent stuff.....spooky... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdl9Byw3ej8&t=0m13s

Tell us!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Not easy to do quickly, I'm back into linux. Cooling is an EK full-board block for the Rampage 5 Extreme with a 420 + 240 rad (loop includes 2 video cards as well).
> 
> Aida64 Temps from memory and from seeing it fully loaded in linux:
> peak is 70-72C
> Average is 60-65C
> 
> I don't run Prime95, if Aida and RealBench pass, I move on to linux, starting with stressapp which usually requires a little more cache/dram voltage somewhere than aida and then on to my personal work-load examples.
> 
> 4.4CPU 1.325v adaptive
> 3.7Cache 1.290v (offset)
> SA=-0.06V offset (yes, minus, Auto was driving this up higher than needed)
> LLC=5
> BCLK=100
> DDR4 128G 3000-14-14-14-34-2T 1.35v (sticker values for this ram - which Haswell could never do with these same sticks on this same board)


Would be good to see some pass results in the link below with 128gb


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> The third number is "wall-clock" time in (minutes:seconds:milli-seconds) format for comparison sake.
> 
> Here's another contrived test with threads - feel free to critique or find flaws that might produce non-linear results in my code, I really just smashed this together right now, so I am sure its less than perfect:


Tight loop with just simple multithreading from C++ library, all data are in L1 cache. Too much synchronization for my taste.

There on overclock net is somewhere my Java program for a testing difference between HT and normal running. But there is also Dolphin benchmark which, while it doesn't test heavy multithreading, tests well a single "peak core" on variable load.


----------



## Martin778

Guys, does the Turbo Boost Max 3.0 do anything on a CPU that is overclocked manually to 10x4.2GHz?


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Guys, does the Turbo Boost Max 3.0 do anything on a CPU that is overclocked manually to 10x4.2GHz?


Only if you do not sync all cores to the same frequency. To use TBM 3.0, you need to apply the "by specific core" option (that's what it is called in the ASUS UEFI). The Intel driver will then lock suitable applications to the fastest cores (those you set to higher ratios). Bear in mind the voltage mode needs to be in Auto or Offset to make use of this feature properly. There are some side-effects to doing so, highlighted in the thermal control tool guide in my sig.


----------



## PowerK

Look what's arrived today.


----------



## Martin778

Why the double 1070? Are you a reviewer?

@Raja,
Thanks for the answer, it seems like it's not really worth it considering I'm now running full manual voltages.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Why the double 1070? Are you a reviewer?


Nah. Those 1070s are for my son's PC (6700K).


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Only if you do not sync all cores to the same frequency. To use TBM 3.0, you need to apply the "by specific core" option (that's what it is called in the ASUS UEFI). The Intel driver will then lock suitable applications to the fastest cores (those you set to higher ratios). Bear in mind the voltage mode needs to be in Auto or Offset to make use of this feature properly. There are some side-effects to doing so, highlighted in the thermal control tool guide in my sig.


Hmm...not so sure i like that honestly. Leaving voltage on auto when you're running a high overclock (4.4ghz or 4.5ghz on BW-E for my 6800K) often results in FAR too high of a standard vcore and you end up with absurd spikes on boot at times. On my Rampage IV Black Edition and 4820K i used to have i set it to auto 4.5ghz CPU Level-up and it set vcore to a ridiculous 1.45-1.5v or something iirc (could manually hit 4.5ghz at ~1.33v or so) and i found out eventually that it was spiking to ~1.65 - 1.7v on boot for up to 20-30 seconds every time i'd turn on the PC (not talking about VCCIN voltage either!). Had similar issues on Haswell-E too, not QUITE as bad but still there; there's actually an entire thread on OCN here, about people who had their 5960X's etc.. fried from auto voltage supplying up to a whopping 1.9v at boot for fairly extended periods of up to a few minutes on Rampage V Extreme and Deluxe X99 boards iirc.

I'm curious of whether this would still be an issue on the Rampage V Edition 10 with BW-E CPUs....if so i'd honestly just prefer to find out ONE TIME what the best cores are, then write that info down; and simply do a standard "1 core ratio, 2 core ratio etc..etc.." setup so that i could program it to boost the 2 or 3 best cores to 4.5ghz and the rest to 4.4ghz etc.. effectively achieving ALMOST the same thing as the per core overclocking but allowing full manual voltage control i'd assume.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Look what's arrived today.


They've sent you two extra GPU by mistake. Send me the 1080s
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Hmm...not so sure i like that honestly. Leaving voltage on auto when you're running a high overclock (4.4ghz or 4.5ghz on BW-E for my 6800K) often results in FAR too high of a standard vcore and you end up with absurd spikes on boot at times. On my Rampage IV Black Edition and 4820K i used to have i set it to auto 4.5ghz CPU Level-up and it set vcore to a ridiculous 1.45-1.5v or something iirc (could manually hit 4.5ghz at ~1.33v or so) and i found out eventually that it was spiking to ~1.65 - 1.7v on boot for up to 20-30 seconds every time i'd turn on the PC (not talking about VCCIN voltage either!). Had similar issues on Haswell-E too, not QUITE as bad but still there; there's actually an entire thread on OCN here, about people who had their 5960X's etc.. fried from auto voltage supplying up to a whopping 1.9v at boot for fairly extended periods of up to a few minutes on Rampage V Extreme and Deluxe X99 boards iirc.]
> 
> I'm curious of whether this would still be an issue on the Rampage V Edition 10 with BW-E CPUs....if so i'd honestly just prefer to find out ONE TIME what the best cores are, then write that info down; and simply do a standard "1 core ratio, 2 core ratio etc..etc.." setup so that i could program it to boost the 2 or 3 best cores to 4.5ghz and the rest to 4.4ghz etc.. effectively achieving ALMOST the same thing as the per core overclocking but allowing full manual voltage control i'd assume.


You don't half' twaddle.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Hmm...not so sure i like that honestly. Leaving voltage on auto when you're running a high overclock (4.4ghz or 4.5ghz on BW-E for my 6800K) often results in FAR too high of a standard vcore and you end up with absurd spikes on boot at times. On my Rampage IV Black Edition and 4820K i used to have i set it to auto 4.5ghz CPU Level-up and it set vcore to a ridiculous 1.45-1.5v or something iirc (could manually hit 4.5ghz at ~1.33v or so) and i found out eventually that it was spiking to ~1.65 - 1.7v on boot for up to 20-30 seconds every time i'd turn on the PC (not talking about VCCIN voltage either!). Had similar issues on Haswell-E too, not QUITE as bad but still there; there's actually an entire thread on OCN here, about people who had their 5960X's etc.. fried from auto voltage supplying up to a whopping 1.9v at boot for fairly extended periods of up to a few minutes on Rampage V Extreme and Deluxe X99 boards iirc.
> 
> I'm curious of whether this would still be an issue on the Rampage V Edition 10 with BW-E CPUs....if so i'd honestly just prefer to find out ONE TIME what the best cores are, then write that info down; and simply do a standard "1 core ratio, 2 core ratio etc..etc.." setup so that i could program it to boost the 2 or 3 best cores to 4.5ghz and the rest to 4.4ghz etc.. effectively achieving ALMOST the same thing as the per core overclocking but allowing full manual voltage control i'd assume.


Maybe take the time to read the thermal control guide so you get a grasp on how this stuff works.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Tight loop with just simple multithreading from C++ library, all data are in L1 cache. Too much synchronization for my taste.
> 
> There on overclock net is somewhere my Java program for a testing difference between HT and normal running. But there is also Dolphin benchmark which, while it doesn't test heavy multithreading, tests well a single "peak core" on variable load.


Indeed, I was just trying to get a rough ballpark. The __sync primitives will definitely impact this, though at once every N000 iterations it is hardly even going to model what a real application, even one that scales well to multiple processors will have to do.

I honestly have never looked much into linux benchmarks (beyond spec and its been a while) since I generally just run what I am really going to run and "time" tells me everything I need to know. Everything I've seen so far, the rough ballpark of those two examples, single and multi-threaded reflects the reality of the 6950x vs 5960x.

1. We are an early stepping now, so it may just be binning, but compared to the 5960x, its a tighter and lower OC range than 5960x - particularly more recent stepping/batches
2. The cache gimp is real - pretty much any 5960x on an OC socket MB should be able to hit 4.0-4.1 cache - but you have to have an application that can use it.


----------



## bshagen

My initial testing with my new 6900K today:



Thinking that the scores a little bit behind, especially on Single Threaded performance. More tweaking tonight tho









Specs are:

- Asrock OC Formula 3.1
- 6900K running at 4.5GHz @1.375V - Cache @stock, chrashed at 3.7GHz @1.35V. Don't know why yet. VCCIN @1.92V.
All cores are set to clock up at any given load across all cores. All voltages are set to "Fixed/Override". SpeedStep is enabled
(One hour Aida64 stable) Batch: M6C44F8300148.
- TridentZ running at 3200MHz 17-19-19-2N, not touched it anymore than that yet, just set XMP at that as of now
- some other useless info, TX SLI, lots of WC (3x480mm rads) etc etc etc

EDIT:

Disabled C-states (which I thought I already did but must have forgotten) and Speedstep:


----------



## mickeykool

I'm running 6800K @4.2 w/ 3200 ram 14 CL and get 1192 in CinebenchR14. This about right? I'm seeing 8c chips going about 1800..


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Nah. Those 1070s are for my son's PC (6700K).


Best dad ever.


----------



## Silent Scone

SM961 512GB on Deluxe II / 6900K in CrystalDiskMark


----------



## Baasha

Guys,

Just installed my 6950X and did a clean install of Windows 10 Pro on my Uber Rig and it will NOT let me install the Nvidia drivers for the GPUs!









I downloaded the latest version of the drivers from the nvidia website several times and tried to no avail.

It keeps saying "this driver is not compatible with this version of Windows."

PLEASE HELP!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Guys,
> 
> Just installed my 6950X and did a clean install of Windows 10 Pro on my Uber Rig and it will NOT let me install the Nvidia drivers for the GPUs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I downloaded the latest version of the drivers from the nvidia website several times and tried to no avail.
> 
> It keeps saying "this driver is not compatible with this version of Windows."
> 
> PLEASE HELP!


Make sure Windows 10 is fully up to date.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Guys,
> 
> Just installed my 6950X and did a clean install of Windows 10 Pro on my Uber Rig and it will NOT let me install the Nvidia drivers for the GPUs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I downloaded the latest version of the drivers from the nvidia website several times and tried to no avail.
> 
> It keeps saying "this driver is not compatible with this version of Windows."
> 
> PLEASE HELP!


you MUST HAVE at least this version of Win10:



rt click the windows menu, "run" type: winver.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Make sure Windows 10 is fully up to date.


Also double check 32 vs 64 bit of both driver and OS. The only issue I had with win10 + 1080 + SLI was forgetting that I had enable HPET for a benchmark. That was not good.... Once I remembered I had done that and cleared it, we were back in business.


----------



## colac

Do you guys recommend disabling hyperthreading? 6850k @ 4.3 1.35V ddr4 3200.. stable so far, hyperthreading disabled


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *colac*
> 
> Do you guys recommend disabling hyperthreading? 6850k @ 4.3 1.35V ddr4 3200.. stable so far, hyperthreading disabled


Hello

Not sure why would would even think about disabling hyper-threading much less actually do it.


----------



## Jpmboy

I never understood that either... might as well buy a non-threaded processor.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> SM961 512GB on Deluxe II / 6900K in CrystalDiskMark


lol - first becnhmark with that drive I've seen (anywhere).,


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Not sure why would would even think about disabling hyper-threading much less actually do it.


In farcry 4 I getting ~20% more fps in certan cpu hungry places with ht=off on 5960x and 6900k








Farcry 4 hates 8 core and HT. 6 core + ht is good







Tested with my 5930k


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> In farcry 4 I getting ~20% more fps in certan cpu hungry places with ht=off on 5960x and 6900k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farcry 4 hates 8 core and HT. 6 core + ht is good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested with my 5930k


that's a coding problem IMO.


----------



## colac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Not sure why would would even think about disabling hyper-threading much less actually do it.


Well its because my CPU has 6 cores which I would think be enough for todays coded things. Plus to me it seems more detrimental to split a core in half ... more overhead


----------



## colac

Im more curious if the hyperthreading causes stability issues in an overclocking situation with broadwell-e


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> try the ASUS thermal control tool if you haven't already... *works as described*.
> 
> Maybe take the time to read the thermal control guide so you *get a grasp* on how this stuff works..


Quote:


> not gonna happen. "ground control to major tom"


Real smooth. Such a nice person. Insulting others and acting high and mighty when he's not lol....this site has some seriously messed up people i swear.

EDIT: here's a couple cases of people stating there's a known widespread issue of rampage x99 boards frying CPUs from massive overvoltage on startup even with no overclocking sometimes. Can't find the main thread with dozens of people having the issues yet, but i'll put it up when i do.
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?59257-5960X-dead-on-Rampage-V-Extreme

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?62963-Dead-CPU-unidentified-LED

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?77989-5820k-rampage-v-sudden-cpu-overvoltage-error-for-no-reason

" there is definitely something wrong with VRM of affected board and I think it probable given the silence in this and other similar threads that the board killed the CPU by overvolting on startup"


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> I'm running 6800K @4.2 w/ 3200 ram 14 CL and get 1192 in CinebenchR14. This about right? I'm seeing 8c chips going about 1800..


R14? You mean R15, Thats a low score since my [email protected] / 3.6 Cache w/3000MHz CL14 RAM did 1342.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Real smooth. Such a nice person. Insulting others and acting high and mighty when he's not lol....this site has some seriously messed up people i swear.


He is still jealous since he doesn't have a 400W GTX1080 like you.


----------



## DarkIdeals

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/3h5zjy/asus_x99_motherboard_sudden_high_vcore1819_frying/

More threads showing cases of X99 ASUS boards (mostly RVE) frying CPU from boot overvoltage errors.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1561131/5960x-dead/40

"Just happened to me today. I am on x99-a.. Ran a stress test today and everything was normal.. I rebooted and there it was!! *Overtemperature and voltage error..* Went into bios and *voltage was @1.8ish..* I was able to boot back into the OS tho.. Reading these posts, i might just return the motherboard to amazon and my 5820k to microcenter since i only purchased them about a week ago"


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *colac*
> 
> Im more curious if the hyperthreading causes stability issues in an overclocking situation with broadwell-e


I haven't seen any such issues, but then I didn't try to see if I could have gone higher than 4.4 without the threads. I could boot 4.5, but I stopped trying to get stable at 1.39v. Even if it could, it isn't worth it to me given the temps you see up there even under water.

Frankly, most of my work-loads scale VERY well to threads, so I wouldn't even consider giving up nearly 1/2 my throughput for 100-200MHz more. Just doesn't math.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/3h5zjy/asus_x99_motherboard_sudden_high_vcore1819_frying/
> 
> More threads showing cases of X99 ASUS boards (mostly RVE) frying CPU from boot overvoltage errors.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1561131/5960x-dead/40
> 
> "Just happened to me today. I am on x99-a.. Ran a stress test today and everything was normal.. I rebooted and there it was!! *Overtemperature and voltage error..* Went into bios and *voltage was @1.8ish..* I was able to boot back into the OS tho.. Reading these posts, i might just return the motherboard to amazon and my 5820k to microcenter since i only purchased them about a week ago"


I just RMA's an x99-pro that fried itself, not the CPU (though it tried). It ran stable for 6 solid months. Started sporadically shutting down under low-load (overnight). Hooked it up to a monitor and keyboard and aftera few reboots and checks, I see "CPU over temp ERROR" and then sizzle....

CPU is fine though, moved it over to another board to check it out and both memory and CPU seem fine (though I'm sure they lost some years to that heat). There is definitely some random case where these things just lose their minds. Then again, I have 5 other Asus board with no issues at all.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> I'm running 6800K @4.2 w/ 3200 ram 14 CL and get 1192 in CinebenchR14. This about right? I'm seeing 8c chips going about 1800..


Doesn't sound right at all, my [email protected] does 1274.

Though these near equal benchmarks are seriously making me reconsider buying a 6800k or 6850k next week...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Doesn't sound right at all, my [email protected] does 1274.
> 
> Though these near equal benchmarks are seriously making me reconsider buying a 6800k or 6850k next week...


As the owner of multiple 5960x, 5930k and now a 6950x, I can tell you that you need to have a reason, some ROI to upgrade. It's a big snooze otherwise.

With 5920k your reason is more PCIe lanes, but if you aren't planning on using them then you aren't going to see much improvement outside of synthetics.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> As the owner of multiple 5960x, 5930k and now a 6950x, I can tell you that you need to have a reason, some ROI to upgrade. It's a big snooze otherwise.
> 
> With 5920k your reason is more PCIe lanes, but if you aren't planning on using them then you aren't going to see much improvement outside of synthetics.


Other than a 950 Pro and a single GTX1080 (1080p gamer) I've never used any other PCIe lanes, I have and external DAC for sound.
Though even if I went with a second GTX1080 at a later date I still have access to 8x2 for them and 4x for the 950 Pro.

I really wanted to grab Broadwell-E as my 5820k is an average overclocker (4.3Gzh max), but Broadwell-e isn't doing much better, with only a few extra points.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> R14? You mean R15, Thats a low score since my [email protected] / 3.6 Cache w/3000MHz CL14 RAM did 1342.
> He is still jealous since he doesn't have a 400W GTX1080 like you.


I have ~1400 with 5930K at 4.6ghz ans 4.5 Cache / 3200 C15
I'll keep my 5930K, 6850K will be worse, especially in OC


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Real smooth. Such a nice person. Insulting others and acting high and mighty when he's not lol....this site has some seriously messed up people i swear.
> 
> EDIT: here's a couple cases of people stating there's a known widespread issue of rampage x99 boards frying CPUs from massive overvoltage on startup even with no overclocking sometimes. Can't find the main thread with dozens of people having the issues yet, but i'll put it up when i do.
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?59257-5960X-dead-on-Rampage-V-Extreme
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?62963-Dead-CPU-unidentified-LED
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?77989-5820k-rampage-v-sudden-cpu-overvoltage-error-for-no-reason
> 
> " there is definitely something wrong with VRM of affected board and I think it probable given the silence in this and other similar threads that the board killed the CPU by overvolting on startup"


Huh? I really do not care to look at old posts about a sporadic problem that cannot be replicated... and why you are posting these here is very curious. Old news bro. And why then are you using ASUS boards - in fact, jonesing over the r5E-10 in another thread?? I don't intend to be mean, but your posts are mainly a rambling stream-of-consciousness, at times bordering on aphasia.

You are right about one thing tho...

and I am jelly about that 400W 1080.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> As the owner of multiple 5960x, 5930k and now a 6950x, I can tell you that you need to have a reason, some ROI to upgrade. It's a big snooze otherwise.
> 
> With 5920k your reason is more PCIe lanes, but if you aren't planning on using them then you aren't going to see much improvement outside of synthetics.


From a pure "sensibility" perspective, you are correct. But why then upgrade short of 5 year old tech? Heck, my "bag phone" from 1983 still works, but it's on display as a "curio" .


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> From a pure "sensibility" perspective, you are correct. But why then upgrade short of 5 year old tech? Heck, my "bag phone" from 1983 still works, but it's on display as a "curio" .


Oh, they are shiny.... and that new waxy box is totally worth $1700 LOL.

I'm able to make use of the squeaked out performance gain, so I have no regrets, but anyone who already has a 5xxx should also not regret NOT upgrading unless they are doing it for the shiny...


----------



## Baasha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Make sure Windows 10 is fully up to date.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you MUST HAVE at least this version of Win10:
> 
> 
> 
> rt click the windows menu, "run" type: winver.


Thank you guys!

Can't believe I didn't realize that - always thought we had to install drivers before updating - but anyway, updates went smoothly and everything looks good now!









A couple of questions though:

1.) I have this nagging thing in the Device Manager called 'Network Controller' that has a yellow triangle - I already installed the LAN driver from the ASUS website so I'm not sure what that is referring to - any ideas? How do I fix it?

Here's a screenshot:



2.) Is there a proper guide to OC'ing the 6950X? Or, can either of you help me?







I also got my new RAM kit in - Dom Platinum @ 3200Mhz 64GB which works great out of the box - would love to run that at 3400 but before that, I want to dial in my CPU OC first.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Thank you guys!
> 
> Can't believe I didn't realize that - always thought we had to install drivers before updating - but anyway, updates went smoothly and everything looks good now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of questions though:
> 
> 1.) I have this nagging thing in the Device Manager called 'Network Controller' that has a yellow triangle - I already installed the LAN driver from the ASUS website so I'm not sure what that is referring to - any ideas? How do I fix it?
> 
> Here's a screenshot:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.) Is there a proper guide to OC'ing the 6950X? Or, can either of you help me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also got my new RAM kit in - Dom Platinum @ 3200Mhz 64GB which works great out of the box - would love to run that at 3400 but before that, I want to dial in my CPU OC first.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


load the wifi driver, or switch it off in bios.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Oh, they are shiny.... and that new waxy box is totally worth $1700 LOL.
> 
> I'm able to make use of the squeaked out performance gain, so I have no regrets, but anyone who already has a 5xxx should also not regret NOT upgrading unless they are doing it for the shiny...


lol - I'm one of those dummies running a 4960X, 5960X, 6950X (... and a 6700K) all within 20 feet of eachother.








the 2700K, 6600K and QX9650 are else where in the house


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - I'm one of those dummies running a 4960X, 5960X, 6950X (... and a 6700K) all within 20 feet of eachother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 2700K, 6600K and QX9650 are else where in the house


imbeciles of the world untie! (sic)









currently running:
4970, 6700, 5930, 5960, 5960, 6950

A few of those are on a 10GbE switch too... mmmm, all those giglybits....


----------



## ondoy

you run those all for what ? you only have two hands...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ondoy*
> 
> you run those all for what ? you only have two hands...


and two really dexterous feet?

I run them for reasons to do stuff for which I get paid. That last part is the important part for me. Only 2 are connected to a monitor (linux + windows), the rest run headless even if they have GPUs in them for openCL reasons. So, I ssh into them or queue jobs with a load sharing setup depending on what I am doing.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> In farcry 4 I getting ~20% more fps in certan cpu hungry places with ht=off on 5960x and 6900k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farcry 4 hates 8 core and HT. 6 core + ht is good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested with my 5930k


Submit a ticket to Ubisoft.


----------



## navjack27

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> In farcry 4 I getting ~20% more fps in certan cpu hungry places with ht=off on 5960x and 6900k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farcry 4 hates 8 core and HT. 6 core + ht is good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested with my 5930k


thats just how hyperthreading is. queues do that


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> In farcry 4 I getting ~20% more fps in certan cpu hungry places with ht=off on 5960x and 6900k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farcry 4 hates 8 core and HT. 6 core + ht is good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested with my 5930k


Even 6 cores + HT is not that good. From the digital foundary benchmark I've seen 5820K got beaten by 4790K at around similar clocks, and the 5960X got beaten by 5820K.
The more cores + HT the worse this game will scale.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I have ~1400 with 5930K at 4.6ghz ans 4.5 Cache / 3200 C15
> I'll keep my 5930K, 6850K will be worse, especially in OC


I'm still thinking whether to install my 4.75GHz 5820 back and sell the 6800K.


----------



## Martin778

I should've kept my 5930 too. The 6950X is a turd - 20*C core difference and max. 4.2-4.3GHz on strong LC loop.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> I'm still thinking whether to install my 4.75GHz 5820 back and sell the 6800K.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I should've kept my 5930 too. The 6950X is a turd - 20*C core difference and max. 4.2-4.3GHz on strong LC loop.


So keeping my 5820k is a better decision, I had a 6800k in my wishlist for purchase next week, but the more I read the more I'm shying away from Broadwell-e.
Ahh but the upgrade bug keeps biting..


----------



## Jpmboy

I know there;s a lot of disappointment with BWE... tho I gotta say, I'm good to go with this 6950X. day driver settings are 4.4/3.8 with 3400 ram. My 5960X was 4.7/4.2 with 3200 ram... no buyers remorse yet assuming the 6950X can hold up to 1.36V.


----------



## Martin778

What's your Vcore for 4.4GHz, 1.36V?
6950X is impossible to cool past 1.30V


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I know there;s a lot of disappointment with BWE... tho I gotta say, I'm good to go with this 6950X. day driver settings are 4.4/3.8 with 3400 ram. My 5960X was 4.7/4.2 with 3200 ram... no buyers remorse yet assuming the 6950X can hold up to 1.36V.


You're my goto guy (1 million and 1 questions..lol)
Does higher speed ram effect the BCLK with Broadwell-e like it did with Haswell-e, or does it depend on the kit?


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> What's your Vcore for 4.4GHz, 1.36V?
> 6950X is impossible to cool past 1.30V


This is load dependant. A good water cooling loop will hold 1.35V in Handbrake encodes, and around 1.43V for games with a 6950X. If you spend more time running AVX2 Prime95 than using your rig for tasks tho, yes, you will be limited to 1.25V max.


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> R14? You mean R15, Thats a low score since my [email protected] / 3.6 Cache w/3000MHz CL14 RAM did 1342.
> He is still jealous since he doesn't have a 400W GTX1080 like you.


Yea, R14, i was at work when i typed that. Anyway, I have not really messed w/ the memory settings.. Ram is at XMP settings. I did for hell of it, bumped up my speeds to 4.3 and ran R14. I got 1258 (this is off my head) not sure the exact numbers. I have a gigabyte board and I don't see "ram cache" setting in bios. Is it worded differently?

I can't seem to get 4.3 stable, requires more volts so will leave it to 4.2 for 24/7 use.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Oh, they are shiny.... and that new waxy box is totally worth $1700 LOL.
> 
> I'm able to make use of the squeaked out performance gain, so I have no regrets, but anyone who already has a 5xxx should also not regret NOT upgrading unless they are doing it for the shiny...


I'm totally doing it for the shiny. Eventually I need to start editing my GBs of motorcycle riding videos, 10c may come in handy but I have to admit, I'm most likely going to be editing them soon as I get my 6950k installed to justify the $1700 bucks for the CPU and $600 bucks for R5E10 with new memory for $400 bucks. $2700 bucks... wow I'm having second thoughts before I assemble everything today in the middle of writing this post lol.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I never understood that either... might as well buy a non-threaded processor.
> lol - first becnhmark with that drive I've seen (anywhere).,


Jpmboy, any chance you can run a ROG 4GB ramdrive on your rig and check the speed with crystal disk? Really curious to see if it runs much faster than my current rig with what you have. Use the default crystal settings when you first launch it. Thanks.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> Even 6 cores + HT is not that good. From the digital foundary benchmark I've seen 5820K got beaten by 4790K at around similar clocks, and the 5960X got beaten by 5820K.
> The more cores + HT the worse this game will scale.


The same review that you are referring to compared the 5960x at a slower clock speed to the other CPUs. The majority of 5960x CPUs I've seen will clock substantially higher than the clock rate that he chose to use for his comparison against other higher clocked CPUs. This lower clock speed is what impacted the results, not the core count or hyperthreading.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I should've kept my 5930 too. The 6950X is a turd - 20*C core difference and max. 4.2-4.3GHz on strong LC loop.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> What's your Vcore for 4.4GHz, 1.36V?
> 6950X is impossible to cool past 1.30V


Not sure what you classify as a strong loop, but when I had the 6950x, it wasn't nearly as bad as your experience. 4.5 @ 1.45v or so wasn't too bad at all considering the amount of cores that my water block was keeping tame.









I went back to my 5960x, but for reasoning was unrelated to heat. With that said, the 6950x is a beast and very far from a turd.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Not sure what you classify as a strong loop, but when I had the 6950x, it wasn't nearly as bad as your experience. 4.5 @ 1.45v or so wasn't too bad at all considering the amount of cores that my water block was keeping tame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went back to my 5960x, but for reasoning was unrelated to heat. With that said, the 6950x is a beast and very far from a turd.


What kind of cooling are you using?


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> What kind of cooling are you using?


EK monoblock for a x99 Deluxe board and a bunch of radiators. With fans on high, water temp stays at ambient unless I'm using the GPUs. Temps at 4.4 with 1.3x type voltage were obviously much better than 1.45v, but even at higher voltages, no real complaints. RealBench temps were lower than OCCT as they normally are on my setup.

I liked the 6950x a lot, especially on the memory side, but I didn't exactly need the two extra cores. When I compared both at max overclock with both running 8 cores, my 5960x's max overclock outperformed the 6950x's max OC by a slight margin, so I switched back. 8 vs 10, no question, the 6950x is remarkable.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> The same review that you are referring to compared the 5960x at a slower clock speed to the other CPUs. The majority of 5960x CPUs I've seen will clock substantially higher than the clock rate that he chose to use for his comparison against other higher clocked CPUs. This lower clock speed is what impacted the results, not the core count or hyperthreading.


Yes I've looked at it again and the 5960 runs at 4.4 GHz while the 5820K @ 4.6 GHz. Still 4.4 GHz is a very reasonable OC for the average Haswell-E processor, only the latest batches manged to easily go beyond 4.4 GHz, and the comparision is fair between all the three CPUs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Not sure what you classify as a strong loop, but when I had the 6950x, it wasn't nearly as bad as your experience. 4.5 @ 1.45v or so wasn't too bad at all considering the amount of cores that my water block was keeping tame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went back to my 5960x, but for reasoning was unrelated to heat. With that said, the 6950x is a beast and very far from a turd.


From my experience the AVX test of OCCT is not very useful at determining instability and the OC might not necessarily be 24/7 stable in real world usage. A few hours passed OC in the AVX test can fail within minutes using the normal OCCT Large Data Set test.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> and the 5960X got beaten by 5820K. The more cores + HT the worse this game will scale.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> The same review that you are referring to compared the 5960x at a slower clock speed to the other CPUs. The majority of 5960x CPUs I've seen will clock substantially higher than the clock rate that he chose to use for his comparison against other higher clocked CPUs. This lower clock speed is what impacted the results, not the core count or hyperthreading.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> Yes I've looked at it again and the 5960 runs at 4.4 GHz while the 5820K @ 4.6 GHz. Still 4.4 GHz is a very reasonable OC for the average Haswell-E processor, only the latest batches manged to easily go beyond 4.4 GHz, and the comparision is fair between all the three CPUs.


I think you may have shifted focus when replying to my comment. I was simply pointing out that the 5960x was run at a different clock speed than the 5820k and 6700k, which was something you didn't mention. You can't necessarily attribute the deficit to core count and HT if they weren't even run at the same clock speed.

With regards to your follow on comment, we have different opinions on fair comparisons. I can respect that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> From my experience the AVX test of OCCT is not very useful at determining instability and the OC might not necessarily be 24/7 stable in real world usage. A few hours passed OC in the AVX test can fail within minutes using the normal OCCT Large Data Set test.


The topic at hand was temps. I'm not quite sure if your speculation of stability supersedes stability verified first hand, but I'll stick with the latter.


----------



## colac

Those are some low temps. My temps skyrocket from ~36c idle to 85c+ when running occt.



i either end up turning it off, or it shuts itself down.. at 4.2ghz 3000mhz ram, it seems stable for the 5 minutes or so I can run it. At 4.3ghz my pc crashes within 1 minute

i7-6850k with noctua NH-D15S cooling


----------



## greg1184

Running real bench on a 4.4/1.35v 6800k.

So far I'm happy with the temps I'm getting.



4.5 may be a challenge. We'll see. Seems like I have some head room temps wise.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Still leaning towards grabbing a 6800k because I've been playing around with my current x99 board and updated it to the latest Broadwell-E compatible BIOS.

What happened after that was my 5820k couldn't overclock to the normal [email protected], I could only get [email protected] stable.
After rolling back the BIOS it was fine. (Standard OCCT Large Data set test)

I'm wondering if the low Broadwell-e overclocks has something to do with the early BIOS releases.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> The topic at hand was temps. I'm not quite sure if your speculation of stability supersedes stability verified first hand, but I'll stick with the latter.


It is not a speculation about your OC or anything, I just posted my experience with OCCT AVX as not a 100% indicator of stabillity, and my problem with it because I have it passed for hours and then had freezes and crashes in real world apps. LDS is probably not perfect either but from my experience If an OC passed it at least 12 hrs, it is highly unlikely to see stability issues in non-AVX 2.0 workloads.
But the AVX test is good to push the cooling system to the limits, which is still higher than 99% of apps but not as bad as AVX 2.0 stability tests like P95 28.9 and the latest Linpack.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I'm wondering if the low Broadwell-e overclocks has something to do with the early BIOS releases.


Early batches or architectural limiation most likely IMO.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> Early batches or architectural limiation most likely IMO.


True too, I just though it was interesting that a Broadwell-E BIOS lowered my Haswell-E overclock.
I'll take off my tin foil hat now


----------



## vibraslap

Speaking of BIOS, ASUS just released a new bios for the Deluxe II yesterday. Has anyone tried it and seen any improvements?


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> True too, I just though it was interesting that a Broadwell-E BIOS lowered my Haswell-E overclock.
> I'll take off my tin foil hat now


Nothing new, like back with Sandy-E and Ivy-E, I kept my bios to the version that suite best my 3930K on my first RIVE and updated the other one for my 4930K (not even the latest one if I recall).
If it's not broken don't fix it, is better safe than sorry. (ohhhh the mix of quote here







)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Nothing new, like back with Sandy-E and Ivy-E, I kept my bios to the version that suite best my 3930K on my first RIVE and updated the other one for my 4930K (not even the latest one if I recall).
> If it's not broken don't fix it, is better safe than sorry. (ohhhh the mix of quote here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


The beauty of dual BIOS.

There's got to be some logical reason for the lower overclocks on Broadwell-E, guess time will tell.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> What's your Vcore for 4.4GHz, 1.36V?
> 6950X is impossible to cool past 1.30V


not impossible as raja said... it depends on what you use when considering it impossible to cool. p95, OCCT - you'll need to drop vcore or get a strong chiller.

if you have AID64, run one of these reports - what was the highest temperature recorded?

ReportofR5E_6950X.txt 245k .txt file

can't post the HTML file.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> You're my goto guy (1 million and 1 questions..lol)
> Does higher speed ram effect the BCLK with Broadwell-e like it did with Haswell-e, or does it depend on the kit?


that depends on the ram divider - right? So far I've been running 2666, 3200 and 3400 on strap 100. Haven;t tried 3000. 3400 seems to be a sweet spot. IMO, getting a BWE with the same # of cores as you HWE is a side grade. Imc in BWE is better, IPC is a notch better IMO. 10 cores and 20 threads is... wonderful.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Jpmboy, any chance you can run a ROG 4GB ramdrive on your rig and check the speed with crystal disk? Really curious to see if it runs much faster than my current rig with what you have. Use the default crystal settings when you first launch it. Thanks.


sure... will post in a few min.


----------



## Mike211

My New 6950X Extreme


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mike211*
> 
> My New 6950X Extreme
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Wasn't aware they did an Extreme Extreme


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Wasn't aware they did an Extreme Extreme


----------



## Sazexa

Hey guys. I'm starting a new build and planning on using a BW-E chip. I've got some questions though, and be prepared because they're kind of "loaded" questions!









So, first things first. I've looked into benchmarks and saw that the 6700k is faster than something like the 6950X in single thread tasks. Is that simply because of the clock speed difference? IE, if I were to overclock the 6950X to 4.0GHz, would it perform about the same in single threaded tasks? Or is there something vastly different between these two CPU's that would make that scenario untrue?

Second, does anyone have any idea as to what temperatures I could expect on a 4.0GHz overclock? I'd like to keep voltage down as low as possible, and I'll be using a 360mm radiator.

Lastly, I'm trying to figure out which CPU is best for my needs. I'm most often gaming, but, I very often also record, stream, and have several other various software running in the background. I was thinking perhaps the 6900K. Seems like a good value, with 40 PCI lanes and a decent clock speed out of the box.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that depends on the ram divider - right? So far I've been running 2666, 3200 and 3400 on strap 100. Haven;t tried 3000. 3400 seems to be a sweet spot. IMO, getting a BWE with the same # of cores as you HWE is a side grade. Imc in BWE is better, IPC is a notch better IMO. 10 cores and 20 threads is... wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]


True, I just had my eye on a set of 32GB 2800Mhz Corsair Vengeance LPX (14-16-16-36).
Don't know which ram to get honestly, there isn't an abundance of lower latency higher frequency ram here, so slim pickings.

I know it's a bit of a side grade, but remember a few months ago on the Haswell-E thread I was going to build a new machine and give the wife/teenagers this one, so tossing up which CPU to get myself or them.
The teenagers are doing Film and TV, which requires a lot of video editing, also gives me a reason to buy some new toys..lol.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> Hey guys. I'm starting a new build and planning on using a BW-E chip. I've got some questions though, and be prepared because they're kind of "loaded" questions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, first things first. I've looked into benchmarks and saw that the 6700k is faster than something like the 6950X in single thread tasks. Is that simply because of the clock speed difference? IE, if I were to overclock the 6950X to 4.0GHz, would it perform about the same in single threaded tasks? Or is there something vastly different between these two CPU's that would make that scenario untrue?
> 
> Second, does anyone have any idea as to what temperatures I could expect on a 4.0GHz overclock? I'd like to keep voltage down as low as possible, and I'll be using a 360mm radiator.
> 
> Lastly, I'm trying to figure out which CPU is best for my needs. I'm most often gaming, but, I very often also record, stream, and have several other various software running in the background. I was thinking perhaps the 6900K. Seems like a good value, with 40 PCI lanes and a decent clock speed out of the box.


Yeah it's partly due to the clock speed (6700K can hit ~4.7-4.8ghz, broadwell sticks at ~4.3ghz mostly), but there IS a couple percent better IPC gained on Skylake over Broadwell (maybe 3-5% at best if that) so it does have a TINY gain over Broadwell even in single threaded.

However, there ARE many advantages to having Broadwell-E over the Skylake 6700K. You get quad channel memory which doubles your bandwidth (and you can have up to 128GB of RAM if you need it), you get more cores (obviously, since even the lowest model of Broadwell-E the i7 6800K has 6 cores) which more and more programs and games etc.. are taking advantage of. You get more PCI lanes so you can install a lot more stuff. (the i7 6700K only has 16 lanes, meaning installing two graphics cards takes up ALL 16 lanes! So you can't install ANYTHING else if you have two Graphic Cards in a 6700K system. Whereas the i7 6800K has 28 lanes, so you can have two cards and still have 12 lanes left for three PCI x4 devices like M.2 or PCI-e NVMe SSD's like the Samsung 950 pro, wi-fi cards, etc..etc.. And you can even have THREE graphic cards and still have four lanes left for one M.2 or PCI-e SSD)

And for things like video editing and rendering etc.. the 6800K will STOMP the 6700K. Plus in games like Total War: Warhammer, Battlefield 4, Crysis 3 (to a lesser extent but still there) you WILL see an improvement with more cores. Total War games for example will use ALL 16 threads of my 8 core hyperthreaded i7 5960X and actually gets more FPS than on a 6 core, with a 6 core getting SIGNIFICANTLY better fps than the 4 core 6700K does.

Honestly it really depends on what you do how many cores you need. If you do a lot of streaming and video editing etc. .and similar stuff then 8 cores is entirely usable for you. Although you won't see any improvement with the 6900K over say the 5960X; and you can get a 5960X on like amazon for as low as ~$730 currently, which is a better deal in my opinion (https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00MMLXIHM/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used) whereas you're spending $1100 for the 6900K, and it's literally identical since the 6900K can only hit ~4.3ghz on average compared to 5960X's hitting ~4.6-4.7ghz at times, which makes up for the small increase in IPC that broadwell has..


----------



## Silent Scone

So anyway...

Quick comparison here between SM961 in the M.2 port and PCIE x16_5

M.2


PCIE x16_5


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> So anyway...
> 
> Quick comparison here between SM961 in the M.2 port and PCIE x16_5
> 
> M.2
> 
> 
> PCIE x16_5


Wow...nice! Thanks for showing those. I had no idea that M.2 vs. PCI could actually make a difference at all, let alone a somewhat significant one in a couple categories. Specifically that ~450mbps difference in sequential read speed is surprising to me.


----------



## Artah

That's some good info Sient. I thought it would be the other around. What card are you using on PCI?


----------



## Radox-0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> However, there ARE many advantages to having Broadwell-E over the Skylake 6700K. You get quad channel memory which doubles your bandwidth (and you can have up to 128GB of RAM if you need it), you get more cores (obviously, since even the lowest model of Broadwell-E the i7 6800K has 6 cores) which more and more programs and games etc.. are taking advantage of. You get more PCI lanes so you can install a lot more stuff. (the i7 6700K only has 16 lanes, meaning installing two graphics cards takes up ALL 16 lanes! So you can't install ANYTHING else if you have two Graphic Cards in a 6700K system. Whereas the i7 6800K has 28 lanes, so you can have two cards and still have 12 lanes left for three PCI x4 devices like M.2 or PCI-e NVMe SSD's like the Samsung 950 pro, wi-fi cards, etc..etc.. And you can even have THREE graphic cards and still have four lanes left for one M.2 or PCI-e SSD)


That part is not correct. z170 has an additional 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes on the chipset that can manage secondary peripherals and M.2 drives outside of the main x16 lanes on the CPU.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> That's some good info Sient. I thought it would be the other around. What card are you using on PCI?


The one that ships with the ASUS Deluxe II. On the Deluxe, PCIEX16_3 shares bandwidth with the M.2 and U.2 ports, which is where my GPU is currently residing - so the contrast there may well be due to this. Just thought I'd post it regardless lol.


----------



## JackCY

Why on earth would you put GPU and fast SSD on the same PCIe lines? Come on







Is that some awesome ASUS design?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Why on earth would you put GPU and fast SSD on the same PCIe lines? Come on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that some awesome ASUS design?


You don't, at least not primarily. PCIEX16_1 is the optimal slot for the GPU, it was just easier for me at the time due to tube length. The lanes are the most direct path to extract the kind of performance most people will be wanting. Only so many slots to go around on a feature rich board like this


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> So anyway...
> 
> Quick comparison here between SM961 in the M.2 port and PCIE x16_5
> 
> M.2
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PCIE x16_5
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


OS drive? Do you think those numbers are actually different?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> Hey guys. I'm starting a new build and planning on using a BW-E chip. I've got some questions though, and be prepared because they're kind of "loaded" questions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, first things first. I've looked into benchmarks and saw that the 6700k is faster than something like the 6950X in single thread tasks. Is that simply because of the clock speed difference? IE, if I were to overclock the 6950X to 4.0GHz, would it perform about the same in single threaded tasks? Or is there something vastly different between these two CPU's that would make that scenario untrue?
> 
> Second, does anyone have any idea as to what temperatures I could expect on a 4.0GHz overclock? I'd like to keep voltage down as low as possible, and I'll be using a 360mm radiator.
> 
> Lastly, I'm trying to figure out which CPU is best for my needs. I'm most often gaming, but, I very often also record, stream, and have several other various software running in the background. I was thinking perhaps the 6900K. Seems like a good value, with 40 PCI lanes and a decent clock speed out of the box.


1) 6700K is faster than HWE or BWE in single threaded comparisons. Higher clocks, very good IPC.
2) if the voltage is 1.2 or below air cooling is fine. A good WC block and heat transfer/shed - 1.3V shold be no problem. So I don;t think a 4.0 OC will be temp limited for ya.
3) if you game with one card.. a 6700K is the best choice (delidded). 2 GPUs, AICs, encoding.. etc, the more cores the moar better,


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> So anyway...
> 
> Quick comparison here between SM961 in the M.2 port and PCIE x16_5
> 
> M.2
> 
> 
> PCIE x16_5


Why so slow?









6900k 4,4Ghz/ 3200cl14 /3700cache
Sm961nvme 1TB

Maybe 1TB is faster?


----------



## ottoore

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The one that ships with the ASUS Deluxe II. On the Deluxe, PCIEX16_3 shares bandwidth with the M.2 and U.2 ports, which is where my GPU is currently residing - so the contrast there may well be due to this. Just thought I'd post it regardless lol.


Datasheet:
"PCIe x16_3 shares bandwidth with M.2 and U.2_2. It runs at x8 mode by default. "

Are you running video card at x8?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Why so slow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6900k 4,4Ghz/ 3200cl14 /3700cache
> Sm961nvme 1TB
> 
> Maybe 1TB is faster?


Your ssd is empty


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ottoore*
> 
> Datasheet:
> "PCIe x16_3 shares bandwidth with M.2 and U.2_2. It runs at x8 mode by default. "
> 
> Are you running video card at x8?
> *Your ssd is empty*


^^ This. OS drive also.

(but the higher capacity drives are ususlly faster in these synthetic benchmarks. Kinda pointless IMO, any of the NVMe drives are faster than most home-use work-flow scenarios.)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> True, I just had my eye on a set of 32GB 2800Mhz Corsair Vengeance LPX (14-16-16-36).
> Don't know which ram to get honestly, there isn't an abundance of lower latency higher frequency ram here, so slim pickings.
> 
> I know it's a bit of a side grade, but remember a few months ago on the Haswell-E thread I was going to build a new machine and give the wife/teenagers this one, so tossing up which CPU to get myself or them.
> *The teenagers are doing Film and TV, which requires a lot of video editing*, also gives me a reason to buy some new toys..lol.


ah... go for the highest core count the budget allows.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> You don't, at least not primarily. PCIEX16_1 is the optimal slot for the GPU, it was just easier for me at the time due to tube length. The lanes are the most direct path to extract the kind of performance most people will be wanting. Only so many slots to go around on a feature rich board like this


With 6800K it is really annoying design for sli and m.2. I cant use slot 1 and 3 with m.2 since slot 2 and 5 is pci gen 2 which are the only slots not blocked by gpu. And if I use the onboard m.2, then the slot 3 drops to x4. I think the only option is moving gpu down to slot 4 with a long sli bridge and using m.2 in slot 3 or onboard. I say it is a poor deign on asus part for those that do not have 40 lanes and I would have rather have m.2 shared with slot 4 instead so I can use HB or led bridges. I think even if you do have 40 lanes that would probably still be better as well so you can run 4 way sli or 3 way sli without issue with m.2 onboard.


----------



## babycharm00

i have anyone successfully get over 4.6ghz on a 6850k yet?


----------



## babycharm00

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ottoore*
> 
> Datasheet:
> "PCIe x16_3 shares bandwidth with M.2 and U.2_2. It runs at x8 mode by default. "
> 
> Are you running video card at x8?
> Your ssd is empty


actually the TB is faster!!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Why so slow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6900k 4,4Ghz/ 3200cl14 /3700cache
> Sm961nvme 1TB
> 
> Maybe 1TB is faster?


The TB is faster, check the specs


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> With 6800K it is really annoying design for sli and m.2. I cant use slot 1 and 3 with m.2 since slot 2 and 5 is pci gen 2 which are the only slots not blocked by gpu. And if I use the onboard m.2, then the slot 3 drops to x4. I think the only option is moving gpu down to slot 4 with a long sli bridge and using m.2 in slot 3 or onboard. I say it is a poor deign on asus part for those that do not have 40 lanes and I would have rather have m.2 shared with slot 4 instead so I can use HB or led bridges. I think even if you do have 40 lanes that would probably still be better as well so you can run 4 way sli or 3 way sli without issue with m.2 onboard.


Same on the original Deluxe for SLI lane spacing. You want a 60mm bridge, to use PCIEx16_1 and 3. Besides which, PCIEX16_2 is only capable of 8x anyway. I'm not sure you're numbering the slots correctly in that post


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Same on the original Deluxe for SLI lane spacing. You want a 60mm bridge, to use PCIEx16_1 and 3. Besides which, PCIEX16_2 is only capable of 8x anyway. I'm not sure you're numbering the slots correctly in that post


60 mm is spacing between PCIEx16 1 and 3. Between PCIEx16 1 and 4 you would need 80 mm sli bridge which doesn't exist as far as i know as a non flexible option.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> 60 mm is spacing between PCIEx16 1 and 3. Between PCIEx16 1 and 4 you would need 80 mm sli bridge which doesn't exist as far as i know as a non flexible option.


That slot is also only capable of 8x. If using an M.2 drive and SLI, Use PCIEX16_1 and 3, with PCIEx16_5 with the M.2 device. That is at least the most ideal, you wont lose sleep doing it differently.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> That slot is also only capable of 8x. If using an M.2 drive and SLI, Use PCIEX16_1 and 3, with PCIEx16_5 with the M.2 device.


on 6800k the PCIEx16_5 becomes a PCIE gen 2. I tried this and m.2 runs slow.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> on 6800k the PCIEx16_5 becomes a PCIE gen 2. I tried this and m.2 runs slow.


Hello

Pre-purchase research of anticipated components and configuration avoids these type of issues.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Pre-purchase research of anticipated components and configuration avoids these type of issues.


I am just pointing out it was a poor design. There is a way around it I believe by using slot 1 and 4 but just not as ideal due to spacing. Also I hope 1080 ti will surpass 980 ti in sli so I can go back to single card. In couple years I hope to get my hands on a cheap used 5960x or 6900k. I just think they should have switched pcie 4 and 5 slot. Look at their 3 way option on 28 lanes. It is impossible. And even if you had 40 lanes and did 3 way you still limited to x8 on third card. Not that I personally would ever do 3 way sli but just shows that they didn't design it for sli use.

I bought it in store at microcenter based on what they had in stock


----------



## Silent Scone

That just falls back to what Praz was saying, you wouldn't purchase a 28 lane CPU for three graphics cards lol. Although I ran 3 cards on the Deluxe with no problems at all with a 40 lane CPU.


----------



## [email protected]

Plus, the 1080 is already faster than the 980Ti, so no need to speculate on the 1080Ti being faster than the 980Ti... Single card beating two is unlikely, tho.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Plus, the 1080 is already faster than the 980Ti, so no need to speculate on the 1080Ti being faster than the 980Ti... Single card beating two is unlikely, tho.


Yea I meant 980 ti sli vs 1080 ti single. http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/nvidias-hb-sli-bridge-surprising-gains-gtx-1080-sli-testing-inside/ Doesnt look like hb bridge matters for 980 ti sli. Ill just sell the evga led bridge and get hb 80 mm bridge if I do sli in the future with 1080 ti but I think I will stick with single unless vr gains momentum and two cards scale very well


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> Yea I meant 980 ti sli vs 1080 ti single. http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/nvidias-hb-sli-bridge-surprising-gains-gtx-1080-sli-testing-inside/ Doesnt look like hb bridge matters for 980 ti sli. Ill just sell the evga led bridge and get hb 80 mm bridge if I do sli in the future with 1080 ti but I think I will stick with single unless vr gains momentum and two cards scale very well


The HB bridge is a pascal thing only... and I can say for sure that a single 1080 or a 1080ti (assuming a generous 10% AND a higher power limit, or a 1080 with a mod bios) is not going to top a pair of full die maxwell gpus. My 2 titans just crush my 1080 at 1440P and higher in just about anything I've tried.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ah... go for the highest core count the budget allows.


Which is the 6800k, I also need to grab a new video card as they'll be getting the GTX980ti, they want to join the PC gaming race too, they are over their xbox's...lol..
By my dilemma was should I take the 6800k or keep the 5820k, I keep wondering which is going to be the best overclocker and yield the better performance in the long run.
This will be the last big system build for a couple of years, so I'm trying to get it right, unlike the MSI mistake I made before, still appreciate all your help with that.

Was thinking something like this.
https://www.pccasegear.com/wish_lists/575713

(The Gigabyte GTX1080 is just a placeholder to get a rough idea of costs, I really want to grab the MSI GTX1080 Seahawk or eVGA Hybrid)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Which is the 6800k, I also need to grab a new video card as they'll be getting the GTX980ti, they want to join the PC gaming race too, they are over their xbox's...lol..
> By my dilemma was should I take the 6800k or keep the 5820k, I keep wondering which is going to be the best overclocker and yield the better performance in the long run.
> This will be the last big system build for a couple of years, so I'm trying to get it right, unlike the MSI mistake I made before, still appreciate all your help with that.
> 
> Was thinking something like this.
> https://www.pccasegear.com/wish_lists/575713
> 
> (The Gigabyte GTX1080 is just a placeholder to get a rough idea of costs, I really want to grab the MSI GTX1080 Seahawk or eVGA Hybrid)


You should look for a good buy on a good 5960X... 5820K and 6850K are gonna be too close to notice a difference. Heck, if you weren't on the other side of there planet, I'd offer you my 5960X and R5E. Tho, I haven;t decided to sell


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> You should look for a good buy on a good 5960X... 5820K and 6850K are gonna be too close to notice a difference. Heck, if you weren't on the other side of there planet, I'd offer you my 5960X and R5E. Tho, I haven;t decided to sell


Mate that's a nice offer, thank you









I've been keeping my eye out for one, no one local is selling any.
Though I can buy a new 5960x for $100 less than a 6900k, here the 6900k is $1649 and the 5960x is $1549, don't ask about the 6950x ($2579).
Then again the 5820k is nearly $100 less ($579) than a 6800k ($669), but the 6850k is $959 for a small (if any) performance increase over the 5820k when overclocking both.
Little harder to pick what to get value wise in Australia..









I can deal with having the same or close performance, in the end I need to build something before school goes back in 2 weeks, this is when they get stuck into their huge projects.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Mate that's a nice offer, thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been keeping my eye out for one, no one local is selling any.
> Though I can buy a new 5960x for $100 less than a 6900k, here the 6900k is $1649 and the 5960x is $1549, don't ask about the 6950x ($2579).
> Then again the 5820k is nearly $100 less ($579) than a 6800k ($669), but the 6850k is $959 for a small (if any) performance increase over the 5820k when overclocking both.
> Little harder to pick what to get value wise in Australia..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can deal with having the same or close performance, in the end I need to build something before school goes back in 2 weeks, this is when they get stuck into their huge projects.


6800K won't disappoint. lol- those prices are silly in any denomination (AUD right?)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 6800K won't disappoint. lol- those prices are silly in any denomination (AUD right?)


Yep AUD.
The Australian dollar is horrible at the moment, when I bought my 5820k we were getting 98c US to $1AU so it was a lot cheaper than what they are now.
It's $1229 for a Asus GTX1080 Strix Gaming, I love watching review saying it's expensive at $799, I wish...


----------



## sabishiihito

Rampage V Edition 10 no need? 6800K working fine on the original R5E with my RAM OC since I updated the firmware on my OC Panel (that was the cause of the crazy POST codes).


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> The HB bridge is a pascal thing only... and I can say for sure that a single 1080 or a 1080ti (assuming a generous 10% AND a higher power limit, or a 1080 with a mod bios) is not going to top a pair of full die maxwell gpus. My 2 titans just crush my 1080 at 1440P and higher in just about anything I've tried.


I'm not so sure about that in the case of the 1080 TI. The 1080 TI is said to have 3,840 cuda cores which is the exact same 1.5x core count that the TITAN X had over the 980 (3840 / 2560 = 1.5x and 3072 / 2048 = 2.5x) So we SHOULD see something around 50% increase in general gaming etc.. performance on a 1080 TI over a 1080 since the TITAN X was pretty much exactly that over the 980 (~50%) since core count is surprisingly linear in performance increase nowadays, and once you add in a 384 bit bus with G5X (or HBM2 which would be even better, but not likely from rumors lately) the 320gb/s bandwidth raises to a whopping 480gb/s if its clocked at 10,000mhz effective same as 1080, or even higher at 576gb/s if they can squeeze the 12,000mhz effective that G5X is supposedly capable of, on the TI card. That bandwidth should help it at least hit ~50% increase.

So if a 1080 is 30% faster than TITAN X, and the 1080 TI will be 50% faster than that, we get that a 1080 TI would be roughly 80% faster than a TITAN X! And since SLI scaling isn't perfect that means that you basically have the EXACT same situation as the 1080. (i.e. GTX 1080 roughly equal to SLI 980s give or take a few percent. And GTX 1080 TI roughly equal to SLI TITAN X or 980 TI reference)

Of course this is a best case scenario since 1080's aren't ALWAYS 30% faster than TITAN X (sometimes more like 25% etc..) and TITAN X is sometimes more like ~45% over 980 etc.. But overall a single 1080 TI SHOULD stack up pretty favorably to SLI TITANX and SLI 980 TI's in my opinion. Who knows though, we'll see


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Yep AUD.
> The Australian dollar is horrible at the moment, when I bought my 5820k we were getting 98c US to $1AU so it was a lot cheaper than what they are now.
> It's $1229 for a Asus GTX1080 Strix Gaming, I love watching review saying it's expensive at $799, I wish...


From what i've seen you're often better off just ordering stuff from America or Europe and paying international shipping than just getting it in Australia. I mean hell, pcpartpicker australian version says 5960X is like ~$1500 AUD new, so even used will easily run you maybe $1300? Whereas in US you can get a 5960X for $1020 USD new or under $750 USD used. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00MMLXIHM/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

At current exchange that means it'd be around ~$1,340 AUD new or $973 AUD used for a 5960X bought from the US amazon; i highly doubt your shipping would cost $300 to australia from US on such a small item so it'd come out much cheaper to buy one in the US which is what friends i know who live in Australia have said to me before; that they buy US parts pretty often. So i'm honestly recommending people in europe and AUS etc.. to just buy a used 8 core 5960X or something like JPM said, instead of paying the same price for a less powerful 6 core 6850K or something due to overpriced AUD prices.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> At current exchange that means it'd be around ~$1,340 AUD new or $973 AUD used for a 5960X bought from the US amazon; i highly doubt your shipping would cost $300 to australia from US on such a small item so it'd come out much cheaper to buy one in the US which is what friends i know who live in Australia have said to me before; that they buy US parts pretty often. So i'm honestly recommending people in europe and AUS etc.. to just buy a used 8 core 5960X or something like JPM said, instead of paying the same price for a less powerful 6 core 6850K or something due to overpriced AUD prices.


Yes, but in my search I can't find any used on Amazon that will ship to Australia.
We can buy from Newegg now, a lot of people do that here, but we have import tax on things over $1000, so you can get stung with that as well.
A 5960x on Newegg is $1499AU, so you have to factor import tax, there is a way around it and that's to setup a international forwarding service, but for a one off it doesn't save you anything.
Though a 6800k is $665 on Newegg and $669 locally









I looked into all that, I'm a member of overclockers.com.au which a few of the guys over there do the same thing, more so for video cards as they generally work out under $1000 but you void any warranty.
You wouldn't believe how the politicians here try to lock down the country so you have to buy local, they are now trying to make any international purchase require import tax, STEAM included, currently when a game costs $60US over there we paid $80US over here, yes for the same game with the same US currency, so that $80US game costs us around $100AU, I kid you not, 3rd party key sites are big over here.
(Sorry little off topic, but I hope it paints a picture why I um and ah over what hardware to buy...)


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sabishiihito*
> 
> Rampage V Edition 10 no need? 6800K working fine on the original R5E with my RAM OC since I updated the firmware on my OC Panel (that was the cause of the crazy POST codes).


He's working with a fair bit more memory than you, and looking for more stability


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Yes, but in my search I can't find any used on Amazon that will ship to Australia.
> We can buy from Newegg now, a lot of people do that here, but we have import tax on things over $1000, so you can get stung with that as well.
> A 5960x on Newegg is $1499AU, so you have to factor import tax, there is a way around it and that's to setup a international forwarding service, but for a one off it doesn't save you anything.
> Though a 6800k is $665 on Newegg and $669 locally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked into all that, I'm a member of overclockers.com.au which a few of the guys over there do the same thing, more so for video cards as they generally work out under $1000 but you void any warranty.
> You wouldn't believe how the politicians here try to lock down the country so you have to buy local, they are now trying to make any international purchase require import tax, STEAM included, currently when a game costs $60US over there we paid $80US over here, yes for the same game with the same US currency, so that $80US game costs us around $100AU, I kid you not, 3rd party key sites are big over here.
> (Sorry little off topic, but I hope it paints a picture why I um and ah over what hardware to buy...)


Oh, guess amazon has some issues shipping electronics to certain countries from the US. Didn't know about that. From what i read only the "proffesional account" sellers can sell in all categories internationally. There are other sites that sell to australia though. Didn't know Newegg had an aussie purchasing site; interesting.

Here's a 5960X that ships to all north america, the UK and Australia among some other places. $736, which puts it at under $1000 AUD, worth checking out

https://reverb.com/item/2431275-intel-i7-5960x

Sucks about the games and stuff, i've heard that places like G2A, Kinguin etc.. that sell keys are very popular in a lot of countries that can't afford the absurd game prices in their currency.


----------



## Baasha

Okay I just started to OC my 6950X.

RealBench passes the Benchmark test @ 4.3Ghz @ 1.270V.

However, if I run the 'Stress Test', it fails after a few minutes.

I tried bumping up the voltage to 1.30V but same result.

I did run Intel Burn Test on 'Very High' and that passed without issue though. I'm also running 64GB @ 3200Mhz (XMP).

Would appreciate any help on dialing in the OC - what is the suggested method for testing stability? Is passing the Benchmark in RealBench enough? Or do I have to run the Stress Test for 'x' number of minutes/hours? I have always tested my OC before (up until the 5960X) with Intel Burn Test on 'Very High' and that has usually worked. Not sure why RealBench Stress Test fails with a BSOD (CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT).


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> https://reverb.com/item/2431275-intel-i7-5960x
> Sucks about the games and stuff, i've heard that places like G2A, Kinguin etc.. that sell keys are very popular in a lot of countries that can't afford the absurd game prices in their currency.


Thanks I'll checked it out, by the end it will work out around $1300AU due to the cost being over the $1000 threshold, they add GST (Sales Tax), importing duty and processing fees (fun isn't it..lol)
The only sneaky way around it is to try and get them to make it as a gift, but due to international laws there are huge fines for the company and customers if caught.

Think I might just stick with the 6800k unless I find a local 5960x (I'd have more chance a winning lotto at this point..lol).
I always plan to "keep the system for a few years" but then the upgrade bug hits and I upgrade, it's always around tax return time when the new hardware drops.
Bet you'll see me in the Skylake-E thread next year









G2A is where I buy 99% of my games from, or through GOG/STEAM sales.


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Okay I just started to OC my 6950X.
> 
> RealBench passes the Benchmark test @ 4.3Ghz @ 1.270V.
> 
> However, if I run the 'Stress Test', it fails after a few minutes.
> 
> I tried bumping up the voltage to 1.30V but same result.
> 
> I did run Intel Burn Test on 'Very High' and that passed without issue though. I'm also running 64GB @ 3200Mhz (XMP).
> 
> Would appreciate any help on dialing in the OC - what is the suggested method for testing stability? Is passing the Benchmark in RealBench enough? Or do I have to run the Stress Test for 'x' number of minutes/hours? I have always tested my OC before (up until the 5960X) with Intel Burn Test on 'Very High' and that has usually worked. Not sure why RealBench Stress Test fails with a BSOD (CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT).


Clock watchdog timeout = more vcore.
Dont use ibt, easy way use x264 which jmpboy gave me in previous post Or occt if you want more stressfull test.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Thanks I'll checked it out, by the end it will work out around $1300AU due to the cost being over the $1000 threshold, they add GST (Sales Tax), importing duty and processing fees (fun isn't it..lol)
> The only sneaky way around it is to try and get them to make it as a gift, but due to international laws there are huge fines for the company and customers if caught.
> 
> Think I might just stick with the 6800k unless I find a local 5960x (I'd have more chance a winning lotto at this point..lol).
> I always plan to "keep the system for a few years" but then the upgrade bug hits and I upgrade, it's always around tax return time when the new hardware drops.
> Bet you'll see me in the Skylake-E thread next year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G2A is where I buy 99% of my games from, or through GOG/STEAM sales.


Not sure what you mean, it's not over the $1000 AUD threshold, converted from USD it's more like $980 or so. That's why i linked that one specifically since i looked up the current exchange rate and it fell under $1K australian. And shipping isn't supposed to be factored into the import limit according to a government site i looked at, if that's what made you think it was over $1,000. Interestingly enough, from what i've read it's actually the DECLARED value of the item that matters towards the $1000 limit, so people are apparently getting around the import tax by putting lower declared value's on the item i guess.

http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?from=AUD&to=USD&amount=1 If you look here, 1 AUS = .7497 USD; which means that $1000 AUS = 749.70; so $735 would = $981.64 AUD.

And yeah sales are usually where its at. Sadly i'm very disappointed in this Summer Steam sale though; virtually nothing worth while other than DOOM at $35 which i'm still not sure if i want to get judging from the reviews. Total War Warhammer isn't on sale either sadly, was looking forward to it as it and a few other newer games can actually use all 10 cores/20 threads of an i7 6950X and gains quite a bit of fps from it due to being a DX12 title.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean, it's not over the $1000 AUD threshold, converted from USD it's more like $980 or so. That's why i linked that one specifically since i looked up the current exchange rate and it fell under $1K australian. And shipping isn't supposed to be factored into the import limit according to a government site i looked at, if that's what made you think it was over $1,000. Interestingly enough, from what i've read it's actually the DECLARED value of the item that matters towards the $1000 limit, so people are apparently getting around the import tax by putting lower declared value's on the item i guess.
> 
> http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?from=AUD&to=USD&amount=1 If you look here, 1 AUS = .7497 USD; which means that $1000 AUS = 749.70; so $735 would = $981.64 AUD.
> 
> And yeah sales are usually where its at. Sadly i'm very disappointed in this Summer Steam sale though; virtually nothing worth while other than DOOM at $35 which i'm still not sure if i want to get judging from the reviews. Total War Warhammer isn't on sale either sadly, was looking forward to it as it and a few other newer games can actually use all 10 cores/20 threads of an i7 6950X and gains quite a bit of fps from it due to being a DX12 title.


I PM'd you instead of spamming the thread, don't want to annoy the guys here with silly Australia politics..lol..

So as I'm still looking at ram are these any good
Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M4B3000C15 16GB (4x4GB) 3000MHz DDR4, 15-17-17-35, 1.35V.


----------



## Martin778

Ha, 78*C max, man I can only dream of temps like this. I have EK Supremacy Evo Elite block, D5 pump on max rpm and RX360v3 rad with 3x 120MM Servo Fans on it.

With settings like yours I wil be hitting 100*C in a second, my 6950 also has like 20*C core difference.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Okay I just started to OC my 6950X.
> 
> RealBench passes the Benchmark test @ 4.3Ghz @ 1.270V.
> 
> However, if I run the 'Stress Test', it fails after a few minutes.
> 
> I tried bumping up the voltage to 1.30V but same result.
> 
> I did run Intel Burn Test on 'Very High' and that passed without issue though. I'm also running 64GB @ 3200Mhz (XMP).
> 
> Would appreciate any help on dialing in the OC - what is the suggested method for testing stability? Is passing the Benchmark in RealBench enough? Or do I have to run the Stress Test for 'x' number of minutes/hours? I have always tested my OC before (up until the 5960X) with Intel Burn Test on 'Very High' and that has usually worked. Not sure why RealBench Stress Test fails with a BSOD (CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT).
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Baasha - are you running 2 GPUs? Switch one off, and run the gpu at stock. THen add some voltage to cache.


----------



## Martin778

This is what small data set on OCCT does to my 6950X, all fans on max:


----------



## PowerK

Martin, is there any particular reason for using RealTemp GT rather than CoreTemp?
RealTemp GT shows 6 cores only.

Also, when the temp reached 100C, did it throttle down core frequency?


----------



## Martin778

No. no particular reason. Just forgot about CoreTemp!








I haven't seen any throttling, it was a quick spike.

By the way, how do you guys stress test with x264? Where can I download it?

CoreTemp after 10 mins of 43x100 @ 1.315V:










Time for a delid then?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> No. no particular reason. Just forgot about CoreTemp!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any throttling, it was a quick spike.
> 
> By the way, how do you guys stress test with x264? Where can I download it?
> 
> CoreTemp after 10 mins of 43x100 @ 1.315V:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for a delid then?


x264.
use the x64 -log bat file. enter # of loops, start with threads = actual. then run threads at 1.5x actual. cancel a run with Cntrl-pause.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gpMyj43ZFjSzJ4Nm0xT3pobjA

you can also use Asus realbench, benchmark, select only the x264 module and enter the number of times to run it.

I assume you have reseated the cooling block a few times already to try to address the core T delta?


----------



## Martin778

Yes, it reseated the block a few times and tried reapplying the TIM. The current one is not great (BeQuiet DC1) but does the job as I don't have any CLU at hand.

I don't like the RealBench because when halting it always crashes my PC (BAD_POOL_CALLER).


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Yes, it reseated the block a few times and tried reapplying the TIM. The current one is not great (BeQuiet DC1) but does the job as I don't have any CLU at hand.


don;t use clu on the EK block (copper - right?). Stick with Gelid EX, Grizzly, PK-1 PK-3 etc. I don't know DC1. each time you have reseated it, is the TIM spread uniform? AND VERY thin? Use the simple pea/rice grain method - no manual spreading and tighten the block in a radial manner, not crosswise, since you are using the block pressure to spread the material. (if you've ever used liquid high temp gasket material, vs a preformed gasket, it's the same thing. crosswise with preformed, radial with in-situ formed gasket... or tim in this case).

Are you running AVX at 4.3 also? If yes, the x264 I posted the link to, uses AVX, and will run at the AVX clock... also, does your bios have a page like this:



edit: btw: the RB crash on halt is related to running two GPUs and it's an NV issue. switch off one gpu with the PCIE switches on th eMB if it has them. if not, then you gotta remove the card...


----------



## Martin778

It's a full nickel block, the correct name is EK Supremacy EVO Elite.
I know that stuff like CLU/CLP will react and in the end dissolve copper









Maybe I shouldn't use the stop button on RealBench but simply kill the process through task manager?

And yes, I do have this page in BIOS.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> edit: btw: the RB crash on halt is related to running two GPUs and it's an NV issue. switch off one gpu with the PCIE switches on th eMB if it has them. if not, then you gotta remove the card...


I had similar with my GTX980ti when overclocked, once I set it back to defaults the crashing stopped.


----------



## Martin778

Just passed 1h OCCT @ 4.3GHz 1.324V. I don't think it would do much better.


----------



## sblantipodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Just passed 1h OCCT @ 4.3GHz 1.324V. I don't think it would do much better.


what kind of cooler are you using to cool such a beast?


----------



## Martin778

Custom water cooling, you can see the parts by clicking on the rig in my signature.
It seems like our rigs are quite similar









If someone's interested, AIDA64 5.75.3900 benchmark results at 4.3GHz with 2x8GB 3000MHz C15 RAM:

Memory read: 35954 MB/s
Memory write: 35150 MB/s
Memory copy: 32624 MB/s
CPU Queen: 122095
CPU PhotoWorxx: 17769 MPixel/s
CPU ZLib: 955.0 MB/s
CPU AES: 48801 MB/s
CPU Hash 11665 MB/s
FPU VP8: 7894 MB/s
FPU Julia: 73839
FPU Mandel: 38260
FPU SinJulia: 13784
FP32 Ray-Trace: 14763 KRay/s
FP64 Ray-Trace: 7789KRay/s


----------



## Baasha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Baasha - are you running 2 GPUs? Switch one off, and run the gpu at stock. THen add some voltage to cache.


Jpmboy,

Yes, I'm running 2 GPUs - will try with running just one.

The cool thing is that if RB and IBT pass at 1.270V, I can just use that instead of 1.30V right? I mean, since I do a lot of video encoding, do you suggest any other tests? I did try RB with just the H.264 test selected for 5 runs and it ran without issue (@ 1.30V). Going to try and lower the V-Core and see if it still passes.









Also, what should I set the Cache voltage to? And, since the Cache Ratio is just 31 (3.1Ghz), can I up that to like 3.5Ghz? What Cache Voltage should I set it to to make that stable? Right now, on Auto, it reads 0.96xxV which is quite low.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Maybe I shouldn't use the stop button on RealBench but simply kill the process through task manager?
> 
> And yes, I do have this page in BIOS.


If you are having display driver issues or hanging when you use the stop button in RealBench, your overclock is not quite stable. When I get to the point where manually stopping RealBench causes a hang/black screen or display driver errors start occurring instead of BSOD, I know I'm almost there and have just a bit more voltage left to add.


----------



## d4nim4l

Up and running with my 6900k 4.4 ghz at 1.34 volts currently. Real Bench 1 hour loop of h.264 temps:



I am going to try to push frequency higher tonight.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d4nim4l*
> 
> Up and running with my 6900k 4.4 ghz at 1.34 volts currently. Real Bench 1 hour loop of h.264 temps:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to try to push frequency higher tonight.


Whats your RAM and cache clocked at? Full specs on MB/ram and cooling?


----------



## d4nim4l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Whats your RAM and cache clocked at? Full specs on MB/ram and cooling?


Literally just up and running. Only think I have touched is multiplier to x44, CPU voltage to 1.34, and ram to 3200 - timings are loose currently:



MB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132830
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232296
Cooling: https://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-fb-asus-x99-monoblock-nickel

Just rebuilt my ~10 year old watercooling loop with dual 480's


----------



## vibraslap

Thanks for the quick reply.

I think i found my problem recently.. I realized I bought non QVL ram for my 6900k like a idiot. I'm really hoping when I get some 3200Mhz CAS14 TridentZ ram in this week I'll be able to hit 4.4 stable at 1.34V.

I also found out that between Corsair Link and Asus Fan Xpert3, neither was controlling the fans on my h100i properly. I connected them straight to the motherboard and used Asus Q-fan control in the bios with PWM to control them and now they actually operate fully under load. Saw a >10C temp decrease after I got them configured properly.


----------



## greg1184

Are there any benefits to using a higher bclk such as 125 and smaller multiplier ?


----------



## d4nim4l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Thanks for the quick reply.
> 
> I think i found my problem recently.. I realized I bought non QVL ram for my 6900k like a idiot. I'm really hoping when I get some 3200Mhz CAS14 TridentZ ram in this week I'll be able to hit 4.4 stable at 1.34V.
> 
> I also found out that between Corsair Link and Asus Fan Xpert3, neither was controlling the fans on my h100i properly. I connected them straight to the motherboard and used Asus Q-fan control in the bios with PWM to control them and now they actually operate fully under load. Saw a >10C temp decrease after I got them configured properly.


My RAM wasn't on the QVL list either and I was kind of stressing out about it. It seems to be working well so far, hopefully that stays true as I tighten down the timings.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I don't get it. First one is a cold boot. Second one is after restart. Huge difference in VCore while CPU-Z shows the same.


In reply to myself, this issue, so far, seems to be solved by upgrading the MB to Rampage V Edition 10. Seems like a BIOS bug in RVE to me. Everything else is still the same. Even Windows installation.







Well...it was never a smooths sailing with the RVE for me. Fingers crossed in favor of RVE10.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Ugh....not what i expected. 6800K @ 4.4ghz is getting lower single core Cinebench scores than my 4.6ghz 5960X.....smh -___- That's literally making my whole reason for getting it moot. I figured that since the 6800K when OCed to 4.4ghz hits 1,367 points in multi core cinebench 15 which is basically the same as my 5960X stock that it would be a good chip to move to. I figured even though i'm losing two cores i'm getting "good enough" video editing/rendering performance from a ~1,367 point multi-threaded score and was assuming at least a decently larger single-threaded score for some improved gaming etc.. performance.

slightly disappointing really, especially since my 6800K can't even hit 4.5ghz at 1.46v with max LLC and current limit etc.. and i can't pump voltage any higher as 1.46 makes me hit 90C in some cores even on custom loop with 480/420/360 rads. I figured 4.5 would be possible on a binned 4.4ghz siliconlottery bought chip if i pumped voltage a fair bit higher.


----------



## sabishiihito

I committed two cardinal sins at once here by combining two 2x4GB kits for quad-channel *and* using the XMP profile, which is for Z170/Skylake and not X99. Seems to work just fine on R5E + 6800k, however.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sabishiihito*
> 
> I committed two cardinal sins at once here by combining two 2x4GB kits for quad-channel *and* using the XMP profile, which is for Z170/Skylake and not X99. Seems to work just fine on R5E + 6800k, however.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Hello

It's not a cardinal sin. However the configuration is not advised when users are only capable of plug n' play, things don't work out and they are standing around knee deep in doo-doo. Should be able to tighten things up with your configuration. Below is a couple of combined Z170 kits I have at the same memory speed as you are at.


----------



## sabishiihito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> It's not a cardinal sin. However the configuration is not advised when users are only capable of plug n' play, things don't work out and they are standing around knee deep in doo-doo. Should be able to tighten things up with your configuration. Below is a couple of combined Z170 kits I have at the same memory speed as you are at.


Well I was really just testing to see if the XMP profile would work with the 34x divider being available at 100BCLK using BW-E. I wonder now if those 4x4GB 3400 kits that were only certified to run on Gigabyte OC Champion can work on more boards.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sabishiihito*
> 
> I wonder now if those 4x4GB 3400 kits that were only certified to run on Gigabyte OC Champion can work on more boards.


Hello

The CAS 16 kit? They were also qualified by G.Skill for the R5E.


----------



## sabishiihito

I was thinking more along the lines of the Dominator Platinum orange kit and the Geil Super Luce.


----------



## greg1184

One thing I notice that the memory controller needs some voltage for higher frequency ram. I have 3200mhz 32gb ram. I have to up the voltage to the system agent to improve stability especially when I go up to 4.4ghz core.


----------



## Martin778

Does anyone have the same temp differences between core 1-3 and the other cores on their 6950X as mine does? I'm starting to think there is something wrong with the IHS/solder on mine.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Does anyone have the same temp differences on the core 1-3 on their 6950X as mine does? I'm starting to think there is something wrong with the IHS/solder on mine.


all of mine shows 27-28c idle using hw monitor but I just fired up the chip so don't know what it will do when the silicon settles.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Does anyone have the same temp differences between core 1-3 and the other cores on their 6950X as mine does? I'm starting to think there is something wrong with the IHS/solder on mine.


There is always some temp disparity across the die, plus the DTS are not 100% accurate.


----------



## Martin778

I am aware of temp. differences but in my case is 20*C+ difference and always the same cores. It has a 'hotspot' between core #1 and #3.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sabishiihito*
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines of the Dominator Platinum orange kit and the Geil Super Luce.


You can try it and find out, but usually kits validated at high frequency for 4 DIMM boards, don't work plug and play on 8 DIMM boards. Of course, if you like tweaking, go for it and have fun. Just don't expect much in the way of support from the memory vendors if they don't list the board - mind you a specialist such as yourself probably doesn't need help.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I am aware of temp. differences but in my case is 20*C+ difference and always the same cores. It has a 'hotspot' between core #1 and #3.


Ahh your first post was incomplete. People can't mind read the temp diff..

That is a greater difference than normal. If you've already remounted (again it's not stated that you have) you can try that. Other than that, if one is using by specific core overclocking (the posts above don't state either way) with the Intel driver, the cores executing the load will be running hotter.


----------



## Martin778

i might try that but it would probably cripple the performance on apps using 1-4 cores?

I've posted my result before, up to 26*C difference between cores.


----------



## Mike211

My OC
http://s367.photobucket.com/user/michael211/media/intel1.png.html


----------



## Baasha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mike211*
> 
> My OC
> http://s367.photobucket.com/user/michael211/media/intel1.png.html


hey.. it's Mike







a whole 27 posts in almost 4 years!

what are you using to test for stability?

anyway, I tried 4.4Ghz & 4.5Ghz - it won't even boot @ 4.5Ghz and insta-crashes @ 4.4Ghz. LOL..

It's quite stable at 4.3Ghz @ 1.270V which is nice! IBT 'Very High' 10 runs - RealBench Benchmark - 5x H.264 Encode - all pass without issue. Gaming for hours @ 5K with GPUs OC'd to 2100Mhz work fantastically well.

However, it's not so stable! I just tried encoding a 4K video w/ Adobe Media Encoder and it BSODs even at 1.290V!









Is there something else I need to change like Cache Voltage? If so, what should I set the Cache voltage to?

@Jpmboy @SilentScone

PLEASE HELP!


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> hey.. it's Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a whole 27 posts in almost 4 years!
> 
> what are you using to test for stability?
> 
> anyway, I tried 4.4Ghz & 4.5Ghz - it won't even boot @ 4.5Ghz and insta-crashes @ 4.4Ghz. LOL..
> 
> It's quite stable at 4.3Ghz @ 1.270V which is nice! IBT 'Very High' 10 runs - RealBench Benchmark - 5x H.264 Encode - all pass without issue. Gaming for hours @ 5K with GPUs OC'd to 2100Mhz work fantastically well.
> 
> However, it's not so stable! I just tried encoding a 4K video w/ Adobe Media Encoder and it BSODs even at 1.290V!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something else I need to change like Cache Voltage? If so, what should I set the Cache voltage to?
> 
> @Jpmboy @SilentScone
> 
> PLEASE HELP!


Basha, i think you will need around 1.31, 1.32 for fully stabe. what code of ur bsod?
HWe: bsod 101 increase vrin, bsod 127 increase vcore
BWe: bsod 101 increase vcore, bsod 127 increase vrin.
other bsod might be ram or cache
I test with RB 50 round, 20 round x264 v2 high and final is 1 or 2 hours OCCT high.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ocvn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have a same 6950x batch. I will get it next Tuesday. Do you try with ur cpu yet?


My rig is not fully complete but I did try out the CPU. I was able to validate with 4.5GHz @ 1.401v but got some cold chills and decided to drop it down to 4.4GHz @ 1.352v. Have not done anything with uncore yet, it's 1:40AM and should be sleeping because I get up at 4:30AM to go to work and shouldn't be messing with overclocking stuff







No full stability tests yet just XTU. Have you had a chance to test out your CPU yet?

Edit: Adding links.

http://valid.x86.fr/yy3q2i

http://valid.x86.fr/er96vx

Another Edit. I see you've been testing your CPU lol. Have not been reading here much, my rig conversion killed me and was rushing to get to test the CPU.


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> My rig is not fully complete but I did try out the CPU. I was able to validate with 4.5GHz @ 1.401v but got some cold chills and decided to drop it down to 4.4GHz @ 1.352v. Have not done anything with uncore yet, it's 1:40AM and should be sleeping because I get up at 4:30AM to go to work and shouldn't be messing with overclocking stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No full stability tests yet just XTU. Have you had a chance to test out your CPU yet?
> 
> Edit: Adding links.
> 
> http://valid.x86.fr/yy3q2i
> 
> http://valid.x86.fr/er96vx


1 week play with this cpu. however the x99e-ws bios has some problems so i cant verify clearly how much this cpu can oc with ram ( boot and bench aida 64, xtu mem and pi fine with 3200cas 14 cr1 but somehow after few reboot the bios freeze...)
stable so far [email protected], 3.6 [email protected] and ram 3000c14 64GB cr2. pass occt 1h, x264 40 loops and realbench 2 hours H264.


----------



## Martin778

The voltage soak for the 6950X starts around 4.25GHz.

I ve lapped mine this night(couldnt sleep anyway







).
Will post some results later


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> hey.. it's Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a whole 27 posts in almost 4 years!
> 
> what are you using to test for stability?
> 
> anyway, I tried 4.4Ghz & 4.5Ghz - it won't even boot @ 4.5Ghz and insta-crashes @ 4.4Ghz. LOL..
> 
> It's quite stable at 4.3Ghz @ 1.270V which is nice! IBT 'Very High' 10 runs - RealBench Benchmark - 5x H.264 Encode - all pass without issue. Gaming for hours @ 5K with GPUs OC'd to 2100Mhz work fantastically well.
> 
> However, it's not so stable! I just tried encoding a 4K video w/ Adobe Media Encoder and it BSODs even at 1.290V!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something else I need to change like Cache Voltage? If so, what should I set the Cache voltage to?
> 
> @Jpmboy @SilentScone
> 
> PLEASE HELP!


You're saying that its crashing at 4.3ghz at 1.29v correct? What specific error message are you getting? Watchdog? Whea_uncorrectable_error? etc..

Your cache is only at 3.1ghz so there's zero need to change that, and honestly the cache voltage does a good enough job of regulating itself for the most part. If you were running cache at 3.7-3.8ghz and 3200mhz RAM or something, i might say to manually change cache voltage and system agent perhaps. But with 2800mhz RAM and 3.1 cache you're fine.

It seems like core voltage is what you need, what kind of cooling do you have? If your cooling is adequate you can go to 1.4v without issue fairly safely. My 6800K won't get 4.4ghz till i set it at 1.35v, and won't be stable at 4.5ghz even at a massive 1.5v!!!! (which is infuriating to the extreme since my 5960X could hit 4.5ghz at 1.3v, and i could squeeze the extra 100mhz to 4.6ghz by pushing it a bit over 1.4v. No such luck on broadwell, 4.5ghz is just impossible no matter the voltage even on custom water cooling with 1,280mm of radiator space)

For 4.3ghz i would try going to ~1.32v and see how it responds. I don't think you should have to go much over 1.35v even worse case scenario considering your 4.2ghz voltages being fairly low; but it's possible depending on your cooling.


----------



## Kana Chan

Is there a difference between the 6850K and the E5-1650 V4? The E5-1650 V4 is a few dollars cheaper than the consumer variant. Both have 40 PCI-E lanes and such? Is the Xeon unlocked too?

http://ark.intel.com/products/92994/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1650-v4-15M-Cache-3_60-GHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/94188/Intel-Core-i7-6850K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz?q=6850k


----------



## xarot

My 6900K needs around 1.24~1.26V for 4.2 GHz and 1.35 V for 4.3 GHz. 4.4 GHz around 1.39 V...not fully tested yet, might need around 1.42 or so. 4200 MHz is plenty for me.

The trickiest things seems to be VCCSA voltage yet again. I am getting some weird things going on when VCCSA is not where it should be...too low or too high and USB devices dropping off sometimes or some keys if not the whole keyboard stops working when gaming. The bad thing is that never happens under stress testing. Also I think the RB crash when pressing the stop button is closely related to instability; Vcore or VCCSA.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> Is there a difference between the 6850K and the E5-1650 V4? The E5-1650 V4 is a few dollars cheaper than the consumer variant. Both have 40 PCI-E lanes and such? Is the Xeon unlocked too?
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/92994/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1650-v4-15M-Cache-3_60-GHz
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/94188/Intel-Core-i7-6850K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz?q=6850k


The Xeon might be locked, we won't know until someone tries it, go for it and let us know.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> hey.. it's Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a whole 27 posts in almost 4 years!
> 
> what are you using to test for stability?
> 
> anyway, I tried 4.4Ghz & 4.5Ghz - it won't even boot @ 4.5Ghz and insta-crashes @ 4.4Ghz. LOL..
> 
> It's quite stable at 4.3Ghz @ 1.270V which is nice! IBT 'Very High' 10 runs - RealBench Benchmark - 5x H.264 Encode - all pass without issue. Gaming for hours @ 5K with GPUs OC'd to 2100Mhz work fantastically well.
> 
> However, it's not so stable! I just tried encoding a 4K video w/ Adobe Media Encoder and it BSODs even at 1.290V!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something else I need to change like Cache Voltage? If so, what should I set the Cache voltage to?
> 
> @Jpmboy @SilentScone
> 
> PLEASE HELP!


Need more info, revert memory and cache settings to default and run the encode again.


----------



## Martin778

Nope, even lapped there is still a massive temp. difference between cores.








Delid it is then....

The good news is that the idle/low load temps seem to have dropped massively.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Nope, even lapped there is still a massive temp. difference between cores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delid it is then....
> 
> The good news is that the idle/low load temps seem to have dropped massively.


I would not have even considered lapping the CPU at that point. I think that's up at #1 currently for the Wall of Shame this refresh!


----------



## Martin778

What do you mean by "at that point"? Delid will be the next step because lapping didn't really help much so it must be the TIM between the die that's bad.

Prime 95 SmallFFT (sans AVX):


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Martin778, it's solder between the IHS and die, not TIM.

Deliding the cpu can hurt it because of the way you need to get it off. Using heat and what not.


----------



## [email protected]

Probably meant he would have asked for an RMA if certain the issue is with the CPU, rather than lapping it.


----------



## Martin778

I am aware it's soldered but the solder is still a kind of TIM, isn't it?









The shop would never accept a complaint about bad overclock temps if on stock the CPU runs stable, quite cool and puts out enough flops









I always heat up the block/cooler before removing it, with just twisting it slightly before pulling it comes off with no problems.
I've also lapped and delidded a 3770K before but for the 6950 I need a delid tool.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I am aware it's soldered but the solder is still a kind of TIM, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shop would never accept a complaint about bad overclock temps if on stock the CPU runs stable, quite cool and puts out enough flops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always heat up the block/cooler before removing it, with just twisting it slightly before pulling it comes off with no problems.
> I've also lapped and delidded a 3770K before but for the 6950 I need a delid tool.


Even if they did refuse an RMA, they certainly will now. Not only that, but the tuning program is no longer an option for you.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I am aware it's soldered but the solder is still a kind of TIM, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shop would never accept a complaint about bad overclock temps if on stock the CPU runs stable, quite cool and puts out enough flops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always heat up the block/cooler before removing it, with just twisting it slightly before pulling it comes off with no problems.
> I've also lapped and delidded a 3770K before but for the 6950 I need a delid tool.


Nope, the solder is literally pure indium. I "guess" you could say it's "somewhat" similar to the Liquid Metal stuff made by like Cool Laboratory, and its over 1mm thick compared to the super thin layer that a thermal paste will form. It's SUPER adhesive, so if you try to rip it off like a normal de-lid of an LGA 1150 etc.. CPU you will rip the CPU die in half due to the solder sticking so well to it that it pulls the die surface off the substrate as well.

There are tools in development to delid haswell-e and broadwell-e etc.. soldered CPUs but they aren't out yet. The way to do it is to push from the side so the IHS moves about 1mm from its original position, t hen flip it around and do the same thing pushing in the opposite direction. If you push more than 1mm you will knock off capacitors that regulate the FIVR and such. But the concept is that if you push from the SIDE you don't have to do the super dangerous heating of the solder etc.. which can still end up with the die ripping; something about the indium will end up with it simply "unsticking" if you push from the SIDE rather than ripping it off vertically.

However doing it yourself without a specialized tool is, it goes without saying, at your own risk!


----------



## Martin778

Yep, i've already gathered some info on delidding soldered CPU's. It bust be pushed exactly at one point and only from the side. No more than 1mm movement.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Nope, the solder is literally pure indium. I "guess" you could say it's "somewhat" similar to the Liquid Metal stuff made by like Cool Laboratory, and its over 1mm thick compared to the super thin layer that a thermal paste will form. It's SUPER adhesive, so if you try to rip it off like a normal de-lid of an LGA 1150 etc.. CPU you will rip the CPU die in half due to the solder sticking so well to it that it pulls the die surface off the substrate as well.
> 
> There are tools in development to delid haswell-e and broadwell-e etc.. soldered CPUs but they aren't out yet. The way to do it is to push from the side so the IHS moves about 1mm from its original position, t hen flip it around and do the same thing pushing in the opposite direction. If you push more than 1mm you will knock off capacitors that regulate the FIVR and such. But the concept is that if you push from the SIDE you don't have to do the super dangerous heating of the solder etc.. which can still end up with the die ripping; something about the indium will end up with it simply "unsticking" if you push from the SIDE rather than ripping it off vertically.
> 
> However doing it yourself without a specialized tool is, it goes without saying, at your own risk!


Sometimes your posts remind me of the big buttons one presses in museums to hear about the exhibits, only for some reason the button starts talking about something completely different lol


----------



## Martin778

The delid tool mentioned earlier is already available but it's pretty expensive: https://www.caseking.de/der8auer-delid-die-mate-fsd8-015.html
The BW-E version should be available too.

It also seems like you can't run BW-E naked as there won't be enough pressure on the cooler, that's a shame.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I am aware it's soldered but the solder is still a kind of TIM, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shop would never accept a complaint about bad overclock temps if on stock the CPU runs stable, quite cool and puts out enough flops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always heat up the block/cooler before removing it, with just twisting it slightly before pulling it comes off with no problems.
> I've also lapped and delidded a 3770K before but for the 6950 I need a delid tool.


I would have pushed for an RMA. You've ruined your chances now.


----------



## Kana Chan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Nope, the solder is literally pure indium. I "guess" you could say it's "somewhat" similar to the Liquid Metal stuff made by like Cool Laboratory, and its over 1mm thick compared to the super thin layer that a thermal paste will form. It's SUPER adhesive, so if you try to rip it off like a normal de-lid of an LGA 1150 etc.. CPU you will rip the CPU die in half due to the solder sticking so well to it that it pulls the die surface off the substrate as well.
> 
> There are tools in development to delid haswell-e and broadwell-e etc.. soldered CPUs but they aren't out yet. The way to do it is to push from the side so the IHS moves about 1mm from its original position, t hen flip it around and do the same thing pushing in the opposite direction. If you push more than 1mm you will knock off capacitors that regulate the FIVR and such. But the concept is that if you push from the SIDE you don't have to do the super dangerous heating of the solder etc.. which can still end up with the die ripping; something about the indium will end up with it simply "unsticking" if you push from the SIDE rather than ripping it off vertically.
> 
> However doing it yourself without a specialized tool is, it goes without saying, at your own risk!


You still get 5-6 degrees cooler delidding a soldered cpu since it's closer to the IHS


----------



## Martin778

Bare Die would be the best but you'd have to dismount the whole socket assembly and find a workaround on how to mount the water block without crushing the die.
I've done it at some point but cant remember on which CPU, either it was the 3770k or 2600k.

By the way, since the IHS is now bare copper, will it get damaged if I use CLU?


----------



## MR-e

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Sometimes your posts remind me of the big buttons one presses in museums to hear about the exhibits, only for some reason the button starts talking about something completely different lol


Seriously, every time I read *****'s posts, I get a little voice that screams in caps lock. There was another guy that posted like him too, he went as far as underline, italics and bolding words. I ended up having to block him to stop going nuts in certain threads. ***** isn't too bad yet, still teeter tottering between that button, but he does bring up some valid points every now and then







The other guy was pure annoyance.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> Is there a difference between the 6850K and the E5-1650 V4? The E5-1650 V4 is a few dollars cheaper than the consumer variant. Both have 40 PCI-E lanes and such? Is the Xeon unlocked too?
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/92994/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1650-v4-15M-Cache-3_60-GHz
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/94188/Intel-Core-i7-6850K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz?q=6850k


I never heard of a Xeon unlocked, I guess I've been living under a rock if there is such a thing. I would avoid Xeon for a desktop machine only because it would be harder to resale the Xeon with good value vs the desktop CPU IMHO. What I'm seeing is people pull the CPU from servers eventually and the market gets flooded and people usually do not look for Xeons for their home computers, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I never heard of a Xeon unlocked, I guess I've been living under a rock if there is such a thing. I would avoid Xeon for a desktop machine only because it would be harder to resale the Xeon with good value vs the desktop CPU IMHO. What I'm seeing is people pull the CPU from servers eventually and the market gets flooded and people usually do not look for Xeons for their home computers, correct me if I'm wrong.


Allow me to correct you then, there are unlocked xeons.
There was even one 8 cores unlocked for X79 (Xeon E5-1680V2), pretty neat to be able to have an 8 cores without switching to X99 when you already have a mighty fine R4E and good DDR3. Tho, that thing is rare too find and as expensive (if not more) as the 8 cores of HW-E/BW-E.
I've not heard of a unlocked Xeon for X99 this time around, but it would be nice.


----------



## MR-e

For HW-E there's the E5-1650 - 1660 - 1680 V3's that's unlocked.

BW-E there's the E5-1650 - 1660 - 1680 V4. One user somewhere on this forum posted about having the Xeon BW-E and was not able to change multiplers. I think he had a Gigabyte board.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The voltage soak for the 6950X starts around 4.25GHz.
> 
> I ve lapped mine this night(couldnt sleep anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> Will post some results later


You lapped a 1700$ cpu







say goodbye to your warrenty.


----------



## Martin778

I don't care about warranty, so lets make this clear







Only performance that matters.
I keep my 5930K as backup.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I don't care about warranty, so lets make this clear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only performance that ma
> I keep my 5930K as backup.


Any pictures of the lapped 6950x that you could share?


----------



## Medusa666

Anyone who got the 6950X as a replacement for 5960X, if so, what are your thoughts and reflections so far?


----------



## Martin778

Sure:


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> Anyone who got the 6950X as a replacement for 5960X, if so, what are your thoughts and reflections so far?


Not as a replacement per se as the 5960x will be moved to another MB and running along side the 6950x doing similar things.

Short version is if you don't have a use case that scales to use the 2 new cores, then you will find a that a typical over clocked 5960x and a typical over clocked 6950x behave VERY similarly.

I'd expect you to find some gains in the memory controller (faster ddr clock rates) and hey 2 more cores if you can use them. Typical single thread performance at equal clock speeds provides IPC gains (5-10%) but nothing earth shattering. Where that becomes a question mark is many 59xx could hit 4.4. It appears the similar "easy" cap on 6950x is 4.2/4.3. The IPC gains mentioned above assume equal clock rate between them.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> SM961 512GB on Deluxe II / 6900K in CrystalDiskMark


Jesus.... well, time to upgrade the SM951.


----------



## djgar

I'm waiting on a DDR4-3733 16GB set but here is my current 6900K status. One hour GSAT was successful. The DIMM volts are 1.37, not the 1.38 I forgot to change in the upper left notepad. Let's see how well the new DIMMs play, due this Friday.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Sure:


That's beautiful, nice job. Looking forward to whatever testing results you do.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> That's beautiful, nice job. Looking forward to whatever testing results you do.


I cant tell you what the results will look like. around 1°c - 4°c temp drop.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Sometimes your posts remind me of the big buttons one presses in museums to hear about the exhibits, only for some reason the button starts talking about something completely different lol


Um....ok....except i was talking about EXACTLY what he asked about. Solder and Delidding of BW-E CPU...







.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The delid tool mentioned earlier is already available but it's pretty expensive: https://www.caseking.de/der8auer-delid-die-mate-fsd8-015.html
> The BW-E version should be available too.
> 
> It also seems like you can't run BW-E naked as there won't be enough pressure on the cooler, that's a shame.


8Pack has said to me that he's not planning to release the extreme delid mate to the public as the CPUs are exponentially more expensive and he doesn't want legal liability issues if idiots mess up their CPUs with them.

of course he could always change his mind, so take it with a grain of salt or so.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> Anyone who got the 6950X as a replacement for 5960X, if so, what are your thoughts and reflections so far?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Sure:


He didn't mean literally.


----------



## Kana Chan

Isn't it just use at your own risk? What could he be liable for?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> Isn't it just use at your own risk? What could he be liable for?


It's not his tool anyway.


----------



## Kana Chan

http://www.enterprisetech.com/2016/06/29/ebays-billion-daily-transactions-cooled-water/
There's a 200W E5 V4 for Dell


----------



## skline00

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Not as a replacement per se as the 5960x will be moved to another MB and running along side the 6950x doing similar things.
> 
> Short version is if you don't have a use case that scales to use the 2 new cores, then you will find a that a typical over clocked 5960x and a typical over clocked 6950x behave VERY similarly.
> 
> I'd expect you to find some gains in the memory controller (faster ddr clock rates) and hey 2 more cores if you can use them. Typical single thread performance at equal clock speeds provides IPC gains (5-10%) but nothing earth shattering. Where that becomes a question mark is many 59xx could hit 4.4. It appears the similar "easy" cap on 6950x is 4.2/4.3. The IPC gains mentioned above assume equal clock rate between them.


Thank you for the explanation. Good to hear from a poster that owns both.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Bare Die would be the best but you'd have to dismount the whole socket assembly and find a workaround on how to mount the water block without crushing the die.
> I've done it at some point but cant remember on which CPU, either it was the 3770k or 2600k.
> 
> By the way, since the IHS is now bare copper, will it get damaged if I use CLU?


nice lap job... but yes, CLU will form an amalgam with the bare copper. You'll have to repolish it on each remount. Daaum bro... if that CPU would over heat several cores with p95 at stock settings, the Intel Tuning plan would have got you a new one! Delidding and lapping a 6700K is one thing...
a 6950X? "u da man!"

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> Isn't it just use at your own risk? What could he be liable for?


that depends on the country of the customer. whether the product was sold with certain expectations/claims of performance (and a "safe-harbor" disclaimer is meaningless in many jurisdictions) it's not the liability that is the initial cost worry, proving that you are not liable can get very expensive. This is why most product liability suits are settled out of court (also expensive, but maybe less so).


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Sure:
> [/IMG]


Nice work! Sell that on ebay as a "limited edition" and pick up another with less core temp dispersion.









Out of curiosity, how did you do it? I ask because I see an orange peel look to the surface, which looks more like a polishing. Admittedly, it's been many many years since I've done one myself and I'm sure that IHSs are much different now.

As others have stated, I would have RMA'd it, but I like your "can do" attitude!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Nice work! Sell that on ebay as a "limited edition" and pick up another with less core temp dispersion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, how did you do it? I ask because I see an orange peel look to the surface, which looks more like a polishing. Admittedly, it's been many many years since I've done one myself and I'm sure that IHSs are much different now.
> 
> As others have stated, I would have RMA'd it, but I like your "can do" attitude!


It needs speed holes to make it faster and lighter...









(Disclaimer: it does not need speed holes to make it faster and lighter)

I like your idea done2many, bedazzle it and sell it on eBay as the drug cartel cpu of choice...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> It needs speed holes to make it faster and lighter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Disclaimer: it does not need speed holes to make it faster and lighter)
> 
> I like your idea done2many, bedazzle it and sell it on eBay as the drug cartel cpu of choice...


Hmmm ... what could possibly be faster than a lapped 6950X with holes on crack???


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Hmmm ... what could possibly be faster than a lapped 6950X with holes on crack???


In a what can be RMA'd race, the unlapped CPU wins, every time.


----------



## lickadonkey

Is OCCT a reliable stress test? Got my hands on a 6900k, and i need 1,35v to maintain stability at 4.2ghz. I can run RealBench for hours with much lower voltage.


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lickadonkey*
> 
> Is OCCT a reliable stress test? Got my hands on a 6900k, and i need 1,35v to maintain stability at 4.2ghz. I can run RealBench for hours with much lower voltage.


heavier than both x264 v2 and realbench as my experience with 5960x and 6950x


----------



## Baasha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ocvn*
> 
> Basha, i think you will need around 1.31, 1.32 for fully stabe. what code of ur bsod?
> HWe: bsod 101 increase vrin, bsod 127 increase vcore
> BWe: bsod 101 increase vcore, bsod 127 increase vrin.
> other bsod might be ram or cache
> I test with RB 50 round, 20 round x264 v2 high and final is 1 or 2 hours OCCT high.


Hmm.. I see..it was the 'CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT' error - didn't see what code it was. The funny thing is everything else is stable (gaming @ 5K for hours) at 1.270V so it seems weird that I have to increase the voltage to 1.31 or 1.32V just to get encoding to be stable? Can someone explain that to me?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> You're saying that its crashing at 4.3ghz at 1.29v correct? What specific error message are you getting? Watchdog? Whea_uncorrectable_error? etc..
> 
> Your cache is only at 3.1ghz so there's zero need to change that, and honestly the cache voltage does a good enough job of regulating itself for the most part. If you were running cache at 3.7-3.8ghz and 3200mhz RAM or something, i might say to manually change cache voltage and system agent perhaps. But with 2800mhz RAM and 3.1 cache you're fine.
> 
> It seems like core voltage is what you need, what kind of cooling do you have? If your cooling is adequate you can go to 1.4v without issue fairly safely. My 6800K won't get 4.4ghz till i set it at 1.35v, and won't be stable at 4.5ghz even at a massive 1.5v!!!! (which is infuriating to the extreme since my 5960X could hit 4.5ghz at 1.3v, and i could squeeze the extra 100mhz to 4.6ghz by pushing it a bit over 1.4v. No such luck on broadwell, 4.5ghz is just impossible no matter the voltage even on custom water cooling with 1,280mm of radiator space)
> 
> For 4.3ghz i would try going to ~1.32v and see how it responds. I don't think you should have to go much over 1.35v even worse case scenario considering your 4.2ghz voltages being fairly low; but it's possible depending on your cooling.


Yes, it was the 'CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT' error. I have the 3200Mhz RAM (64GB) so I'm just using XMP to run it. Okay, it looks like I'll have to try 1.31V or 1.32V and try to encode again. I'm using the Kraken X60 with 2x 140mm Noctua fans - it's amazing and cools really well. At 1.270V, the hottest core gets to around 70C.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Need more info, revert memory and cache settings to default and run the encode again.


Memory is at XMP (3200Mhz) and Cache is default - I haven't changed anything with that yet. I guess I'll try a higher V-Core and see if that helps.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Hmm.. I see..it was the 'CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT' error - didn't see what code it was. The funny thing is everything else is stable (gaming @ 5K for hours) at 1.270V so it seems weird that I have to increase the voltage to 1.31 or 1.32V just to get encoding to be stable? *Can someone explain that to me?*
> Yes, it was the 'CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT' error. I have the 3200Mhz RAM (64GB) so I'm just using XMP to run it. Okay, it looks like I'll have to try 1.31V or 1.32V and try to encode again. I'm using the Kraken X60 with 2x 140mm Noctua fans - it's amazing and cools really well. At 1.270V, the hottest core gets to around 70C.
> Memory is at XMP (3200Mhz) and Cache is default - I haven't changed anything with that yet. I guess I'll try a higher V-Core and see if that helps.


Encoding is much more stressful than gaming, not to mention it's going to use all of your cores.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Hmm.. I see..it was the 'CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT' error - didn't see what code it was. The funny thing is everything else is stable (gaming @ 5K for hours) at 1.270V so it seems weird that I have to increase the voltage to 1.31 or 1.32V just to get encoding to be stable? Can someone explain that to me?
> Yes, it was the 'CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT' error. I have the 3200Mhz RAM (64GB) so I'm just using XMP to run it. Okay, it looks like I'll have to try 1.31V or 1.32V and try to encode again. I'm using the Kraken X60 with 2x 140mm Noctua fans - it's amazing and cools really well. At 1.270V, the hottest core gets to around 70C.
> Memory is at XMP (3200Mhz) and Cache is default - I haven't changed anything with that yet. I guess I'll try a higher V-Core and see if that helps.


a CWTO bsod is one or more of vcore, vccin, LLC, and vcache if the ram is in good order.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> http://www.enterprisetech.com/2016/06/29/ebays-billion-daily-transactions-cooled-water/
> There's a 200W E5 V4 for Dell


Interesting that they compared it to a 14core system vs 16/18/22... They are talking about queries (vs heavy compute) so eventually the memory, disk, network are going to bottleneck perhaps they'd already seen diminishing returns there and didn't bother trying to cool anything more?

Either way, I'd love a 200W+ 14-16 core unlocked chip. I am more than happy to give it a nurturing home and lovingly remove as much as heat as it wants to make.


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Hmm.. I see..it was the 'CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT' error - didn't see what code it was. The funny thing is everything else is stable (gaming @ 5K for hours) at 1.270V so it seems weird that I have to increase the voltage to 1.31 or 1.32V just to get encoding to be stable? Can someone explain that to me?
> Yes, it was the 'CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT' error. I have the 3200Mhz RAM (64GB) so I'm just using XMP to run it. Okay, it looks like I'll have to try 1.31V or 1.32V and try to encode again. I'm using the Kraken X60 with 2x 140mm Noctua fans - it's amazing and cools really well. At 1.270V, the hottest core gets to around 70C.
> Memory is at XMP (3200Mhz) and Cache is default - I haven't changed anything with that yet. I guess I'll try a higher V-Core and see if that helps.


Watchdog is Vcore.
Some temp test with [email protected]@3600 [email protected] XMP gskill
Ambient 20 C
Aida64 and x264 v2 encode


IBT

Stable test OCCT


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Sure:


Hello, can you describe if you covered that hole for the duration of lapping? Did you put something like blu-tack there?


----------



## Martin778

No, it's a magical hole - put some TIM on it and it comes out right away, seriously.









BTW I can't seem to get stable @ 4.3GHz, shame. Not sure what I'm doing wrong since my Vcore is already 1.34V.

I've seen people sand off the whole IHS down to bare die but that would mean there won't be enough presssure on CPU block, same as with delid








Well, unless you leave the IHS leftover, fill the whole space between the die and the 'ring' thats left of the IHS and fill it with some non condtive laquer or high temp sillicone and throw enough CLU on the die.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ocvn*
> 
> Watchdog is Vcore.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Some temp test with [email protected]@3600 [email protected] XMP gskill
> Ambient 20 C
> Aida64 and x264 v2 encode
> 
> 
> IBT
> 
> Stable test OCCT


lol- except when VCCIN is low.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> No, it's a magical hole - put some TIM on it and it comes out right away, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I can't seem to get stable @ 4.3GHz, shame. Not sure what I'm doing wrong since my Vcore is already 1.34V.
> 
> I've seen people sand off the whole IHS down to bare die but that would mean there won't be enough presssure on CPU block, same as with delid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you leave the IHS leftover, fill the whole space between the die and the 'ring' thats left of the IHS and fill it with some non condtive laquer or high temp sillicone and throw enough CLU on the die.


you can use a copper or nickel shim to get the proper pressure on the die... kinda defeats some of the benefit of direct-to-die cooling tho.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you can use a copper or nickel shim to get the proper pressure on the die... kinda defeats some of the benefit of direct-to-die cooling tho.


Indeed, going to need to do some work on the tensioning mechanism. Either relieve the cooling head or neck/thread the posts deeper to allow it to come down.

Or If using the x99 bracket, you might be able to grind the receiving threaded holes down, but you'd need to do some with some precision in all cases and getting good cuts on the bracket might be hard. Or just remove it entirely and come up with your own tension system from the bottom. Lots of work any way you cut it (pun intended)


----------



## greg1184

Got my computer stabilized at 4.4ghz. Now working on cache. How high are you guys going with it? I'm at 3.7ghz and am running tests now.


----------



## Silent Scone

[
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *greg1184*
> 
> Got my computer stabilized at 4.4ghz. Now working on cache. How high are you guys going with it? I'm at 3.7ghz and am running tests now.


Most samples will not likely go further than 3.8.


----------



## Jpmboy

R5E-10 hooked up. [email protected], 32GB GSkill 4x8GB 3200c14 2 3400c141T (32 gb, 64 gb still not there yet).











t-topology really likes all 8 sticks for AID64 bandwidth!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> R5E-10 hooked up. [email protected], 32GB GSkill 4x8GB 3200c14 2 3400c141T (32 gb, 64 gb still not there yet).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t-topology really likes all 8 sticks for AID64 bandwidth!


Those extra cores help with that, too lol


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Those extra cores help with that, too lol


they do, but i'm directly comparing 32GB and 64GB kits on this MB.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *greg1184*
> 
> Got my computer stabilized at 4.4ghz. Now working on cache. How high are you guys going with it? I'm at 3.7ghz and am running tests now.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Most samples will not likely go further than 3.8.


Scone's on the money. My 6900K is doing 3792 stable. Even a bit over 3800, GSAT trashes Linux as soon as it starts ... not just unstable but raving mad


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Scone's on the money. My 6900K is doing 3792 stable. Even a bit over 3800, GSAT trashes Linux as soon as it starts ... not just unstable but raving mad


Only going by what's been seen already, including this 6900K I have here. Also Raja's guide states similar findings from their sample size. Doubt many will go further









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> they do, but i'm directly comparing 32GB and 64GB kits on this MB.


Yeah, well send me over one of those kits so we can compare.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Only going by what's been seen already, including this 6900K I have here. Also Raja's guide states similar findings from their sample size. Doubt many will go further
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well send me over one of those kits so we can compare.


the 32GB kit is the black ripjaws... oops, need to pair my phone with this rig's BT to post a pic.


----------



## Martin778

I must be a 'special' one, can't seem to get any OC stable past 4GHz. It will run any games/benches but crash under OCCT or RB.

What are your cache / system agent voltages?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I must be a 'special' one, can't seem to get any OC stable past 4GHz. It will run any games/benches but crash under OCCT or RB.
> 
> What are your cache / system agent voltages?


on the R5E-10? I can post offset bios screenshots for ya in a few min... but all the voltages you are asking about are in the pic posted above.


----------



## Martin778

I missed the pics on the previous page, thanks. I have an X99 Deluxe/U3.1, voltages can't be that different from the R5E.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the 32GB kit is the black ripjaws... oops, need to pair my phone with this rig's BT to post a pic.


I bought the same RAM, turns out its non QVL. But you probably know that already







.

I've got some TridentZ coming in today that should hopefully hit advertised specs. I wasn't able to get the Ripjaw V's higher that 2400 stable.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I bought the same RAM, turns out its non QVL. But you probably know that already
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I've got some TridentZ coming in today that should hopefully hit advertised specs. I wasn't able to get the Ripjaw V's higher that 2400 stable.


i'm running the RJs at 3400c14, slightly better than advertised spec.


----------



## vibraslap

Stop making me feel inadequate lol..

Seriously though, any tips? I couldn't even get it stable on XMP. Manual settings weren't stable either. Did I miss something maybe?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> ...
> 
> I've got some TridentZ coming in today that should hopefully hit advertised specs. I wasn't able to get the Ripjaw V's higher that 2400 stable.


Which TZs are you getting? I have these coming in tomorrow (allegedly) ...
f4-3733c17q-16gtz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> i'm running the RJs at 3400c14, slightly better than advertised spec.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I can't get 14-14-14 on my GVRs - wonder if it's the DIMMs, the CPU or the MB?


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Which TZs are you getting? I have these coming in tomorrow (allegedly) ...
> f4-3733c17q-16gtz
> I can't get 14-14-14 on my GVRs - wonder if it's the DIMMs, the CPU or the MB?


I'm getting these (gotta have that all white aesthetic)

If i was gonna guess(and hope) it's just that these chips(GVR's) aren't designed for broadwell-e.


----------



## filmguy1974

Quick question: I just made the move from a 4930K/RIVBE to a 6850K/RVE10. I'm on a custom loop with the same rads/pump I had before.

With the 4930K (and 3930K I had before it) I idled in the low 30's and normal (non-benchmark) loads took me into the mid 40's, sometimes high 40's during the summer when ambients went up. This was with a moderate OC of 4.4 Ghz and around 1.3 volts.

With the 6850K I just got, I'm idling in the low to mid 40's and hitting the mid to high 50's at normal (non-benchmark) loads. And that's at stock speed and voltage. I haven't run any heavy benches or tinkered with much of an OC yet. Only had the new build up and running for a couple of days.

My question is this: should I be seeing that kind of disparity in temps from the two previous chips? It's not like the extra heat is coming from more cores, all three chips are hex-core. I know these aren't dangerous temps or anything, but I'm a bit worried about my OC headroom if I'm pushing near 60 degrees at stock. Is this just the result of the smaller fab process concentrating more heat in a smaller area, thus making it harder to move the heat from the chip, or is it more likely that I've got a bit of a dud here? I bought from Amazon, so doing a swap would be pretty painless.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Stop making me feel inadequate lol..
> 
> Seriously though, any tips? I couldn't even get it stable on XMP. Manual settings weren't stable either. Did I miss something maybe?


SA? Auto showed me I was playing games toying around with SA much lower than were going to be needed. With 128G it is ~1.2v on auto. From past experience, I expect slightly lower with 64 and lower again with 32/16.

I've left it on auto for now. One curious thing I saw was that Aida would show me stable at 0.9 SA manually, but stressapp in Linux would quickly find errors. I started ramping up 10mV at a time but ran out of time to tune so left it at auto for now.

Also, I found if SA was the ultimate deficiency, then more VDIMM often made it worse. So start with SA and then add VDIMM has been my experience with both HWE and BWE.

Ditto on the cache 3.7/3.8 wall and I need a big jump in volts to get to 3.8 stable and corresponding heat.

Filmguy, I am finding the BWE chip to run cooler for any given OC than HWE even though it has more cores, so I'd be surprised that you are seeing more heat than an even larger Si feature size, but I don't have a 4xxx to compare.

At least the ASUS bios is throwing plenty of volts at everything in auto which makes it work, but obviously produces more heat. Check your SA and cache voltages under load? If they look reasonable then I'd check for cooling loop issues.


----------



## cekim

FWIW, regarding SA, where I left off was a single bit error in an hour of stress app at auto -0.05. So 1.15-1.16v was almost enough for 128G.


----------



## Martin778

1.45V on RAM, ouch! Won't it hurt the memory controller on the long run?


----------



## Martin778

How reliable is the temp/voltage data from AISuite? It says that my CPUIN jump up to 1,98V under load with LLC on auto while it's set to 1,95 in BIOS.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> How reliable is the temp/voltage data from AISuite? It says that my CPUIN jump up to 1,98V under load with LLC on auto while it's set to 1,95 in BIOS.


As reliable as A/D usually are, which is to say only roughly unless you are talking about a very expensive circuit which these measurements aren't.

That sort of variance is typical. Even relatively tame compared to what I've seen on my systems.

Speaking only for myself, I've rarely found CPUIN to be the magic sauce that gets me to a stable OC with HW/BW. So it's almost always auto or among the last to be tuned.


----------



## filmguy1974

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Filmguy, I am finding the BWE chip to run cooler for any given OC than HWE even though it has more cores, so I'd be surprised that you are seeing more heat than an even larger Si feature size, but I don't have a 4xxx to compare.
> 
> At least the ASUS bios is throwing plenty of volts at everything in auto which makes it work, but obviously produces more heat. Check your SA and cache voltages under load? If they look reasonable then I'd check for cooling loop issues.


Appreciate the input! Yeah, I've wondered about a potential issue in the loop, but I'm not sure what it could be. My GPU is hitting at about the temps I'd expect, so I would think that would help rule out any larger issues with the loop itself.

I guess the best way to boil my question down, for anyone who has done a similar switch recently, is: should I expect to be seeing a ~10-15 degree bump in temps going from an Ivy-E hex core to a Broadwell-E hex core on the same loop? Seems like that shouldn't be the case.


----------



## Martin778

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> As reliable as A/D usually are, which is to say only roughly unless you are talking about a very expensive circuit which these measurements aren't.
> 
> That sort of variance is typical. Even relatively tame compared to what I've seen on my systems.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I've rarely found CPUIN to be the magic sauce that gets me to a stable OC with HW/BW. So it's almost always auto or among the last to be tuned.


Thanks for the explanation. I am more concerned about the voltages being unnecessarily high while set on auto.
Since I started overclocking the 6700K on a VIII Ranger I got a little bit allergic to automatic voltage as it often was way too high.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> How reliable is the temp/voltage data from AISuite? It says that my CPUIN jump up to 1,98V under load with LLC on auto while it's set to 1,95 in BIOS.


Set a manual LLC


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. I am more concerned about the voltages being unnecessarily high while set on auto.
> Since I started overclocking the 6700K on a VIII Ranger I got a little bit allergic to automatic voltage as it often was way too high.


Can't blame you, there are specific voltages I've seen go nuts like VDIMM that I only use auto during tunning and then I lock them down. So far CPUIN hasn't been one of them. I've only found that one getting stretched with very high OC 4.8-5.0GHZ on HWE, so even if it were to fix it, I'd start relatively low

Filmguy, questions on the loop included cooling head mounting issues, but sounds like you've ruled that out. I've run my 5930k up to 4.8Ghz under aid64 even an H110 AIO was able to keep it under 85C.


----------



## Martin778

Can someone remind me - lower LLC level (LLC1-3 for example) meant higher voltage boost?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> 1.45V on RAM, ouch! Won't it hurt the memory controller on the long run?


no worries. 1.45V is my baseline.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Can someone remind me - lower LLC level (LLC1-3 for example) meant higher voltage boost?


use LLC 5


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no worries. 1.45V is my baseline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> use LLC 5


higher LLC is intended to translate to less vdroop under load. I'm with jpmboy, 5 is good.


----------



## djgar

I'm also seeing 3-4 degrees lower core temps with BW-E than with HW-E.


----------



## Martin778

Just set LLC to 5 with Vin set to 1.93V in BIOS.
AISuite now reports 1.92V wiht no load and 1.90V under IBT with Extreme Load enabled.

Good news is that with LLC=5 my temps are much better?! Or is IBT playing tricks on me?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> SA? Auto showed me I was playing games toying around with SA much lower than were going to be needed. With 128G it is ~1.2v on auto. From past experience, I expect slightly lower with 64 and lower again with 32/16.
> 
> I've left it on auto for now. One curious thing I saw was that Aida would show me stable at 0.9 SA manually, but stressapp in Linux would quickly find errors. I started ramping up 10mV at a time but ran out of time to tune so left it at auto for now.
> 
> Also, I found if SA was the ultimate deficiency, then more VDIMM often made it worse. So start with SA and then add VDIMM has been my experience with both HWE and BWE.
> 
> Ditto on the cache 3.7/3.8 wall and I need a big jump in volts to get to 3.8 stable and corresponding heat.
> 
> Filmguy, I am finding the BWE chip to run cooler for any given OC than HWE even though it has more cores, so I'd be surprised that you are seeing more heat than an even larger Si feature size, but I don't have a 4xxx to compare.
> 
> At least the ASUS bios is throwing plenty of volts at everything in auto which makes it work, but obviously produces more heat. Check your SA and cache voltages under load? If they look reasonable then I'd check for cooling loop issues.


All things considered with your configuration, that's quite good


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Just set LLC to 5 with Vin set to 1.93V in BIOS.
> AISuite now reports 1.92V wiht no load and 1.90V under IBT with Extreme Load enabled.
> 
> Good news is that with LLC=5 my temps are much better?! Or is IBT playing tricks on me?


too low gflops. Thortle or some problems


----------



## Martin778

It's always been like that on BWE, even stock. Maybe an error?
Cinebench etc. all report correct scores so no throttling.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Just set LLC to 5 with Vin set to 1.93V in BIOS.
> AISuite now reports 1.92V wiht no load and 1.90V under IBT with Extreme Load enabled.
> 
> Good news is that with LLC=5 my temps are much better?! Or is IBT playing tricks on me?


What's with the 126 bclk?


----------



## Martin778

My XMP profile sets it on 125MHz and I simply started from there.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> What's with the 126 bclk?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> My XMP profile sets it on 125MHz and I simply started from there.


Must be running 125 strap like me - I'm doing 126.4 BCLK.


----------



## Martin778

Yes, 125MHz strap it is.

Now testing 126,5x34 @ 1,286V. Looking good so far!


----------



## Artah

Any of you guys named EV-PC on CPU-z? I wanted to know what he did different to get a 4.5GHz OC with 12mv lower unless someone here knows some tricks to try to use the lowest voltage possible on these new chips. Thanks.


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no worries. 1.45V is my baseline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> use LLC 5


Thank for it







will change to manual vrin to see i can drop the temp vs auto setting
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> It's always been like that on BWE, even stock. Maybe an error?
> Cinebench etc. all report correct scores so no throttling.


You must check because quite strange with this gflop
6900k ibt


----------



## Martin778

132 would also be way too low for full 10C/20T.
OC'ed i5 3570K does 125 GFlops.

My temps under IBT are higher than under Aida64's test or RB which is correct since its Linpack so it's most probably some IBT fail.

BTW, HoF on CPU-Z seems to be quite bugged if people can vaildate stuff like this: http://valid.x86.fr/xuxjnn


----------



## ocvn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> 132 would also be way too low for full 10C/20T.
> OC'ed i5 3570K does 125 GFlops.
> 
> My temps under IBT are higher than under Aida64's test or RB which is correct since its Linpack so it's most probably some IBT fail.


old linkpack library, if you wanna see true potential, copy newest linkpack library from linx to ibt and re-run however....








try occt 1hours larger data set pass mean good to go


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> All things considered with your configuration, that's quite good


Yeah, from what I've seen on the internets in the month since I got mine up and running is that my 4.4/3.7 setup at 1.325/1.290/1.2 (cpu/cache/SA) is nothing to sneeze at in terms of the lottery and we won't see much better without a stepping, batching or foundry bump.

I haven't really, really pushed it (nothing over 1.4v) and only run in daily driver configurations (no ice,ln2, ss, phase change), but I've seen hints that it will do 4.5+ Just not in a 24/7 config.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Any of you guys named EV-PC on CPU-z? I wanted to know what he did different to get a 4.5GHz OC with 12mv lower unless someone here knows some tricks to try to use the lowest voltage possible on these new chips. Thanks.


cpuZ "validation" means very little... It is a "OMG it made it to windows" moment. Worthless IMO for anything more than that.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> cpuZ "validation" means very little... It is a "OMG it made it to windows" moment. Worthless IMO for anything more than that.


I know it. Wanted to ask him if he's benched it too.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I know it. Wanted to ask him if he's benched it too.


what voltage are you using for 4.5?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what voltage are you using for 4.5?


1.401 but I'm not happy with stability yet so I wouldn't call it a successful overclock yet especially because it's brand new and the silicon have not settled I'm sure. I'm only running 3.2 uncore at the moment also. Still testing things out when I get a chance but slightly distracted with the fact that my rig still looks like a rigzilla from a motherboard/pedestal upgrade.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> 1.401 but I'm not happy with stability yet so I wouldn't call it a successful overclock yet especially because it's brand new and the silicon have not settled I'm sure. I'm only running 3.2 uncore at the moment also. Still testing things out when I get a chance but slightly distracted with the fact that my rig still looks like a rigzilla from a motherboard/pedestal upgrade.


that's right in the ballpark, I don;t think the sabertooh has the tweaker menu where you can adjust the PLL stepping and VCCU offset. can help with pushing the 6950x.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> 1.401 but I'm not happy with stability yet so I wouldn't call it a successful overclock yet especially because it's brand new and the silicon have not settled I'm sure.


Is this a real thing? I would have assumed these chips are tested at the factory for long enough to "break-in" or "settle"


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Yes, 125MHz strap it is.
> 
> Now testing 126,5x34 @ 1,286V. Looking good so far!


just remember that on this platform, PEG/DMI can get tricky at 103 and higher if you plan to BCLK OC the chip.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Is this a real thing? I would have assumed these chips are tested at the factory for long enough to "break-in" or "settle"


It is not unusual for the cpu to "loosen up" a bit voltage wise after a couple of weeks of exercise.


----------



## jdc122

not sure what direction to go in. 4.7ghz 1.328v 5960x for 685, or but a silicon lottery 4.4ghz 6900k for 900?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's right in the ballpark, I don;t think the sabertooh has the tweaker menu where you can adjust the PLL stepping and VCCU offset. can help with pushing the 6950x.


I played with vccu briefly could not A/B anything that seemed to show it helping regardless of what I did with it. I could make things worse, not better.

Anyone know how to use that knob yet who is willing to say?


----------



## Martin778

I tried LinX but it will probably kill the VRMs or the CPU soon - AiSuite shows 243W from the CPU @ 305GFlops.
I pass 2h on realbench but crash in 10s on Linx due to outrageous temps.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's right in the ballpark, I don;t think the sabertooh has the tweaker menu where you can adjust the PLL stepping and VCCU offset. can help with pushing the 6950x.


I upgraded to R5E10 but I'm inexperienced with the rampage line. Would love some help pushing this chip but my time on it is spotty at the moment.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Must be running 125 strap like me - I'm doing 126.4 BCLK.


yeah, I know... it's more like, he is having lots of problems with the OC.. why not start with a simple 100x and then once ya have a stable OC baseline, change the gear ratio if needed for ram freq reasons.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I played with vccu briefly could not A/B anything that seemed to show it helping regardless of what I did with it. I could make things worse, not better.
> 
> Anyone know how to use that knob yet who is willing to say?


I run 1 on PLL and 4 on VCCU, but I do not have a case where "but for those settings" my OC is unstable. I think it does allow for a bit lower vcore and vcache in my setup.


----------



## Martin778

Not really a lotsof problems, more like fine tuning problems.
I had stable 4.25's but started to fiddle with the voltages too much as I want to get rid of all auto settings









I'm aiming for a 24/7 stable 4.375GHz (preferrably 125x35) and hope to call it a day then.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Is this a real thing? I would have assumed these chips are tested at the factory for long enough to "break-in" or "settle"


they may not have time to test it fully with default clocks and different flavors of OC at the factory that might be the reason why.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, I know... it's more like, he is having lots of problems with the OC.. why not start with a simple 100x and then once ya have a stable OC baseline, change the gear ratio if needed for ram freq reasons.
> ...


Exactly my sitch. I couldn't get a favorable DIMM frequency on 100 strap. Hopefully the TZs arriving tomorrow will be more strap-100 DIMM frequency friendly


----------



## Martin778

I had problems booting my RAM at 100MHz strap, at 125 they work fine









+
Yet they still act up sometimes, they are not QVL so I am saving cash for a quad kit of TZ's.

What could it be if the PC freezes under realbench and reboots within a second?
No bluescreen, no bsod summary after reboot


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I had problems booting my RAM at 100MHz strap, at 125 they work fine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> Yet they still act up sometimes, they are not QVL so I am saving cash for a quad kit of TZ's.
> 
> What could it be if the PC freezes under realbench and reboots within a second?
> No bluescreen, no bsod summary after reboot


assuming it is not a faulty PSU or graphics subsystem... that's typical of ram, aka " a ram blackout". Can look exactly like a PSU OCP.


----------



## Martin778

PSU shouldn't be an issue here - a 2 months old EVGA 1200W P2.

I tracked it down to being a RAM lockup. When testing up to 4GB in RB all went fine, with all 16GB it froze.

Lowered to 2792MHz and now it passes 1 hour RB with full 16GB used and CPU at 127x34.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I had problems booting my RAM at 100MHz strap, at 125 they work fine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> Yet they still act up sometimes, they are not QVL so I am saving cash for a quad kit of TZ's.
> 
> What could it be if the PC freezes under realbench and reboots within a second?
> No bluescreen, no bsod summary after reboot


I've experienced freezes when overdoing the cache speed.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I've experienced freezes when overdoing the cache speed.


^^ This. May well be cache-ram interface (IO).


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This. May well be cache-ram interface (IO).


Any memory corruption can take a millisecond, an hour or a month to finally bring your machine down... That's why running stressapp is so important. Aida's memory test doesn't seem to catch anything close to what stressapp does in memory/cache sub system.

I was, by all measures in windows completely stable 50+mV lower than I am now. No crashes or freezes, run for hours in bench/games. Booted into linux and stress app found issues right away. The system slowly started to suffer from bit-rot as I ran. First a frozen window, then an app that won't and eventually a mouse that would not respond. Cranked SA and cache voltage in separate runs with memory at stock and then OC'd until all those went away and its been smooth sailing since then with some good solid compute hours logged.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Any memory corruption can take a millisecond, an hour or a month to finally bring your machine down... That's why running stressapp is so important. Aida's memory test doesn't seem to catch anything close to what stressapp does in memory/cache sub system.
> 
> I was, by all measures in windows completely stable 50+mV lower than I am now. No crashes or freezes, run for hours in bench/games. Booted into linux and stress app found issues right away. The system slowly started to suffer from bit-rot as I ran. First a frozen window, then an app that won't and eventually a mouse that would not respond. Cranked SA and cache voltage in separate runs with memory at stock and then OC'd until all those went away and its been smooth sailing since then with some good solid compute hours logged.


GSAT is very good, but unless the use environment is the same OS, it's relevance to windows is questionable with regard to other substructures IMO. My experience has been more the other way, all is good in MInt with GSAT and windows (HCi memtest or what ever) will pop errors due to cache or vcore. GSAT does the ram very well (and quickly), but only ram. I've not had an HCi memtest OC fail linux mint running GSAT... yet. The active cores and package temps under each kinda shows the load difference to some extent.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> PSU shouldn't be an issue here - a 2 months old EVGA 1200W P2.
> 
> I tracked it down to being a RAM lockup. When testing up to 4GB in RB all went fine, with all 16GB it froze.
> 
> Lowered to 2792MHz and now it passes 1 hour RB with full 16GB used and CPU at 127x34.


that's a nice oc on that 6950X (the lapped one??)


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> GSAT is very good, but unless the use environment is the same OS, it's relevance to windows is questionable with regard to other substructures IMO. My experience has been more the other way, all is good in MInt with GSAT and windows (HCi memtest or what ever) will pop errors due to cache or vcore. GSAT does the ram very well (and quickly), but only ram. I've not had an HCi memtest OC fail linux mint running GSAT... yet. The active cores and package temps under each kinda shows the load difference to some extent.


I see exactly the same, its only useful for memory, but very useful for memory.


----------



## greg1184

I notice that as I bump up the VCCIO up the number becomes red higher than 1.2. Now I know that System agent-VCCIO should be ~0.05. Is it safe to go up with VCCIO when I have my system agent around 1.275 or 1.3?

I'm having a hard time getting my RAM stable at 3200mhz (what it's rated for). I tried getting the system agent up to 1.3 while gradually adding, and I keep getting errors on HCI memtest. I wonder if I need to add more dram voltage than the rated 1.35. Default 2133mhz goes error free on memtest.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *greg1184*
> 
> I notice that as I bump up the VCCIO up the number becomes red higher than 1.2. Now I know that System agent-VCCIO should be ~0.05. Is it safe to go up with VCCIO when I have my system agent around 1.275 or 1.3?
> 
> I'm having a hard time getting my RAM stable at 3200mhz (what it's rated for). I tried getting the system agent up to 1.3 while gradually adding, and I keep getting errors on HCI memtest. I wonder if I need to add more dram voltage than the rated 1.35. Default 2133mhz goes error free on memtest.


The voltage can be what it needs to be (within reason). The guideline is based upon how these two rails usually react. It is not a safety measure.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *greg1184*
> 
> I notice that as I bump up the VCCIO up the number becomes red higher than 1.2. Now I know that System agent-VCCIO should be ~0.05. Is it safe to go up with VCCIO when I have my system agent around 1.275 or 1.3?
> 
> I'm having a hard time getting my RAM stable at 3200mhz (what it's rated for). I tried getting the system agent up to 1.3 while gradually adding, and I keep getting errors on HCI memtest. I wonder if I need to add more dram voltage than the rated 1.35. Default 2133mhz goes error free on memtest.


I know each sample is different, but vccsa ~ 1.3 seems kind of high. Have you tried 1.10 -> 1.15?


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I know each sample is different, but vccsa ~ 1.3 seems kind of high. Have you tried 1.10 -> 1.15?


That, and try 1.37-1.4v on the ram and see if it helps. There is not danger for the ram at those voltages but 1.3 VSA/VCCIO I wouldn't like that myself.


----------



## Silent Scone

Obviously depends on the CPU and memory configuration, but I'm still working my sample down between using the system. Currently at 1.08v for 4x8GB 3400.


----------



## greg1184

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> That, and try 1.37-1.4v on the ram and see if it helps. There is not danger for the ram at those voltages but 1.3 VSA/VCCIO I wouldn't like that myself.


Per Raja's broad well guide ram over 3000mhz may need up to 1.3 SA for stability.

I went up by 0.05 intervals multiple times. I'll try increasing the DRAM voltage a little bit.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I see exactly the same, its only useful for memory, but very useful for memory.


Hello

GSAT is currently the best tool for isolating memory only errors. Issues can be found in hours with GSAT that may take days to uncover with testing utilities in Windows. But like most things one needs to know what the GSAT results are telling them and adjust testing accordingly.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> GSAT is currently the best tool for isolating memory only errors. Issues can be found in hours with GSAT that may *take days to uncover with testing utilities in Windows*. But like most things one needs to know what the GSAT results are telling them and adjust testing accordingly.


Days? more like eons with 32GB or more.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's right in the ballpark, I don;t think the sabertooh has the tweaker menu where you can adjust the PLL stepping and VCCU offset. can help with pushing the 6950x.


well not pushing the 6950x any further since it died. This would be the first time I killed a CPU in my 25 years in the computer industry and course it had to be the $1,700 one.

I've been running it at 1.352v with uncore set at 3.2GHz auto voltage and memory at 32000 auto voltage and my CPU died right after I exited out of GTA5 and after a reboot. Temp was very low like 33c because I was in windows for a bit with nothing open before the incident, currently I have 11x140 rads with noctua fans and only have 2 GPU 1 CPU block driven by two D5 pumps at constant full speed.

I'm not sure if the motherboard killed the CPU or the CPU caused some damage to the R5E10 motherboard. I installed my old 5930K on it but during post and before it loads the OS I hear some low frequency humming coming from my USB connected Bose audio system.

I'm using the beta BIOS from the Asus website 0801.

Let's just say I'm no longer enthusiastic about the broadwell-e chips now and might sell the replacement one unopened and go back to haswell.


----------



## djgar

@Artah - OUCH! Sorry, mate! I lost a 5820K last year but it was a PSU casualty. Good luck!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> well not pushing the 6950x any further since it died. This would be the first time I killed a CPU in my 25 years in the computer industry and course it had to be the $1,700 one.
> 
> I've been running it at 1.352v with uncore set at 3.2GHz auto voltage and memory at 32000 auto voltage and my CPU died right after I exited out of GTA5 and after a reboot. Temp was very low like 33c because I was in windows for a bit with nothing open before the incident, currently I have 11x140 rads with noctua fans and only have 2 GPU 1 CPU block driven by two D5 pumps at constant full speed.
> 
> I'm not sure if the motherboard killed the CPU or the CPU caused some damage to the R5E10 motherboard. I installed my old 5930K on it but during post and before it loads the OS I hear some low frequency humming coming from my USB connected Bose audio system.
> 
> I'm using the beta BIOS from the Asus website 0801.
> 
> Let's just say I'm no longer enthusiastic about the broadwell-e chips now and might sell the replacement one unopened and go back to haswell.


ouch. but that is what the ITP is for. does the board boot the 5930K successfully?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ouch. but that is what the ITP is for. does the board boot the 5930K successfully?


The 5930K works perfectly fine besides the hum before the OS is loaded, that might be something else and need to figure it out later when I get home, I even overclocked the 5930K to 4.5GHz easily.

Not sure if the ITP will work yet because I have to wait 30 days to use it after I purchase it, never used it but have it on 4790K and 5930K. Luckily today is the 15th day from purchase from Microcenter, I hope they will exchange it for another one.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> The 5930K works perfectly fine besides the hum before the OS is loaded, that might be something else and need to figure it out later when I get home, I even overclocked the 5930K to 4.5GHz easily.
> 
> Not sure if the ITP will work yet because I have to wait 30 days to use it after I purchase it, never used it but have it on 4790K and 5930K. Luckily today is the 15th day from purchase from Microcenter, I hope they will exchange it for another one.


yeah - MC will exchange it.


----------



## Jpmboy

New Koolance 390i... gonna be using it when that caseLabs S8 gets here...

http://koolance.com/processor-water-block-cpu-intel-390ci


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> New Koolance 390i... gonna be using it when that caseLabs S8 gets here...
> 
> http://koolance.com/processor-water-block-cpu-intel-390ci
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Is that nickel plated? I wonder if it works better than the ek evo sup.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Is that nickel plated? I wonder if it works better than the ek evo sup.


Yes, Ni plated. I've been using 3 380i koolance blocks (all running ATM) for a long time. Best water block available IMO. Will see if the 390i is at the same level. I have had EK sups and several others (and use EK uniblocks all the time), the quality of the koolance 380i is amazing... 390i better be at least as good.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Yes, Ni plated. I've been using 3 380i koolance blocks (all running ATM) for a long time. Best water block available IMO. Will see if the 390i is at the same level. I have had EK sups and several others (and use EK uniblocks all the time), the quality of the koolance 380i is amazing... 390i better be at least as good.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Hmmm ... might be my time for a block upgrade ...


----------



## Martin778

Artah, bad news man








I hope you will get a replacement soon!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> New Koolance 390i... gonna be using it when that caseLabs S8 gets here...
> 
> http://koolance.com/processor-water-block-cpu-intel-390ci


Purdy... After going mono-block and then full-board, I'm not sure I can go back. The more stuff I water cooled, the less good air-flow I got on the VRM without adding a kludge fan.

Does mean I'd be waiting on v10 as EK says "coming soon". Still a little torn on a 10 at all. It is shiny though.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Yes, Ni plated. I've been using 3 380i koolance blocks (all running ATM) for a long time. Best water block available IMO. Will see if the 390i is at the same level. I have had EK sups and several others (and use EK uniblocks all the time), the quality of the koolance 380i is amazing... 390i better be at least as good.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


were you getting better temps with the 380 than the evo? I always wondered what I can upgrade to on the cpu waterblock department. I've had my evo for almost a couple of years now, even replaced the copper base once.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Artah, bad news man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you will get a replacement soon!


My wife is going to Microcenter today to exchange it but now I'm afraid to OC it until I hear no more dead chips being reported. 1.352v is not much at all, I hope these new broadwell-e chips are not that commonly fragile. I saw posts of people going up to 5.7GHz on these things with LN2, I'm hoping I just got very unlucky.


----------



## Martin778

Use manual voltages on everything, I've found my X99Deluxe to bump the voltages unnecesserily high while set to auto.

Just passed 1 hour RB at 1.299 vcore, 127x34 = 4330MHz cpu / 2800MHz RAM / 3200 cache.
I must take a closer look at the new TridentZ RAM as I totally don't know which models are the new ones for BW-E.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> New Koolance 390i... gonna be using it when that caseLabs S8 gets here...
> 
> http://koolance.com/processor-water-block-cpu-intel-390ci


Awesome block


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> My wife is going to Microcenter today to exchange it but now I'm afraid to OC it until I hear no more dead chips being reported. 1.352v is not much at all, I hope these new broadwell-e chips are not that commonly fragile. *I saw posts of people going up to 5.7GHz on these things with LN2*, I'm hoping I just got very unlucky.


Thats @ 1.7v and a single core not all cores / threads


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Use manual voltages on everything, I've found my X99Deluxe to bump the voltages unnecesserily high while set to auto.
> 
> Just passed 1 hour RB at 1.299 vcore, 127x34 = 4330MHz cpu / 2800MHz RAM / 3200 cache.
> I must take a closer look at the new TridentZ RAM as I totally don't know which models are the new ones for BW-E.


I found that especially in adaptive as I upped the cpu frequency with the same BIOS voltage settings. I'm just happy I didn't accidentally fry mine ...









In offset mode I'm getting ~1.365 with an offset of 0.281.


----------



## Martin778

That's a kind of "I have a longer p..." overclock to be honest. It has absolutely no use and doesn't reflect the real performance of a CPU


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Thats @ 1.7v and a single core not all cores / threads


very true, probably picked the strongest core to OC. I need all my cores OCed to render motorcycle vidoes so it doesn't take forever.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> New Koolance 390i... gonna be using it when that caseLabs S8 gets here...
> 
> http://koolance.com/processor-water-block-cpu-intel-390ci
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


http://www.overclock.net/t/1603671/new-koolance-390i


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> That's a kind of "I have a longer p..." overclock to be honest. It has absolutely no use and doesn't reflect the real performance of a CPU


Not sure what this refers to - was it my post? Didn't mean for it to be derogatory ...









Edit: Ahh, just realized - the LN2 post?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Not sure what this refers to - was it my post? Didn't mean for it to be derogatory ...


I assumed he meant the single core 9THz numbers on the "validated" leader board?


----------



## nexxusty

Feel like a major n00b here... what is and where can I get GSAT?

I like to pass all utilities/tests I can. This one seems to be a doozy too.

Thx boys.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Feel like a major n00b here... what is and where can I get GSAT?
> 
> I like to pass all utilities/tests I can. This one seems to be a doozy too.
> 
> Thx boys.


You can find all the info here

http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/1800_50#post_25330188
or here
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?73665-Our-preferred-memory-stress-test


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> You can find all the info here
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/1800_50#post_25330188


Linux. I knew I recognized the name GSAT.

Thanks for the tip sir. I wonder if this program has ARM binaries.... RPi RAM testers suck.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Linux. I knew I recognized the name GSAT.
> 
> Thanks for the tip sir. I wonder if this program has ARM binaries.... RPi RAM testers suck.


It comes as source package from google, so in theory.... but... ARM memory controller arrangements differ pretty wildly from x86 and then again from each other. So, little guarantee it would be effective without significant enhancements.

Looks like someone is working on it at least:
https://github.com/stressapptest/stressapptest/issues/27


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> It comes as source package from google, so in theory.... but... ARM memory controller arrangements differ pretty wildly from x86 and then again from each other. So, little guarantee it would be effective without significant enhancements.
> 
> Looks like someone is working on it at least:
> https://github.com/stressapptest/stressapptest/issues/27


Cool! Thanks for clarifying. Much appreciated!

Good to know someone with actual skills thinks like I do. Hehe.


----------



## Martin778

Boys, I was referring to the THz overclocks on quad / octa / deca core CPU's with only 1 core running.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> were you getting better temps with the 380 than the evo? I always wondered what I can upgrade to on the cpu waterblock department. I've had my evo for almost a couple of years now, even replaced the copper base once.


I do find the 380i to be better, but this is VERY hard to evaluate. Mount quality has more effect than any variable when comparing blocks. If you-all ever heard of Skinny Labs, you'd know what I mean. Skinny did the best comparos IMO.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> My wife is going to Microcenter today to exchange it but now I'm afraid to OC it until I hear no more dead chips being reported. 1.352v is not much at all, I hope these new broadwell-e chips are not that commonly fragile. I saw posts of people going up to 5.7GHz on these things with LN2, I'm hoping I just got very unlucky.


well.. I'm another one running vcore that high.. and have been since launch. 1.36V adaptive... with "excursions" above 1.5V for benching.








(tho I did/do not subject cpus at this T density to prolonged p95 or OCCT.)


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Not sure what this refers to - was it my post? Didn't mean for it to be derogatory ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Ahh, just realized - the LN2 post?


he's referring to info like this one.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3077237/components-processors/overclockers-have-pushed-intels-new-broadwell-chip-to-5-7ghz.html


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Cool! Thanks for clarifying. Much appreciated!
> 
> Good to know someone with actual skills thinks like I do. Hehe.


lol skills bro.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I do find the 380i to be better, but this is VERY hard to evaluate. Mount quality has more effect than any variable when comparing blocks. If you-all ever heard of Skinny Labs, you'd know what I mean. Skinny did the best comparos IMO.
> well.. I'm another one running vcore that high.. and have been since launch. 1.36V adaptive... with "excursions" above 1.5V for benching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (tho I did/do not subject cpus at this T density to prolonged p95 or OCCT.)


That review is a little old, here is one more up to date.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1505481/summer-water-block-round-up-2014/0_50


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> *lol skills bro.*
> That review is a little old, here is one more up to date.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1505481/summer-water-block-round-up-2014/0_50


Gotta have skills to impress the ladies. Lol.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I do find the 380i to be better, but this is VERY hard to evaluate. Mount quality has more effect than any variable when comparing blocks. If you-all ever heard of Skinny Labs, you'd know what I mean. Skinny did the best comparos IMO.
> well.. I'm another one running vcore that high.. and have been since launch. 1.36V adaptive... with "excursions" above 1.5V for benching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (tho I did/do not subject cpus at this T density to prolonged p95 or OCCT.)


Wife just informed me that she's driving home with a new CPU. I might run the 5930K on my motherboard for a bit to see if it's in fact a CPU killer before opening the new 6950x.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Wife just informed me that she's driving home with a new CPU. I might run the 5930K on my motherboard for a bit to see if it's in fact a CPU killer before opening the new 6950x.


Did you actually get your wife to return a CPU? You dog you...


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Did you actually get your wife to return a CPU? You dog you...


In my defense I'm at work and more than 60 miles away from the store. Getting to there after work is almost impossible in my area sometimes. No worries she builds the rigs with me and helps me design loops and such. Also assemble all the hardware and such so she's all in on this with me.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> In my defense I'm at work and more than 60 miles away from the store. Getting to there after work is almost impossible in my area sometimes. No worries she builds the rigs with me and helps me design loops and such. Also assemble all the hardware and such so she's all in on this with me.


Absolutely no need to defend sir. Your wife is awesome.

Super cool that she has taken an interest in building and design.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> he's referring to info like this one.
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3077237/components-processors/overclockers-have-pushed-intels-new-broadwell-chip-to-5-7ghz.html


The source:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6950x/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> lol skills bro.
> That review is a little old, here is one more up to date.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1505481/summer-water-block-round-up-2014/0_50


Thanks, yeah - I saw that.. Like I said, I've used various blocks and the Koolance is my favorite.








http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?285753-CPU-water-blocks-roundup
Too bad skineelabs and martins liquid lab have folded. Best testing methods I've seen. Check out skinee's mount quality effects, this is why I take most reviews with a gain of salt.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> The source:
> http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6950x/
> Thanks, yeah - I saw that.. Like I said, I've used various blocks and the Koolance is my favorite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?285753-CPU-water-blocks-roundup
> Too bad skineelabs and martins liquid lab have folded. Best testing methods I've seen. Check out skinee's mount quality effects, this is why I take most reviews with a gain of salt.


We definitely need someone to step up and take over.

Martin is missed...

Is Johnny Guru still alive for PSU's? He was second to none in that area....I just buy AXi series PSU's now, no need to check for quality there...


----------



## Martin778

http://valid.x86.fr/ve03dd

The wall for CPU freq at this voltage is close, maybe I can pull .2 or .3 more BCLK but that's it.


----------



## vibraslap

So I got my TridentZ ram in and I'm definitively seeing an improvement over the Ripjaw V's I had.

Currently at 4.3Ghz 1.325V 100bclk, cache on auto, 64Gb 3200Mhz 14-14-14-34 CR2 @ 1.35V, 1.0SA. Tested stable with AIDA64, Realbench, OCCT.

My eventual goal for this OC is 4.4Ghz, 1.346V, 3200Mhz 14-14-14-34 CR1

Silicon Lottery said they were able to achieve 4.4Ghz stable at "1.344C CPU VCORE (Or less)" on 16Gb 2400Mhz 15-15-15-35 with my chip, so I'm hopeful this is possible.

Pushing my RAM from CR2 to CR1 is my immediate goal but it doesn't seem to be simple task. Apparently it actually exceeds the spec for my RAM, and just flipping it on in the bios makes the OC unstable. Is this still a attainable goal? What else should I adjust to help make this stable?


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> So I got my TridentZ ram in and I'm definitively seeing an improvement over the Ripjaw V's I had.
> 
> Currently at 4.3Ghz 1.325V 100bclk, cache on auto, 64Gb 3200Mhz 14-14-14-34 CR2 @ 1.35V, 1.0SA. Tested stable with AIDA64, Realbench, OCCT.
> 
> My eventual goal for this OC is 4.4Ghz, 1.346V, 3200Mhz 14-14-14-34 CR1
> 
> Silicon Lottery said they were able to achieve 4.4Ghz stable at "1.344C CPU VCORE (Or less)" on 16Gb 2400Mhz 15-15-15-35 with my chip, so I'm hopeful this is possible.
> 
> Pushing my RAM from CR2 to CR1 is my immediate goal but it doesn't seem to be simple task. Apparently it actually exceeds the spec for my RAM, and just flipping it on in the bios makes the OC unstable. Is this still a attainable goal? What else should I adjust to help make this stable?


@Jpmboy Has also had trouble with 1T on BDW-E, it might not be doable depending on your IMC.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> So I got my TridentZ ram in and I'm definitively seeing an improvement over the Ripjaw V's I had.
> 
> Currently at 4.3Ghz 1.325V 100bclk, cache on auto, 64Gb 3200Mhz 14-14-14-34 CR2 @ 1.35V, 1.0SA. Tested stable with AIDA64, Realbench, OCCT.
> 
> My eventual goal for this OC is 4.4Ghz, 1.346V, 3200Mhz 14-14-14-34 CR1
> 
> Silicon Lottery said they were able to achieve 4.4Ghz stable at "1.344C CPU VCORE (Or less)" on 16Gb 2400Mhz 15-15-15-35 with my chip, so I'm hopeful this is possible.
> 
> Pushing my RAM from CR2 to CR1 is my immediate goal but it doesn't seem to be simple task. Apparently it actually exceeds the spec for my RAM, and just flipping it on in the bios makes the OC unstable. Is this still a attainable goal? What else should I adjust to help make this stable?


The Ripjaw V's must not have been E-Die.

Mine are. 14-15-15-33-CR1.

14-14-14-34-CR1 is very hopeful... you need to bin to get that or be very lucky.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> The Ripjaw V's must not have been E-Die.
> 
> Mine are. 14-15-15-33-CR1.
> 
> 14-14-14-34-CR1 is very hopeful... you need to bin to get that or be very lucky.


At 2400 I had them down to 13-13-13-33-CR1, probably could have gone lower, but I wanted that 3200 life.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> The Ripjaw V's must not have been E-Die.
> 
> Mine are. 14-15-15-33-CR1.
> 
> 14-14-14-34-CR1 is very hopeful... you need to bin to get that or be very lucky.


My Ripjaw v's 3000Mhz CL15 kit was Hynix MFR. tested them not to long ago on z170 setup and was able to get 12-15-15-28-1T running @ 1.5v


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> My Ripjaw v's 3000Mhz CL15 kit was Hynix MFR. tested them not to long ago on z170 setup and was able to get 12-15-15-28-1T running @ 1.5v


Hmph, not bad for MFR. Not bad at all.

AFAIK G.skill went from MFR, to B-Die, to E-Die with RipJaws V. That's what HWBOT boys say anyway.


----------



## Martin778

What will be the maximum 24/7 voltage for RAM on BW-E? By the way - how can I check what kind of RAM chips I have? I know they are from Hynix.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> how can I check what kind of RAM chips I have? I know they are from Hynix.


AIDA64 can tell you that info.


----------



## Menthol

Real Crazy XTU score, first time I've had a bugged XTU run


----------



## Menthol

Jpmboy
I'm not having any trouble with 1T but I guess I need to play with timings to get better bandwidth


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Real Crazy XTU score, first time I've had a bugged XTU run


How did I know you could not resist 10 cores!
Now that's a world record!!








Remember - it's not a bugged run if you can reproduce it according to the refs at HWBOT... then it is an "Exploit".









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Jpmboy
> I'm not having any trouble with 1T but I guess I need to play with timings to get better bandwidth


Nice! certainly can tighten up.
Is that 32GB? I'm not having problems with 32GB at 3400 1T. Just 64GB at 3400. Weird.
here's what I've had running as a 24/7 OC.

1h GSAT.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/1840_20#post_25327548


----------



## Menthol

CPU arrived yesterday so I just started playing, I guess I'll get the hang of it, I retired last week so I need something to keep me occupied
I see you got the RV 10 board, is there noticeable differences with BW-E? You have some insane AIDA numbers, I have a 32GB kit, no need for 32GB much less 64


----------



## Nizzen

The new bios 3202 for RVE works great for Broadwell-e and memory!

Now I can use 3400mhz and 3467mhz easy without any tweaks







. That was impossible for me before with 3101 bios.

3600mhz does not boot.

Using G.skill TridenZ 3733mhz 4X4 kit

Now I have to try 3467 cl14 or better


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> CPU arrived yesterday so I just started playing, I guess I'll get the hang of it, I retired last week so I need something to keep me occupied
> I see you got the RV 10 board, is there noticeable differences with BW-E? You have some insane AIDA numbers, I have a 32GB kit, no need for 32GB much less 64


yeah - 64GB is over-over kill. The R5E-10 seems to be very solid, tho only have it running for a few days now. A bit sexier than the R5E, and said to be optimized for BW-E, but performance is hard to distinguish from the R5E. Without a doubt, the R5E is an epic motherboard!








*Yo* - welcome to the retired club!! You are not alone on OCN in that regard. I still laugh at folks who ask me "but aren't you board"? Wut? I tell 'em... I wake up every day with nothing to do and only get half of it done by the end of the day. Enjoy the time bro!
I am sad to have to admit, I did get roped into a few BOD gigs and now, into co-founding another NewCo with an old partner. Still "work" will only be 10-15% of my time. Not doing the 60+ hour weeks ever again. period.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> The new bios 3202 for RVE works great for Broadwell-e and memory!
> Now I can use 3400mhz and 3467mhz easy without any tweaks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . That was impossible for me before with 3101 bios.
> 3600mhz does not boot.
> Using G.skill TridenZ 3733mhz 4X4 kit
> Now I have to try 3467 cl14 or better


3467 should be no problem










I did not get 3467 to run as tight (or as fast) as 3400 tuned up. my R5E/5960X is taking a vacation until a new case arrives...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - 64GB is over-over kill.


Right up until you see that compute run you need to finish hit 63.9G resident with an hour left to go....









Ban 64bit numbers, no good has come from them...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Right up until you see that compute run you need to finish hit 63.9G resident with an hour left to go....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ban 64bit numbers, no good has come from them...


lol - some months ago, I was doing a calc (with 32GB) that was dropping 2-electron integrals to an intel 750 SSD... took twice as long vs using a 32GB ram disk. The ram HAS to be very stable tho.


----------



## Jpmboy

note the single core... this is at 4.4GHz.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> note the single core... this is at 4.4GHz.


I think we were mistaken, Moore's law was intended to describe the geometric increase in dollars they could extract from us every 18 months...









Look how far we've, er, um, ah, yeah, so an i920 ain't too bad huh?

I've said it before, for the foreseeable future, Intel has given up on GHz and single thread performance and gone wide (even then they need more memory controllers to keep 18-22 cores busy in real-world apps). Software, coders and compilers are gonna have to bring their A-game and/or we are going to see another era of "accelerator" co-processors (GPUs have obviously been doing that for 15+ years now).

The integration of FPGAs into server chips is part of that.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Guys I ordered Dominator Platinum which are 3000c15 32gb

i was wondering if this v4.24 any good?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Guys I ordered Dominator Platinum which are 3000c15 32gb
> 
> i was wondering if this v4.24 any good?


Needlessly expensive IMO.

Buy G.Skill TridentZ.


----------



## dansi

All you high speed ram'ers!
Are you running at stock or near stock ram voltages?
I am thinking of upgrade to high end rams from my old 2400 ballistix, hoping to run lower timings at stock voltages..works or no?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dansi*
> 
> All you high speed ram'ers!
> Are you running at stock or near stock ram voltages?
> I am thinking of upgrade to high end rams from my old 2400 ballistix, hoping to run lower timings at stock voltages..works or no?


Stock voltages? Not here... lol.

I use 1.425v 24/7... used to use 1.525v with Hynix MFR. Anyway, you won't be able to tell if you can use tighter timingso on stock voltages until you try...

I'd say however, usually you can eek out some lower timingscores on stock voltage.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Well it was cheaper than g skill

Dominator platinum was at £189


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Guys I ordered Dominator Platinum which are 3000c15 32gb
> 
> i was wondering if this v4.24 any good?


I have v4.24 but I think I'm done with dominator platinum. They look pretty but overclocking them have been a pain for me with 3000/32000 I wish I bought trident z or something else. I'll have to try to feed it more voltage I guess.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Yep I returned mine

Update cancelled the return

Corsair has amazing customer service though.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Yep I returned mine
> 
> Update cancelled the return
> 
> Corsair has amazing customer service though.


And Corsair have amazing high prices. G-skill is half price at least in Norway


----------



## MerkageTurk

G skill £215

Corsair when I purchased it was £189 now £216

Also corsair offers refunds as warranty


----------



## mrkambo

So just bit the bullet and ordered me a 6850K, was gonna get the 6900K but thought to myself its slightly excessive and decided with the 6 core, if i need more powerz then ill change but for now...

also ordered the F4-3200C16Q-32GTZ, im hoping it'll work fine at 15-15-15-35, but the only sku i could find in stock.

Hoping to get a 4.2/4.3 out of it, anything more and ill be ecstatic!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dansi*
> 
> All you high speed ram'ers!
> Are you running at stock or near stock ram voltages?
> I am thinking of upgrade to high end rams from my old 2400 ballistix, hoping to run lower timings at stock voltages..works or no?


I try to keep voltages as low as possible. So, if I can run at 1.35v I will and do. You should be able to get [email protected] on BWE without too much trouble. You may be able to get [email protected]

[email protected] is a sweet kit for this system in terms of memory latency and throughput. Totally worth a little extra heat from 1.37v IMHO. In terms of lifespan, so far as I am aware, 1.35 isn't going to be a factor there. That's the standard XMP bump.

I wouldn't worry about voltages so much as making sure you are getting goot timing/clock ratios and stability. These guys running at 1.45+ shouldn't scare you away from 3000+ ram. It doesn't take that. What it takes is finding the knee in the price curve and paying careful attention to timing AND clock sticker values.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Yep I returned mine
> 
> Update cancelled the return
> 
> Corsair has amazing customer service though.


Good man. G.Skill is the DDR4 RAM king IMO. Debatable with DDR3 too... they have been KILLING it the past few years.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Good man. G.Skill is the DDR4 RAM king IMO. Debatable with DDR3 too... they have been KILLING it the past few years.


IMO they were the king since DDR2 days, I still remember the GSkill HK DDR2 with Micron D9 chips, good old days.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> IMO they were the king since DDR2 days, I still remember the GSkill HK DDR2 with Micron D9 chips, good old days.


I had so many kits of Micron D9.

Killed so many kits of Micron D9 as well... lol. Freezer trick bring them back to life almost every time however.

1200mhz DDR2 5-5-5-18 was wild.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

Bit the bullet, got a 6900k instead, has to be a better upgrade than a 6800k from a 5820k.
Got $400AU for my 5820k as well


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> So just bit the bullet and ordered me a 6850K, was gonna get the 6900K but thought to myself its slightly excessive and decided with the 6 core, if i need more powerz then ill change but for now...
> 
> also ordered the F4-3200C16Q-32GTZ, im hoping it'll work fine at 15-15-15-35, but the only sku i could find in stock.
> 
> Hoping to get a 4.2/4.3 out of it, anything more and ill be ecstatic!


are you using an existing x99 mobo or getting a new one? Curious about your results when you get it all put together.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> are you using an existing x99 mobo or getting a new one? Curious about your results when you get it all put together.


Ahh forgot to say also got a EVGA FTW-K on the way as well, so a broadwell inspired board.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Bit the bullet, got a 6900k instead, has to be a better upgrade than a 6800k from a 5820k.
> Got $400AU for my 5820k as well


NIce!~ you'll notice the 8 cores immediately. That's an upgrade.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Bit the bullet, got a 6900k instead, has to be a better upgrade than a 6800k from a 5820k.
> Got $400AU for my 5820k as well


How much did you pay for the 6900K ?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Ahh forgot to say also got a EVGA FTW-K on the way as well, so a broadwell inspired board.


EVGA makes the worst Motherboards... I'd cancel that if you can.

Furthermore, say goodbye to cache over clocking with EVGA. AKA 15gflops+ Whetstone performance.


----------



## jdc122

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> EVGA makes the worst Motherboards... I'd cancel that if you can.
> 
> Furthermore, say goodbye to cache over clocking with EVGA. AKA 15gflops+ Whetstone performance.


whatever happened to EVGAs motherboard team? i know sapphire stole them some years back but seeing as how sapphire hasn't released one since x79 i think, i wonder where they went.


----------



## WaXmAn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> EVGA makes the worst Motherboards... I'd cancel that if you can.
> 
> Furthermore, say goodbye to cache over clocking with EVGA. AKA 15gflops+ Whetstone performance.


EVGA makes FINE motherboards. I have used them on my last 4 builds. x58, x79, and now x99. No issues!!!!


----------



## Silent Scone

lol what exactly makes them fine? Maybe their cut and paste guides from the latter vendor.


----------



## WaXmAn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> lol what exactly makes them fine? Maybe their cut and paste guides from the latter vendor.


Never any issues, better CS than ASUS has ever had!!!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WaXmAn*
> 
> Never any issues, better CS than ASUS has ever had!!!


We're not talking about a supermarket here. Good luck overclocking memory and cache to the same level as ASUS users lol


----------



## WaXmAn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> We're not talking about a supermarket here. Good luck overclocking memory and cache to the same level as ASUS users lol


Good luck when you need a ASUS RMA!!!!


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WaXmAn*
> 
> EVGA makes FINE motherboards. I have used them on my last 4 builds. x58, x79, and now x99. No issues!!!!


LOL. No.

Nuff said.

Asus and Gigabyte make the best boards. MSI is debatably in there too.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WaXmAn*
> 
> Good luck when you need a ASUS RMA!!!!


You use way too many exclamation marks... I'm guessing maybe you have issues with RMA's because of this?

I've never had an issue with ANY company for an RMA. Ever. Slow shipping and service aside, I always get what I request.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WaXmAn*
> 
> Good luck when you need a ASUS RMA!!!!


No need to shout, used the service center before with no issues. Just a phone call away. Most user RMA are PICNIC regardless.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No need to shout, used the service center before with no issues. Just a phone call away. Most user RMA are PICNIC regardless.


Agreed.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> EVGA makes the worst Motherboards... I'd cancel that if you can.
> 
> Furthermore, say goodbye to cache over clocking with EVGA. AKA 15gflops+ Whetstone performance.


I'm gonna be completely honest, I think all the new motherboards x99 and the z170 look like utter garbage, I don't want rubbish LED's all over my stuff the designs are shocking, you know the kinda face only a mother would love sort of thing.

I feel that manufacturers actually forgot about the consumers that like the clean look and don't want in your face useless features, that literally have no benefit what's so ever, it may be that the board is rubbish, but there isn't another board which even remotely looks clean. so unless anyone knows of one which I may have overlooked in my research feel free to recommend it.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> I'm gonna be completely honest, I think all the new motherboards x99 and the z170 look like utter garbage, I don't want rubbish LED's all over my stuff the designs are shocking, you know the kinda face only a mother would love sort of thing.
> 
> I feel that manufacturers actually forgot about the consumers that like the clean look and don't want in your face useless features, that literally have no benefit what's so ever, it may be that the board is rubbish, but there isn't another board which even remotely looks clean. so unless anyone knows of one which I may have overlooked in my research feel free to recommend it.


Supermicro.

They make the best server boards, their forays into the gaming mobo market seem solid.

I personally want to try a Supermicro gaming board. They OC well and are stable as balls.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Supermicro.
> 
> They make the best server boards, their forays into the gaming mobo market seem solid.
> 
> I personally want to try a Supermicro gaming board. They OC well and are stable as balls.


And Supermicro CS is unbelievably good. They e-mailed me a revised BIOS over the week-end when I couldn't boot from my Areca PCI-E controller with a newly released board years ago. I used to be into the dual-XEON thing back then - seemed fashionable ...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> And Supermicro CS is unbelievably good. They e-mailed me a revised BIOS over the week-end when I couldn't boot from my Areca PCI-E controller with a newly released board years ago. I used to be into the dual-XEON thing back then - seemed fashionable ...


Absolutely, glad to hear they still do things like this.

Definitely a force to be reckoned with.

*edit*

LOL "seemed fashionable".


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WaXmAn*
> 
> Good luck when you need a ASUS RMA!!!!


Call, give CC, cross-ship, ship bad one back, CC hold cleared and there was much rejoicing.

Had an X99Pro go pop, squish...Cicero.... CPU and ram survived and are running happily the replacement MB. It had been sporadically rebooting with no error indication in the days prior, after months of 24/7 solid performance.

Debugged, swapped, isolated to MB, called, told them all of that and voila, had a new MB in short order.

So, I must be doing it wrong? Maybe US vs some other place's policies?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Absolutely, glad to hear they still do things like this.
> 
> Definitely a force to be reckoned with.


I didn't know they had an X99 board out - I am definitely tempted. Downloaded the manual ...


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> I'm gonna be completely honest, I think all the new motherboards x99 and the z170 look like utter garbage, I don't want rubbish LED's all over my stuff the designs are shocking, you know the kinda face only a mother would love sort of thing.
> 
> I feel that manufacturers actually forgot about the consumers that like the clean look and don't want in your face useless features, that literally have no benefit what's so ever, it may be that the board is rubbish, but there isn't another board which even remotely looks clean. so unless anyone knows of one which I may have overlooked in my research feel free to recommend it.


Yeah I have nothing but good things to say about ASUS customer support after dealing with them in the past month with my x99 build. I probably spent 2-3 hours on the phone with them diagnosing the first board I got which turned out to be faulty. RMA'd it through Newegg, who I also had absolutely no problems with either. Maybe I'm just special.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I didn't know they had an X99 board out - I am definitely tempted. Downloaded the manual ...


They have an X99 and a Z170 board out AFAIK.

I think they started gaming mobos with Z68.. don't quote me on that however.

I'd like someone here or a reputable site or person to do an in depth review on one before I pick one up however. I'm weary about overclocking options. Heh.

Neat fact... from what I've seen (from the X99 and Z170 boards) their gaming boards come with IPMI's too. Which is sick for when the board can't game anymore but can be repurposed as a server. Might even support ECC RAM with a Xeon installed. I wouldn't be surprised at all.


----------



## Synik

I wanted to get a gigabyte board but the new boards are aesthetica’ly terrible IMHO and the cost seems high forbthe features


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> I wanted to get a gigabyte board but the new boards are aesthetica'ly terrible IMHO and the cost seems high forbthe features


I don't like the colour schemes Gigabyte has been using as of late either....


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> I'm gonna be completely honest, I think all the new motherboards x99 and the z170 look like utter garbage, I don't want rubbish LED's all over my stuff the designs are shocking, you know the kinda face only a mother would love sort of thing.
> 
> I feel that manufacturers actually forgot about the consumers that like the clean look and don't want in your face useless features, that literally have no benefit what's so ever, it may be that the board is rubbish, but there isn't another board which even remotely looks clean. so unless anyone knows of one which I may have overlooked in my research feel free to recommend it.


Practical types who are more interested in performance, durability, support and function over form will just grin and bear the rainbow we have to taste these days...

So, they are trying to edge out competitors in the space of people who would buy a motherboard purely for its color or EEEEXTREEEME branding credentials.

In other words, Nigerian banking emails are so laughably stupid because they are trying to snare people who don't realize this. If you can tell its a scam, you are not the target audience. Or in MB terms, if you make your decisions on something other than sound and fury signifying nothing, then you will still do so. If you don't then no amount of power phases would be enough to sway you to an old-school green PCB with off-white sockets.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Practical types who are more interested in performance, durability, support and function over form will just grin and bear the rainbow we have to taste these days...
> 
> So, they are trying to edge out competitors in the space of people who would buy a motherboard purely for its color or EEEEXTREEEME branding credentials.
> 
> In other words, Nigerian banking emails are so laughably stupid because they are trying to snare people who don't realize this. If you can tell its a scam, you are not the target audience. Or in MB terms, if you make your decisions on something other than sound and fury signifying nothing, then you will still do so. If you don't then no amount of power phases would be enough to sway you to an old-school green PCB with off-white sockets.


Fortunately my case has solid black panels, so MB color scheme and lights are irrelevant







.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> EVGA makes the worst Motherboards... I'd cancel that if you can.
> 
> Furthermore, say goodbye to cache over clocking with EVGA. AKA 15gflops+ Whetstone performance.


you can kiss cache OC goodbye with Broadwell anyway...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Call, give CC, cross-ship, ship bad one back, CC hold cleared and there was much rejoicing.
> Had an X99Pro go pop, squish...Cicero.... CPU and ram survived and are running happily the replacement MB. It had been sporadically rebooting with no error indication in the days prior, after months of 24/7 solid performance.
> Debugged, swapped, isolated to MB, called, told them all of that and voila, had a new MB in short order.
> So, I must be doing it wrong? Maybe US vs some other place's policies?


Fossie and Richie fan? cool.


----------



## djgar

RVE Edition 10 ... so not needed ... so tempting ...

Is it more BW-E-friendly than the X99-A / U31? Maybe the X99-A II for 1/2 the price if OC is similar, though the RVE 10 may have some perks there vs. the X99-A II?

Sigh ... decisions, decisions ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> RVE Edition 10 ... so not needed ... so tempting ...
> 
> Is it more BW-E-friendly than the X99-A / U31? Maybe the X99-A II for 1/2 the price if OC is similar, though the RVE 10 may have some perks there vs. the X99-A II?
> 
> Sigh ... decisions, decisions ...


get a 10 or a used r5e. best overall x99 MBs available. (the Giga OC is a good one too).


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> get a 10 or a used r5e. best overall x99 MBs available. (the Giga OC is a good one too).


No love for the Deluxe II?


----------



## Coree

Got my E5-2667 V4 working after a BIOS update on my MSI X99A SLI PLUS motherboard. Boosts to 3,00 Ghz on all 8 cores during 100% load. Decent for a 320€ CPU! (It's an ES yes, but works absolutely fine.)

Should I try BCLK OCing? Usually these reach ~105BCLK max.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> get a 10 or a used r5e. best overall x99 MBs available. (the Giga OC is a good one too).


Dang, you''re not making this any easier!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> No love for the Deluxe II?


I'm sure there's LOVE, and then there's

LUUUUV!


----------



## Mr-Dark

Hello

Can someone answer this about BW-E ?

DDR4 3Ghz need 125 BLCK as Hw-E or its fine at 100mhz ?


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Can someone answer this about BW-E ?
> 
> DDR4 3Ghz need 125 BLCK as Hw-E or its fine at 100mhz ?


100MHz.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Can someone answer this about BW-E ?
> 
> DDR4 3Ghz need 125 BLCK as Hw-E or its fine at 100mhz ?


This just came up in the memory stability thread, different kits seem to have different requirements.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> 100MHz.


I found it easier with strap 125 than 100, but as usual YMMV ...


----------



## GRABibus

To all BW-E owners :
What are your feedbacks concerning global OC capabilities on Core and Cache ?
Do you see more difficultiues than with HW-E ?
What are your first experiences ?

Concerning heating ? Does 14nm help even with same TDP 140W versus a HW-E 22nm 140W ?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> To all BW-E owners :
> What are your feedbacks concerning global OC capabilities on Core and Cache ?
> Do you see more difficultiues than with HW-E ?
> What are your first experiences ?
> 
> Concerning heating ? Does 14nm help even with same TDP 140W versus a HW-E 22nm 140W ?


I find my core temps down ~4c - stress runs cooler for me with same rads / block / pump with 8-core 6900K than 6-core 5820K.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> No love for the Deluxe II?


the deluxe is a fione board.. I just gottta have PCIE lane switches.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Can someone answer this about BW-E ?
> 
> DDR4 3Ghz need 125 BLCK as Hw-E or its fine at 100mhz ?


125 or 100 will work. but 3000 is slow for BWE. shoot for 3200 or 3400.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> How much did you pay for the 6900K ?


$1600AU, yeah I know, but prices in Australia really suck.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> $1600AU, yeah I know, but prices in Australia really suck.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

So what am I in for to get a 4Ghz OC on all cores


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> So what am I in for to get a 4Ghz OC on all cores


No problem - check my sig


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> No problem - check my sig


Ok seems easy enough.
Won't be under custom water, will be using a Kraken x61 for the time being, so I know the limitations of that.

I will get a EK Custom kit in the coming months, but I chose to drop the extra into the CPU now, better watercooling later


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> So what am I in for to get a 4Ghz OC on all cores


good reading:

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/05/31/get-best-performance-broadwell-e-processors-asus-thermal-control-tool/


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Ok seems easy enough.
> Won't be under custom water, will be using a Kraken x61 for the time being, so I know the limitations of that.
> 
> I will get a EK Custom kit in the coming months, but I chose to drop the extra into the CPU now, better watercooling later


The R5E comes up pretty much by default with the 6950x in all cores @ 4.0GHz turbo. That's what I saw on first boot after the "new CPU installed" bios message. So, I don't expect you'd have much trouble at all with that even air-cooled. Particularly as that default OC leaves the cache at its stock setting.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> good reading:
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/05/31/get-best-performance-broadwell-e-processors-asus-thermal-control-tool/


Thanks mate, you've always been a big help, I'm sure with the accumulated knowledge you've given me over the time I'll be able to get it started.

You know me though, not like you guys chasing the big numbers, I'm happy with a mild OC.
I did go with the ROG x99 Strix board, so that shouldn't be a problem (unlike my run with MSI stuff..lol.)

Wife didn't want my old x99 gear, she wants a laptop (due to the fact she'll be in hospital a lot over the next 12 months) so that why I sold it off.
$400 for the 5820k CPU was good though.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Thanks mate, you've always been a big help, I'm sure with the accumulated knowledge you've given me over the time I'll be able to get it started.
> 
> You know me though, not like you guys chasing the big numbers, I'm happy with a mild OC.
> I did go with the ROG x99 Strix board, so that shouldn't be a problem (unlike my run with MSI stuff..lol.)
> 
> Wife didn't want my old x99 gear, she wants a laptop (due to the fact she'll be in hospital a lot over the next 12 months) so that why I sold it off.
> $400 for the 5820k CPU was good though.


the strix is a fine MB... happy to help.


----------



## hash1720

so along with the 6800k i have 2 sets of these Ram kits https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00QXT62IG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 in my pc and i was wondering if i want to overclock them to 3200 or higher do i need to change the voltages and such ? or should i just change the speed to 3200 and see if it is stable ?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hash1720*
> 
> so along with the 6800k i have 2 sets of these Ram kits https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00QXT62IG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 in my pc and i was wondering if i want to overclock them to 3200 or higher do i need to change the voltages and such ? or should i just change the speed to 3200 and see if it is stable ?


yup, you're gonna need some tweaking and a bit of luck to get two kits to play well together. Always best to get a single kit.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the strix is a fine MB... happy to help.


The RVE has so many things I will never use, like wi-fi & 2nd LAN ...

From an OC performance perspective would the Strix be just as good as the RVE 10? Yes it has wi-fi too but it looks like the best OC boards always come with it? And the Strix is ATX vs. eATX - my case is getting crowded and airflow is not as I would prefer it ...


----------



## Kimir

The R5E doesn't have a 2nd lan, I'd know because I'd use aggregation if that were the case.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hash1720*
> 
> so along with the 6800k i have 2 sets of these Ram kits https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00QXT62IG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 in my pc and i was wondering if i want to overclock them to 3200 or higher do i need to change the voltages and such ? or should i just change the speed to 3200 and see if it is stable ?


Just going to have to try, but mixing kits and OCing is going into the fight with at least one hand tied behind your back. Your first challenge will be getting them to sticker values unless you get lucky. Functioning mixed kits is a gift in itself. OCing them is an entirely different kind of flying, all together.

There is no hard and fast rule of "moar voltage", particularly with mixed kits. What's good for one may be bad for the other. Which is where my statement above comes in. You may have to compromise on settings (lower) just to get them stable.


----------



## mrkambo

So today i took delivery of

Mobo (EVGA FTW-K)
Cpu (6850K)
A lot of Noctua fans
Cpu (server upgrade)
Memory (server upgrade)
Intel Gigabit Nic (server upgrade)
Corsair H115i (temp cooling for the 6850K, till my stuff from EK is here)

Just waiting on GSkill memory for the 6850K and then i begin the task of upgrading both machines, and then retiring my 4970K, ahh fun times!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> The R5E doesn't have a 2nd lan, I'd know because I'd use aggregation if that were the case.


The RVE 10 does


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> The RVE 10 does


Yes, the Edition 10, not the original R5E.
We're getting lost with those board abbreviation if you don't do it right.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Yes, the Edition 10, not the original R5E.
> We're getting lost with those board abbreviation if you don't do it right.


My bad - I left the 10 out of the first mention ... I did have on the second







.

In the Asus overviews, they claim 2nd gen T-Topology for memory - I'm guessing it's unique to the RVE 10 currently?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> The RVE has so many things I will never use, like wi-fi & 2nd LAN ...
> 
> From an OC performance perspective would the Strix be just as good as the RVE 10? Yes it has wi-fi too but it looks like the best OC boards always come with it? And the Strix is ATX vs. eATX - my case is getting crowded and airflow is not as I would prefer it ...


I do use the wifi on occasion, and bluetooth. The R5E10 is ASUS' top line x99 ROG board. I'm sure the Strix can keep pace as long as the goal is sub-orbital, gaming objectives. (eg, not LN2)


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I do use the wifi on occasion, and bluetooth. The R5E10 is ASUS' top line x99 ROG board. I'm sure the Strix can keep pace as long as the goal is sub-orbital, gaming objectives. (eg, not LN2)


Do not Forget Deluxe II guys ?
Top Motherboard also


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I do use the wifi on occasion, and bluetooth. The R5E10 is ASUS' top line x99 ROG board. I'm sure the Strix can keep pace as long as the goal is sub-orbital, gaming objectives. (eg, not LN2)


Thanks! No LN2 in the foreseeable future - just DRAM & CPU speed with lame graphics















Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Do not Forget Deluxe II guys ?
> Top Motherboard also


No doubt, but again more stuff I don't use


----------



## mrkambo

oh wow these make my dom plats look rubbish!!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Do not Forget Deluxe II guys ?
> Top Motherboard also


Signature series vs ROG series?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> oh wow these make my dom plats look rubbish!!


They are purdy. I had to send one set back DoA for a stuck bit and the heat spreader was falling off as well... Wrote it off to a Friday batch, GSkill usually does good work.

The replacement has been humming away at 3400 in my 6700K system since whenever those finally hit microcenter in the US.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> They are purdy. I had to send one set back DoA for a stuck bit and the heat spreader was falling off as well... Wrote it off to a Friday batch, GSkill usually does good work.
> 
> The replacement has been humming away at 3400 in my 6700K system since whenever those finally hit microcenter in the US.


Ahh i think i might have to send them back, they dont look that great on the motherboard.....


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Ahh i think i might have to send them back, they dont look that great on the motherboard.....


I love the side view on these not sure about the view when you put it on the motherboard though since it's hard to see the sides.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I love the side view on these not sure about the view when you put it on the motherboard though since it's hard to see the sides.


I'll take a photo with the DSLR, just to kind of show you what I'm working with


----------



## vibraslap

Maybe look into the white ones, I think they are much prettier from the top, simple black text on white DIMM.


----------



## Jpmboy

Full house.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full house.


Me thinks you're headed for a straight flush


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Me thinks you're headed for a straight flush


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Me thinks you're headed for a straight flush


Hi mate, could you please post some cinebenchs at 4.5 and above if possible and aida64 cache-mem bench???

Thanks in advance...


----------



## mrkambo

Dont you hate it when you go to use your camera and all 3 batteries are dead!

here some photos with my iphone so not the best but they kinda get my point across.


----------



## DarkIdeals

So i figured out my INSANE overheating issue.

On my 5960X at 4.6ghz i was getting spikes all the way to 100C during Cinebench; and couldn't get it stable at 4.5ghz even at 1.35v whereas i was fine at 1.295v for 4.5 for months in the past. I thought it was the Coollaboratory Liquid Copper paste i had so i bought some Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut, it dropped temps by ~5C or so which is very nice and means something is off with the copper paste; and i bought the new Corsair ML120 Pro LED fans (Geggeg's testing shows they are even slightly beating Gentle Typhoons on radiators in regards to noise and static pressure both, they appear to be justu as good in my testing so far) and that managed to get my temps down to ~70C to 75C max, with a couple cores spiking into 80s.

That allowed me to get the 5960X to 4.5ghz at 1.325v, and i could get the i7 6800K that used to do the same 80-90C spikes in temp and needed 1.355v to get 4.4ghz; after that i could get the 6800K to 4.4ghz stable at 1.33v.

Then i took a nap after trying 4.5ghz on the 6800K and failing at 1.45v; woke up and BAM temps back in the 80's to 90s. Turns out it was the most bizarre gaggle of AIR BUBBLES in my water loop caught in the bottom mounted rad. had to literally turn my Caselabs SMA8 COMPLETELY UPSIDE DOWN with everything in it and flip it around up and down while cycling pump etc.. to get rid of them. I've had the loop set up fine for weeks since i refilled it in may.

Now my temps on 6800K at 4.4ghz never go over mid 50's with a rare spike to ~60C. I can also get 4.4ghz stable at 1.31v so far (might even get better results, haven't tested yet) And i could NEVER get 4.5ghz stable PERIOD before even using 1.5v!!! Now i just got 4.5ghz stable for both a cinebench run, and 1 hour of Realbench so far at 1.39v!!! Gonna do a quick attempt at the miracle 4.6ghz at 1.45v, if that fails gonna see about getting the 1.39v 4.5ghz down to maybe 1.375v or so still stable.


----------



## Rammler

Guys would you recommend to upgrade from the RVE to the RV Edition 10?
I am not sure if its worth it. OC Results should be the same shouldn't they?

As far as i read about the new RV Edition 10, its only benefits are the soundchip, the support for 128gb rams and the leds?

Correct me if i am wrong.

On the paper two years difference didn't effect the Rampage V that much. I expected more....


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rammler*
> 
> Guys would you recommend to upgrade from the RVE to the RV Edition 10?
> I am not sure if its worth it. OC Results should be the same shouldn't they?
> 
> As far as i read about the new RV Edition 10, its only benefits are the soundchip, the support for 128gb rams and the leds?
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong.
> 
> On the paper two years difference didn't effect the Rampage V that much. I expected more....


Honestly depends on how far you wish to push things, and if you are sticking with Haswell.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rammler*
> 
> Guys would you recommend to upgrade from the RVE to the RV Edition 10?
> I am not sure if its worth it. OC Results should be the same shouldn't they?
> 
> As far as i read about the new RV Edition 10, its only benefits are the soundchip, the support for 128gb rams and the leds?
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong.
> 
> On the paper two years difference didn't effect the Rampage V that much. I expected more....


I did. Sold my Rampage V Extreme and got a Rampage V Edition 10. Partly just because it looks AMAZING with the black edition color scheme, the RGB lighting thats actually tasteful and can be turned off, the better VRM/moset heatsinks etc.. But it also has quite a few little things that are just better on it that add up to it being a fairly better board overall.

The Rampage V Edition 10 has not only slightly better onboard audio but it also has the SupremeFX Hi-Fi which is a VERY good audio device, like serously. This thing beats out the $250 O2+ODAC or Schiit Magni + Modi stack combo that alot of snobby Audiophiles buy for their headphones and such. The IC's used on the amp and the DAC have BOTH been called "the best portable amp/dac chip you can buy" on headfi.com by a few trusted audio technicians. Using it with my Sennheiser HD700 300ohm headphones it REALLY makes a nice sound quality boost and overall volume increase. It takes all the best of an EXTERNAL DAC and Amp (like having ZERO electrical interference since it's not anywhere near the other pc parts and is in its own solid steel shell etc..) but with the convenience of an internal sound card. Something like the ASUS Xonar Phoebus couldn't touch the hi-fi's sound quality in a million years! Plus you can always sell the hi-fi for like $100 easily if you don't want it

It has some real nice convenient features on the board like "DIMM Switches" that lets you turn off RAM slots without needing to remove the whole stick of RAM, which is quite helpful if you think you have a corrupt/bad stick of RAM as you'd have to take EVERY stick out and put them back in one at a time, running an hour of memtest on EACH stick. With this board you simply flip all but one switch off, run the test, then flip all but the 2nd switch off, run test, etc.. which saves more time than you would think.

The board has a built-in i/o shield which is very nice as it will still look decent and protect the i/o ports etc.. if you happen to lose the frame (on the Rampage Extreme if you lose the i/o shield you just have to put up wtih an ugly and slightly less safe i/o output.

The RV Edition 10 also has nice "ROG Armor" type front and backplate covering nearly half the back and a small portion of the front of the board which adds stability and prevents scratching on standoffs, also makes holding the board easier and less likely to cause static electricity issues etc.. Overall just looks good and protects the board.

It has TEN fan headers on it, compared to six iirc on the Rampage V Extreme. It has TWO ethernet ports allowing for "teaming" which can double your network bandwidth throughput to around 2gb/s and serves as a backup if something happened to fry one of your LAN ports. It has slightly better wi-fi speeds compared to the Extreme. It has the things you mentioned as well as things like supporting Broadwell-E out of the box without worrying about BIOS issues.

Some other interesting things are that it has both an M.2 AND a U.2 port that can BOTH be used at the same time, and on a 40 lane CPU you can even have three way SLI and STILL use, for example, TWO Samsung 950 Pro NVMe PCI-e SSD's with one in the M.2 slot and one in the U.2 slot; putting them in RAID 0 to get INSANE ~5000mbps speeds. It has four built in USB3.1 ports, two of them are the new USB3.1 type C which is USB 3.1 generation 2, giving it even more speed than USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports.

It has a dedicated RGB strip header that connects your LED strips to the ASUS AURA software so your LED strips will do the same colors and breathing, rainbow, strobing etc.. effect that you have the board lights and your ASUS Strix etc.. GPU lights set to do (if you have them on at all).

TLR = Yes there's quite a few more things on the Edition 10 that the Extreme doesn't have. Although i can't say that i recommend switching for EVERYONE; but i DO think that this is THE best motherboard you can buy hands down and is significantly better in a few key ways and many small ways that add up, imo. If you can sell your Rampage V Extreme for $300 or more profit then i'd say its worth it to get one of these. Check Newegg, they had a deal where you get a free ASUS ROG Gladius gaming mouse when you buy one of these ($59 mouse. Sadly its for right handed people, and i'm left handed so i'm gonna sell it sometime i guess.) Hope this helps, sorry for the long winded post lol


----------



## Silent Scone




----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> oh wow these make my dom plats look rubbish!!


Bam.

They look fine on your board. I have no idea why you don't like them... hehe.


----------



## dukester34

I have the same stuff and got one bad stick... gonna take the red off and paint it blue


----------



## Rammler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I did. Sold my Rampage V Extreme and got a Rampage V Edition 10. Partly just because it looks AMAZING with the black edition color scheme, the RGB lighting thats actually tasteful and can be turned off, the better VRM/moset heatsinks etc.. But it also has quite a few little things that are just better on it that add up to it being a fairly better board overall.
> 
> The Rampage V Edition 10 has not only slightly better onboard audio but it also has the SupremeFX Hi-Fi which is a VERY good audio device, like serously. This thing beats out the $250 O2+ODAC or Schiit Magni + Modi stack combo that alot of snobby Audiophiles buy for their headphones and such. The IC's used on the amp and the DAC have BOTH been called "the best portable amp/dac chip you can buy" on headfi.com by a few trusted audio technicians. Using it with my Sennheiser HD700 300ohm headphones it REALLY makes a nice sound quality boost and overall volume increase. It takes all the best of an EXTERNAL DAC and Amp (like having ZERO electrical interference since it's not anywhere near the other pc parts and is in its own solid steel shell etc..) but with the convenience of an internal sound card. Something like the ASUS Xonar Phoebus couldn't touch the hi-fi's sound quality in a million years! Plus you can always sell the hi-fi for like $100 easily if you don't want it
> 
> It has some real nice convenient features on the board like "DIMM Switches" that lets you turn off RAM slots without needing to remove the whole stick of RAM, which is quite helpful if you think you have a corrupt/bad stick of RAM as you'd have to take EVERY stick out and put them back in one at a time, running an hour of memtest on EACH stick. With this board you simply flip all but one switch off, run the test, then flip all but the 2nd switch off, run test, etc.. which saves more time than you would think.
> 
> The board has a built-in i/o shield which is very nice as it will still look decent and protect the i/o ports etc.. if you happen to lose the frame (on the Rampage Extreme if you lose the i/o shield you just have to put up wtih an ugly and slightly less safe i/o output.
> 
> The RV Edition 10 also has nice "ROG Armor" type front and backplate covering nearly half the back and a small portion of the front of the board which adds stability and prevents scratching on standoffs, also makes holding the board easier and less likely to cause static electricity issues etc.. Overall just looks good and protects the board.
> 
> It has TEN fan headers on it, compared to six iirc on the Rampage V Extreme. It has TWO ethernet ports allowing for "teaming" which can double your network bandwidth throughput to around 2gb/s and serves as a backup if something happened to fry one of your LAN ports. It has slightly better wi-fi speeds compared to the Extreme. It has the things you mentioned as well as things like supporting Broadwell-E out of the box without worrying about BIOS issues.
> 
> Some other interesting things are that it has both an M.2 AND a U.2 port that can BOTH be used at the same time, and on a 40 lane CPU you can even have three way SLI and STILL use, for example, TWO Samsung 950 Pro NVMe PCI-e SSD's with one in the M.2 slot and one in the U.2 slot; putting them in RAID 0 to get INSANE ~5000mbps speeds. It has four built in USB3.1 ports, two of them are the new USB3.1 type C which is USB 3.1 generation 2, giving it even more speed than USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports.
> 
> It has a dedicated RGB strip header that connects your LED strips to the ASUS AURA software so your LED strips will do the same colors and breathing, rainbow, strobing etc.. effect that you have the board lights and your ASUS Strix etc.. GPU lights set to do (if you have them on at all).
> 
> TLR = Yes there's quite a few more things on the Edition 10 that the Extreme doesn't have. Although i can't say that i recommend switching for EVERYONE; but i DO think that this is THE best motherboard you can buy hands down and is significantly better in a few key ways and many small ways that add up, imo. If you can sell your Rampage V Extreme for $300 or more profit then i'd say its worth it to get one of these. Check Newegg, they had a deal where you get a free ASUS ROG Gladius gaming mouse when you buy one of these ($59 mouse. Sadly its for right handed people, and i'm left handed so i'm gonna sell it sometime i guess.) Hope this helps, sorry for the long winded post lol


Thanks for the long post and the time you spent to write this summary for me.

You mentioned the good audio chip: i use an AV-receiver with toslink-cable. So no soundchip needed here.

built in i-o shield is nice, but not worthy of an 300 dollar prive investment. neither are other gadgets like de DIMM-switches, rog armor or fan headers.
Even the rgb light is not important for me. i don't need a christmas tree in my pc case.

The only point that is important for me is the performance. i use the rampage v extreme with the latest bios (3202 i think), will the RV 10 Edition increase the strenght of mc pc?
On the paper the RVE and the RV10 have the same power supply for the CPU and the same OC functions.


----------



## Kimir

If you don't have the need of the details he pointed out in his essay, then no need to upgrade, you won't see a difference in daily basis with "clock to clock" settings.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Raja said memory lines in RV10 are better than RVE's, so has anybody seen any gains in memory performance coming from RVE and using the same cpu???

Its a good question for those who wont use the extras and only seek a better overclock...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Raja said memory lines in RV10 are better than RVE's, so has anybody seen any gains in memory performance coming from RVE and using the same cpu???
> 
> Its a good question for those who wont use the extras and only seek a better overclock...


If switching to BWE as well, it's probably worth while. If sticking with Haswell it probably isn't worth the jump, but the 10 is undeniably more desirable


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rammler*
> 
> Guys would you recommend to upgrade from the RVE to the RV Edition 10?
> I am not sure if its worth it. OC Results should be the same shouldn't they?
> 
> As far as i read about the new RV Edition 10, its only benefits are the soundchip, the support for 128gb rams and the leds?
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong.
> 
> On the paper two years difference didn't effect the Rampage V that much. I expected more....


I don't claim to be some type of expert but I used RVE in the past and now using R5E10, they're both amazing boards. The only reason why I got rid of the RVE is because I was just using it to test processors while I was using a sabertooth x99 on my rig and didn't want to lose the TUF look at the time. I was going to buy another RVE because my sabertooth was going to my wife's rig with the old 5930k CPU until the R5E10 came out and absolutely loved the color scheme of the board and the RGB.

U.2, Aura RGB lighting and header, Onboard USB 3.1x, included external fan header expansion, HAMP, water pump header, and SFX are nice to have. I still wouldn't upgrade though if I had the RVE lodged into the case with liquid cooling already unless the board goes out on me.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Thanks Silent Scone...

I can see you have a 6900k, could you please post some cinebenchs and aida mem-cache bench at max overclock???


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Raja said memory lines in RV10 are better than RVE's, so has anybody seen any gains in memory performance coming from RVE and using the same cpu???
> 
> Its a good question for those who wont use the extras and only seek a better overclock...


Well I had 3200MHz Corsair Dominator Platinum 15-17-17-35 modules and I just couldn't run it at that speed with a 5930k using 8x4GB modules. I was able to run the memory without issues using 2800MHz also using the 5930K. It worked perfectly on only 4 modules though so the R5E10 definitely did not improve in that regard and it was still limited by the haswell-e IMC. Soon as I installed the 6950x all 8 modules lit up with no issues what so ever. As far as performance I couldn't comment because I didn't upgrade from RVE to R5E10. R510E officially supports 2400MHz vs 2133MHz on the RVE though.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Well I had 3200MHz Corsair Dominator Platinum 15-17-17-35 modules and I just couldn't run it at that speed with a 5930k using 8x4GB modules. I was able to run the memory without issues using 2800MHz also using the 5930K. It worked perfectly on only 4 modules though so the R5E10 definitely did not improve in that regard and it was still limited by the haswell-e IMC. Soon as I installed the 6950x all 8 modules lit up with no issues what so ever. As far as performance I couldn't comment because I didn't upgrade from RVE to R5E10. R510E officially supports 2400MHz vs 2133MHz on the RVE though.


Thanks Artah...

Happy with 6950x overclock???


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*




Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Thanks Silent Scone...
> 
> I can see you have a 6900k, could you please post some cinebenchs and aida mem-cache bench at max overclock???


http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/1960_20#post_25341311


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Thanks Artah...
> 
> Happy with 6950x overclock???


It was a ton better than what I expected but then again I might have gotten lucky with the current CPU I have not sure yet until I can run some solid tests. I do see that silicon lottery got a hold of a 4.2GHz OC chip though, Ouchy but that is still pretty decent, think of it as a 4.4GHz OC on a 5960x if it's a 5% gain. The bad thing is the bang for the buck.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> It was a ton better than what I expected but then again I might have gotten lucky with the current CPU I have not sure yet until I can run some solid tests. I do see that silicon lottery got a hold of a 4.2GHz OC chip though, Ouchy but that is still pretty decent, think of it as a 4.4GHz OC on a 5960x if it's a 5% gain. The bad thing is the bang for the buck.


4.3ghz according to the website.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/1960_20#post_25341311


Thanks Jpmboy, but once you showed me aida test you could have linked a cinebench...









Those aida results are a bit disappointing, only writes are higher... This is what I get without special tweaking and totally stable:



Does 6950x get better scores tan 6900k???


----------



## Silent Scone

I would love to see a memtweak it shot, @vmanuelgm. We see the words totally stable thrown around a lot here







.

Why are you concerning yourself with AIDA benchmarks when looking to upgrade your CPU?


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I would love to see a memtweak it shot, @vmanuelgm. We see the words totally stable thrown around a lot here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Why are you concerning yourself with AIDA benchmarks when looking to upgrade your CPU?


I can promise its totally stable, had to tweak primary, secondary and tertiary... Which program do you use??? Will test and show later...

Use Gskills 3600 CL15, a bit faster than 3200 CL14. Bought 2 independent kits, no problem so far and performing great as if it was a quad (so no meat and potatoes case).

I am thinking of upgrading both mainboard and cpu. I doubt between 6950x and 6900k, thats why I wanna see the best scores.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> 4.3ghz according to the website.


This is the one I was referring to that's 4.2GHz.

https://siliconlottery.com/collections/2011-3/products/6950x42g


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I can promise its totally stable, had to tweak primary, secondary and tertiary... Which program do you use??? Will test and show later...
> 
> Use Gskills 3600 CL15, a bit faster than 3200 CL14. Bought 2 independent kits, no problem so far and performing great as if it was a quad (so no meat and potatoes case).
> 
> I am thinking of upgrading both mainboard and cpu. I doubt between 6950x and 6900k, thats why I wanna see the best scores.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Use Google Stress App test, or HCI MemTest Pro as instructed in the OP in the thread JP linked to you shown in my sig









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Does 6950x get better scores tan 6900k???


Considering it has 2 additional cores, you mean.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Use Google Stress App test, or HCI MemTest Pro as instructed in the OP in the thread JP linked to you shown in my sig


Ok Scone...

Please post some cinebenchs at max oc with your cpu...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Ok Scone...
> 
> Please post some cinebenchs at max oc with your cpu...


I'm washing my hair tonight


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I can promise its totally stable, had to tweak primary, secondary and tertiary... Which program do you use??? Will test and show later...
> 
> Use Gskills 3600 CL15, a bit faster than 3200 CL14. Bought 2 independent kits, no problem so far and performing great as if it was a quad (so no meat and potatoes case).
> 
> I am thinking of upgrading both mainboard and cpu. I doubt between 6950x and 6900k, thats why I wanna see the best scores.


Those are some pretty outstanding, er, amazing numbers from a 5960x....


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Those are some pretty outstanding, er, amazing numbers from a 5960x....


Yep, its imc is very good.

Its a pity it degraded in cache aspect, it used to reach 4.5 and now it only achieves stable 4.3 in strap 100 and 4.25 in strap 125.

I read Raja guide in which he said 1.45v was not dangerous for cache. I now wouldnt use such high voltage for 24/7...









So for hci memtest, I have to open 8 or 16 instances with my 5960x???


----------



## Silent Scone

I'm pretty certain the guide says certain frequency / samples "will require in the region of". That's a little different to saying something is safe. There is always uncertainty with things concerning degradation. Perhaps that got lost in translation for you.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Well, Raja answered a guy in RVE thread asking that question and his literal sentence was "we used higher voltajes (more than 1.45) without an issue"... So tell me if my translation is wrong...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1510001/asus-rampage-v-extreme-owners-thread/2800


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Thanks Jpmboy, but once you showed me aida test you could have linked a cinebench...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aida results are a bit disappointing, only writes are higher... This is what I get without special tweaking and totally stable:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does 6950x get better scores tan 6900k*???


10 cores vs 8.. so yes. i can post up some numbers later.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Well, Raja answered a guy in RVE thread asking that question and his literal sentence was "we used higher voltajes (more than 1.45) without an issue"... So tell me if my translation is wrong...
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510001/asus-rampage-v-extreme-owners-thread/2800


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> I've run higher here and no issue so far. What you run or think is high is up to you.


This is far from certifiable, considering he is right - it is up to you. Cooling, power, sleep states and workload are obviously also other factors into what is safe. It's a risk one takes at any voltage beyond stock.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Well, the sentence finishes with "it is up to you", but the first part says clearly that over 1.45v no problems so far, and Raja is supposed to test a lot of cpu's...

I have to come often to oc.net to practice my english...










Silent, 8 or 16 instances for hci memtest???


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Well, the sentence finishes with "it is up to you", but the first part says clearly that over 1.45v no problems so far, and Raja is supposed to test a lot of cpu's...
> 
> I have to come often to oc.net to practice my english...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silent, 8 or 16 instances for hci memtest???












16 instances for a 5960x, memory divided equally between each as per the OP.

Leave enough for the OS to breathe.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Those are some pretty outstanding, er, amazing numbers from a 5960x....


eh... about average considering his cache clock.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> eh... about average considering his cache clock.


I meant the timing/frequency of ram not throughput. Proving once again, "it's how you use it"


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Jpmboy, but once you showed me aida test you could have linked a cinebench...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aida results are a bit disappointing, only writes are higher... This is what I get without special tweaking and totally stable:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does 6950x get better scores tan 6900k???



had this already uploaded to OCN. Have tightened things further since.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 instances for a 5960x, memory divided equally between each as per the OP.
> 
> Leave enough for the OS to breathe.


lol - bubble bursting are we?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I meant the timing/frequency of ram not throughput. Proving once again, "it's how you use it"


3333 on 125 strap is a good memory divider, not great, just good.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> had this already uploaded to OCN. Have tightened things further since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol - bubble bursting are we?


If someone is willing to base their purchasing decision on a memory benchmark then these things need to be undressed


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> eh... about average considering his cache clock.


This strap 125 is totally stable in my daily use, passing intelburn and other stress tests...

If I tweak only for Aida and rise core and uncore, I can manage higher scores obviously...



I dont want only aida tests, but cinebenchs for example, but you dont post em!!! Would like to see your best score with 6900k, Scone!!!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> This strap 125 is totally stable in my daily use, passing intelburn and other stress tests...
> 
> If I tweak only for Aida and rise core and uncore, I can manage higher scores obviously...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


yeah - about the same as 3200 c13 in that regard... the real question is stability... the AID number could be higher assuming ther is not EC going on there./ Once you get 500% of HCI memtest squared away, it's the real deal.








there's no reason to compare R15 scores 8 to 8 core... look at single thread. Of course, 10 cores crushes 8.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Well, Raja answered a guy in RVE thread asking that question and his literal sentence was "we used higher voltajes (more than 1.45) without an issue"... So tell me if my translation is wrong...
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510001/asus-rampage-v-extreme-owners-thread/2800


Raja isn't an OC Guru, he just works for Asus. That's not to say he doesn't know his stuff...

I'd still take Scones word over his.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Raja isn't an OC Guru, he just works for Asus. That's not to say he doesn't know his stuff...
> 
> I'd still take Scones word over his.


lol, I wouldn't. He's likely forgotten more than I know. That snippet was written when the platform was launched, and was taken out of context. 4.4-4.6 on uncore really needs the voltage on most samples, which is what is being implied in that piece.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> lol, I wouldn't. He's likely forgotten more than I know. That snippet was written when the platform was launched, and was taken out of context. 4.4-4.6 on uncore really needs the voltage on most samples, which is what is being implied in that piece.


Don't be so modest....


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Don't be so modest....


Honest.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Honest.


Haha noted.

I have nothing against the guy... it's just he's paid to do what he does and only for Asus.

Others here have experience with many boards and gpu's.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Haha noted.
> 
> I have nothing against the guy... it's just he's paid to do what he does and only for Asus.
> 
> Others here have experience with many boards and gpu's.


That they may have, only to end up with ASUS lol.

Digression.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> That they may have, only to end up with ASUS lol.
> 
> Digression.


Lol I will agree with that... I always come back to ASUS.

I shall digress as well.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Haha noted.
> 
> I have nothing against the guy... it's just he's *paid to do what he does and only for Asus.*
> 
> Others here have experience with many boards and gpu's.


Lol - this is a good thing dude... no other MB manuf has a rep on-line like ASUS. (and AFAIK, Raja came out of the same OC/engineer pool as many of the pros you consider "overclockers".)


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Haha noted.
> 
> I have nothing against the guy... it's just he's paid to do what he does and only for Asus.
> 
> Others here have experience with many boards and gpu's.


Hello

Raja has a vast background pertaining to electronics at the component level and there is nobody posting on forums that has the knowledge he does regarding memory. Comparing what he writes to others that may happen to stumble onto something that may or may not work but not understanding the results they see doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Raja isn't an OC Guru, he just works for Asus. That's not to say he doesn't know his stuff...
> 
> I'd still take Scones word over his.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> lol, I wouldn't. He's likely forgotten more than I know. That snippet was written when the platform was launched, and was taken out of context. 4.4-4.6 on uncore really needs the voltage on most samples, which is what is being implied in that piece.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Don't be so modest....


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Honest.












sorry i just had to.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rammler*
> 
> Thanks for the long post and the time you spent to write this summary for me.
> 
> You mentioned the good audio chip: i use an AV-receiver with toslink-cable. So no soundchip needed here.
> 
> built in i-o shield is nice, but not worthy of an 300 dollar prive investment. neither are other gadgets like de DIMM-switches, rog armor or fan headers.
> Even the rgb light is not important for me. i don't need a christmas tree in my pc case.
> 
> The only point that is important for me is the performance. i use the rampage v extreme with the latest bios (3202 i think), will the RV 10 Edition increase the strenght of mc pc?
> On the paper the RVE and the RV10 have the same power supply for the CPU and the same OC functions.


Just barely, the RVE10 "IS" breaking some records over the RVE, but not by much and only in a few cases.


----------



## nexxusty

Ugh I just got wrecked there... lol.

Touche boys....


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Hi mate, could you please post some cinebenchs at 4.5 and above if possible and aida64 cache-mem bench???
> 
> Thanks in advance...


Sorry for the delay - I've been running tweaking tests. Here's my current tweak, GSAT tested 80 min:


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Lol - this is a good thing dude... no other MB manuf has a rep on-line like ASUS. (and AFAIK, Raja came out of the same OC/engineer pool as many of the pros you consider "overclockers".)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Raja has a vast background pertaining to electronics at the component level and there is nobody posting on forums that has the knowledge he does regarding memory. Comparing what he writes to others that may happen to stumble onto something that may or may not work but not understanding the results they see doesn't make a lot of sense.


I'm pretty sure Raja used to write motherboard reviews for Anandtech like 5-6 years ago.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

Well I'm sitting in front of my 6900k/Strix and all I can say is WOW!

Out of the box setting the rams XMP gave me an instant 4Ghz on all cores.
Man I can see where MSI are lacking now being back on a Asus board...

1700 Cinebench score over the [email protected]'s 1256.

Now I've just got to tidy up the case, still in pieces, but I just couldn't wait..lol

What are these stickers for in the Strix box, something about matching you led scheme?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Well I'm sitting in front of my 6900k/Strix and all I can say is WOW!
> 
> Out of the box setting the rams XMP gave me an instant 4Ghz on all cores.
> Man I can see where MSI are lacking now being back on a Asus board...
> 
> 1700 Cinebench score over the [email protected]'s 1256.
> 
> Now I've just got to tidy up the case, still in pieces, but I just couldn't wait..lol
> 
> What are these stickers for in the Strix box, something about matching you led scheme?


Don't forget, you got two more cores now







. I too went from a 5820K to a 6900K, now fighting an urge to go from X99-A to the ROG Strix


----------



## James702283

Hello All,
I recently just completed my new build and am using the X99a Gaming 7 Board

Build:
Case: Corsair 750D
CPU: i7 6850K currently OC to 4.4 at 1.36 Vcore
Cooling: Corsair H115i Extreme 280mm Top mounted with push/pull configuration
Mobo: MSI x99a Gaming 7
Ram: 64GB DDR4 Corsair Dominator Platinum 3000 8x8GB w/ Dominator Plat Cooling Fans
GPU: EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW+ 2.0
PSU: EVGA Nova Gold 1000 G2
SSD: Samsung Evo 850 1TB for Op System and programs
Internal Storage: 2x 6TB WD Black, 2x 6TB WD Green, 1 2TB WD Black

First and foremost I want to say thank you for all your helpful information I have found here.

My question/dilemma that I haven't been able to find out is in reference to the acceptable voltages for OC this board and for the 6850K Broadwell-e chip. I know intel recommends staying below 1.35 Vcore but I have seen on the couple of review sites for this chip so far use more than that. I know it is a new chip so information is limited but I just want to know if my 1.36 Vcore in Adaptive mode is too much? I have more than adequate cooling. In a hot summer NYC apt During 12+ Hours of Prime95 my Cpu temp never goes above 70c same with Intel burn test, Occt, Rog, Aida64, etc. I also purchased the Intel over clocking warranty from Intel. Any info you guys could share would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *James702283*
> 
> Hello All,
> I recently just completed my new build and am using the X99a Gaming 7 Board
> 
> Build:
> Case: Corsair 750D
> CPU: i7 6850K currently OC to 4.4 at 1.36 Vcore
> Cooling: Corsair H115i Extreme 280mm Top mounted with push/pull configuration
> Mobo: MSI x99a Gaming 7
> Ram: 64GB DDR4 Corsair Dominator Platinum 3000 8x8GB w/ Dominator Plat Cooling Fans
> GPU: EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW+ 2.0
> PSU: EVGA Nova Gold 1000 G2
> SSD: Samsung Evo 850 1TB for Op System and programs
> Internal Storage: 2x 6TB WD Black, 2x 6TB WD Green, 1 2TB WD Black
> 
> First and foremost I want to say thank you for all your helpful information I have found here.
> 
> My question/dilemma that I haven't been able to find out is in reference to the acceptable voltages for OC this board and for the 6850K Broadwell-e chip. I know intel recommends staying below 1.35 Vcore but I have seen on the couple of review sites for this chip so far use more than that. I know it is a new chip so information is limited but I just want to know if my 1.36 Vcore in Adaptive mode is too much? I have more than adequate cooling. In a hot summer NYC apt During 12+ Hours of Prime95 my Cpu temp never goes above 70c same with Intel burn test, Occt, Rog, Aida64, etc. I also purchased the Intel over clocking warranty from Intel. Any info you guys could share would be greatly appreciated.


1.4v 24/7 is fine.

However... good luck cooling at 1.4v. Heh.

Not easy.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Don't forget, you got two more cores now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I too went from a 5820K to a 6900K, now fighting an urge to go from X99-A to the ROG Strix


Yeah but I was excited..lol..

I just did a quick cleanup of the cables, going to need to unplug stuff again when the GTX1080 turns up anyway..


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry i just had to.


As long as you actually understood the turn of phrase I used there, you may have to look it up







.

Caught me unawares after the Uncore Spanish inquisition, which nobody expected (may have to look that one up also)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Raja has a vast background pertaining to electronics at the component level and there is nobody posting on forums that has the knowledge he does regarding memory. Comparing what he writes to others that may happen to stumble onto something that may or may not work but not understanding the results they see doesn't make a lot of sense.


Lol the definition of overclockers abound


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *James702283*
> 
> Hello All,
> I recently just completed my new build and am using the X99a Gaming 7 Board
> 
> Build:
> Case: Corsair 750D
> CPU: i7 6850K currently OC to 4.4 at 1.36 Vcore
> Cooling: Corsair H115i Extreme 280mm Top mounted with push/pull configuration
> Mobo: MSI x99a Gaming 7
> Ram: 64GB DDR4 Corsair Dominator Platinum 3000 8x8GB w/ Dominator Plat Cooling Fans
> GPU: EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW+ 2.0
> PSU: EVGA Nova Gold 1000 G2
> SSD: Samsung Evo 850 1TB for Op System and programs
> Internal Storage: 2x 6TB WD Black, 2x 6TB WD Green, 1 2TB WD Black
> 
> First and foremost I want to say thank you for all your helpful information I have found here.
> 
> My question/dilemma that I haven't been able to find out is in reference to the acceptable voltages for OC this board and for the 6850K Broadwell-e chip. I know intel recommends staying below 1.35 Vcore but I have seen on the couple of review sites for this chip so far use more than that. I know it is a new chip so information is limited but I just want to know if my 1.36 Vcore in Adaptive mode is too much? I have more than adequate cooling. In a hot summer NYC apt During 12+ Hours of Prime95 my Cpu temp never goes above 70c same with Intel burn test, Occt, Rog, Aida64, etc. I also purchased the Intel over clocking warranty from Intel. Any info you guys could share would be greatly appreciated.


As @nexxusty said 1.36v vcore is no problem, but you need to watch the core temps, not the cpu temp so much. Core temps tend to be noticeably higher than the cpu temp. At cpu temps of 70 chances are some of your cores are over 80.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Thanks for your posts, DJgar and Jpmboy.

Seems the real upgrade is 6950x, coming from a good 5960x.

Dont like limited overclocking in 6950x (4.4) and high temperatures, but will probably purchase it... I expected more from 6900k...

Jpmboy, have you tried to disable some cores to reach higher frequencies???


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Thanks for your posts, DJgar and Jpmboy.
> 
> Seems the real upgrade is 6950x, coming from a good 5960x.
> 
> Dont like limited overclocking in 6950x (4.4) and high temperatures, but will probably purchase it... I expected more from 6900k...
> 
> Jpmboy, have you tried to disable some cores to reach higher frequencies???


Hi,

any luck with HCI?


----------



## mrkambo

Whats the goto software for testing memory??

I use realbench for stressing the CPU but not sure for memory.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Whats the goto software for testing memory??
> 
> I use realbench for stressing the CPU but not sure for memory.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/0_50


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> any luck with HCI?


Its testing now.

I left it in the night and had 2 errors in one instance over 100% coverage, tweaked down some timmings with same results in bandwidth and now I am reaching 200% with no errors. I will stop in 200% (just to add to the list) cos I need the machine...

Dont be skeptical


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/0_50


Thanks, just getting everything together so when i switch over on the weekend i dont have to faff about!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Its testing now.
> 
> I left it in the night and had 2 errors in one instance over 100% coverage, tweaked down some timmings with same results in bandwidth and now I am reaching 200% with no errors. I will stop in 200% (just to add to the list) cos I need the machine...
> 
> Dont be skeptical


It's ok to be sceptical sometimes, especially when it turns out to be warranted.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Dont be, vmanuelgm here...













No congrats, Scone???









Strap 125 3333 is a hard one, 3200+ on strap 100 is a lot easier...


----------



## Silent Scone

3333 is harder, you are right. As you have evidently discovered within the last few hours of poking me to give you a comparative to work from. Which would have been pointless, as the memory settings you were using were not stable, and I am using a different board. If you would like a pat on the back though, that is chargeable.


----------



## vmanuelgm

The timings I used gave me similar results, and lasted over 100% coverage, which is not bad at all... Now these ones are rock solid and perform at least as well, still waiting for your congrats, like this word, and hope you add me to your list!!!









Well, I am here with a 5960x which works reasonably on strap 125-3333, with a double kit of gskills 3600 CL15 which are meat only or potatoes only, and scoring better than newer (except for the writes) 6900k, I feel good!!!










Will try the 6950x, hope I get a decent unit...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> The timings I used gave me similar results, and lasted over 100% coverage, which is not bad at all... Now these ones are rock solid and perform at least as well, still waiting for your congrats, like this word, and hope you add me to your list!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am here with a 5960x which works reasonably on strap 125-3333, with a double kit of gskills 3600 CL15 which are meat only or potatoes only, and scoring better than newer (except for the writes) 6900k, I feel good!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will try the 6950x, hope I get a decent unit...


Result will be added, no problem there.

Last thing I will say, as it will likely fall upon deaf ears. If basing a purchasing decision such as this purely on a memory benchmark, I would look for a comparison using the same board and memory configuration. Or, more sensibly - not at all, and look to comparisons with every day applications that you may occasionally use between looking at AIDA.


----------



## vmanuelgm

You may have not read me, I dont make the decission upon aida64, I asked mates here to show captures of cinebench, aida and whatever tests (Firestrike, games, 7zip, etc) you have to compare directly 5960x against 6900k first and 6950x after, mostly at max frequency supported.

I will purchase a 6950x to test it in the RVE, and probably will buy a 10 Edition to see if there are any differences in terms of oc...

Maybe I am not being clear in english...

Thanks for your replies, Scone, still waiting a written "congrats", I expected you to be so fast as you were to ask me this morning about the HCI memtest!!!


----------



## Silent Scone

You're welcome


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> The timings I used gave me similar results, and lasted over 100% coverage, which is not bad at all... Now these ones are rock solid and perform at least as well, still waiting for your congrats, like this word, and hope you add me to your list!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am here with a 5960x which works reasonably on strap 125-3333, with a double kit of gskills 3600 CL15 which are meat only or potatoes only, and scoring better than newer (except for the writes) 6900k, I feel good!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will try the 6950x, hope I get a decent unit...


Hello

A better option for that memory is 3200/straight 13 or 3400/straight 14. With either more thorough stability testing is recommended.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Well I'm sitting in front of my 6900k/Strix and all I can say is WOW!
> 
> Out of the box setting the rams XMP gave me an instant 4Ghz on all cores.
> Man I can see where MSI are lacking now being back on a Asus board...
> 
> 1700 Cinebench score over the [email protected]'s 1256.
> 
> Now I've just got to tidy up the case, still in pieces, but I just couldn't wait..lol
> 
> What are these stickers for in the Strix box, something about matching you led scheme?


more cores is an upgrade you fell immediately! Don't forget to load th Aura software and use the LED lights as a temp readout. Useful... other options are available, but I'm just not the pinball machine-look kinda guy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> As @nexxusty said 1.36v vcore is no problem, but you need to watch the core temps, not the cpu temp so much. Core temps tend to be noticeably higher than the cpu temp. At cpu temps of 70 chances are some of your cores are over 80.


Package temp is 10C higher than cores on my 6950X/R5E10 install.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Thanks for your posts, DJgar and Jpmboy.
> Seems the real upgrade is 6950x, coming from a good 5960x.
> Dont like limited overclocking in 6950x (4.4) and high temperatures, but will probably purchase it... I expected more from 6900k...
> *Jpmboy, have you tried to disable some cores to reach higher frequencies*???


wouldn't think of disabling cores... side by side the my 5960x @ 4.7c4.2m3200c13 feels the same as this [email protected] (core/avx/cache/memory) and depending on the benchmark, they trade blows with the 6950X winning overall. 2300 on R15 is easy.
With BWEX, Intel has identified the "best" core: you can set up per core OCs using this to run higher freqs for single core apps etc. Couple that with the ASUS TCT, and 4.6single 4.4 10core is straight forward.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Dont be, vmanuelgm here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No congrats, Scone???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strap 125 3333 is a hard one, 3200+ on strap 100 is a lot easier...


ugh.. 32GB wih HCI is a test of your patience, more so than a test of the ram stability only because I/you can't or won't let the thing run for geologic time to reach the needed 5 laps. Best to use linux mint and GSAT to square ram away.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> more cores is an upgrade you fell immediately! Don't forget to load th Aura software and use the LED lights as a temp readout. Useful... other options are available, but I'm just not the pinball machine-look kinda guy.


Yeah same here mate, currently I just set it all to red in the BIOS, same with the Kraken x61, all the flashy LED stuff isn't my thing, but I do like the red and black look...lol..

I noticed that the board uses safe stable voltages for 4Ghz on all cores, max voltage on 1 core is 1.28v, the rest are lower, I'm sure with some tweaking I can dial it in lower, temps never got over 62c with x265 benchmark.
Haven't bothered to do anything yet though, it's already noticeably faster than the 5820k already, heck the AIDA64 cache/memory benchmark gives me consistent results and the NB clocks are right, unlike a MSI motherboard we both know..lol
It's just nice to be on a ROG motherboard again.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Yeah same here mate, currently I just set it all to red in the BIOS, same with the Kraken x61, all the flashy LED stuff isn't my thing, but I do like the red and black look...lol..
> 
> I noticed that the board uses safe stable voltages for 4Ghz on all cores, max voltage on 1 core is 1.28v, the rest are lower, I'm sure with some tweaking I can dial it in lower, temps never got over 62c with x265 benchmark.
> Haven't bothered to do anything yet though, it's already noticeably faster than the 5820k already, heck the AIDA64 cache/memory benchmark gives me consistent results and the NB clocks are right, unlike a MSI motherboard we both know..lol
> It's just nice to be on a ROG motherboard again.


a well programed set of Auto rules in Bios for sure. you can control the LEDs at the OS level using the Aura software. works like a charm.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> more cores is an upgrade you fell immediately! Don't forget to load th Aura software and use the LED lights as a temp readout. Useful... other options are available, but I'm just not the pinball machine-look kinda guy.
> Package temp is 10C higher than cores on my 6950X/R5E10 install.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wouldn't think of disabling cores... side by side the my 5960x @ 4.7c4.2m3200c13 feels the same as this [email protected] (core/avx/cache/memory) and depending on the benchmark, they trade blows with the 6950X winning overall. 2300 on R15 is easy.
> With BWEX, Intel has identified the "best" core: you can set up per core OCs using this to run higher freqs for single core apps etc. Couple that with the ASUS TCT, and 4.6single 4.4 10core is straight forward.
> ugh.. 32GB wih HCI is a test of your patience, more so than a test of the ram stability only because I/you can't or won't let the thing run for geologic time to reach the needed 5 laps. Best to use linux mint and GSAT to square ram away.


Probably games (not multithreaded) and graphic tests will offer better scores the highest the frequency is... Thats why I asked you if you had turned off some cores...

In Heaven, for example, are you able to reach the same fps's with 6950x compared to [email protected]+???

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> A better option for that memory is 3200/straight 13 or 3400/straight 14. With either more thorough stability testing is recommended.


I guess you are thinking of 6950x, not 5960x... I am not able to use 100:100 in this cpu over 2800...


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> a well programed set of Auto rules in Bios for sure.


Were you being sarcastic when you said that..lol..

I did try controlling with the Aura software but I could get a proper deep red, it was coming out orange, don't know what was wrong.
It's a proper deep red when the BIOS does it though.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Guys I purchased Gigabyte X99 designare

My first gigabyte board, is it similar to asus etc


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> In Heaven, for example, are you able to reach the same fps's with 6950x compared to [email protected]+???
> I guess you are thinking of 6950x, not 5960x... I am not able to use 100:100 in this cpu over 2800...


Hello

Not at all. 5960X with the R5E. Not sure if I posted screenshots of 3400 memory speed but I'm sure full stability testing results are posted using all available memory dividers from 2133 through 3200 using the 100 strap.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Probably games (not multithreaded) and graphic tests will offer better scores the highest the frequency is... Thats why I asked you if you had turned off some cores...
> 
> In Heaven, for example, are you able to reach the same fps's with 6950x compared to [email protected]+???
> I guess you are thinking of 6950x, not 5960x... I am not able to use 100:100 in this cpu over 2800...


frankly, a 5960x or the 6950x is not going to best a 6700K in Heaven or Valley. If game FPS is the metric, the 6700K is the CPU to get. Different tools for different jobs, or nuts.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> A better option for that memory is 3200/straight 13 or 3400/straight 14. With either more thorough stability testing is recommended.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Not at all. 5960X with the R5E. Not sure if I posted screenshots of 3400 memory speed but I'm sure full stability testing results are posted using all available memory dividers from 2133 through 3200 using the 100 strap.


Wow, please post some pics with timings to try it...










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> frankly, a 5960x or the 6950x is not going to best a 6700K in Heaven or Valley. If game FPS is the metric, the 6700K is the CPU to get. Different tools for different jobs, or nuts.


A 6950x capable of 4.8+ in water should work as well as 6700k...


----------



## Silent Scone

Yes, an A1 notion indeed.


----------



## vmanuelgm

I am a genious!!!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Wow, please post some pics with timings to try it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 6950x capable of 4.8+ in water should work as well as 6700k...


lol - actually I'm not sure about that... SKL has the best per-core performance AFAIK, and benches like valley and heaven only use 4 cores.

an OCN member put an interesting test up once: "_Instructions_per_tick_during_branchless_decompression_32-threaded_". may be helpful for this purpose.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Wow, please post some pics with timings to try it...


Hello

Timings are not the solution so would be of little help.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Caught me unawares after the Uncore Spanish inquisition, which nobody expected (may have to look that one up also)
> Lol the definition of overclockers abound


Your CPU is fried...
No it's not
It's smoking and the die literally jumped out of the cavity...
I've had worse.
Your power supply's capacitors are oozing brown fluid...
It's a flesh wound. Where are you going? Come back here. I'll best your benchmark with my iphone you coward!

;-)


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Timings are not the solution so would be of little help.


Any advices to try 100:100???


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Your CPU is fried...
> No it's not
> It's smoking and the die literally jumped out of the cavity...
> I've had worse.
> Your power supply's capacitors are oozing brown fluid...
> It's a flesh wound. Where are you going? Come back here. I'll best your benchmark with my iphone you coward!
> 
> ;-)


lol


----------



## Jpmboy

User Manual Humor:


----------



## vmanuelgm

I managed 3000 100:100, but 3200 wont post.

Its timings related too, I had to change several to post with 32GB at 3000...


----------



## James702283

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> As @nexxusty said 1.36v vcore is no problem, but you need to watch the core temps, not the cpu temp so much. Core temps tend to be noticeably higher than the cpu temp. At cpu temps of 70 chances are some of your cores are over 80.


Actually my CPU package temperature is always warmer than the individual cores, sometimes as much as 10C. Not a single core hit 70C, keep in mind also that this was after running 14hr+ of prime overnight in a non air conditioned 80F+ room, right after running several other stress test without a break. In the week solid I have been stress testing this setup, using OCCT, Realbench, Aida64, Cinebench, Prime95 and Intel Burn Test on Exteme Mode on every settings and I have never seen a single core get close to 80c and they typically hover in the mid 50's - low 60s. Under normal pc workloads I have not seen temps exceed 50c and it idles in the low 20's. From what I have seen on this chip regarding temperatures 70c is within normal operating temp for full workload and 80C is the max you would want and my temps dont even get close to 70c under normal full workload conditions. This is also the hottest ambient temperature my pc will ever see. It is not hot in NYC for long. Should I be good?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Package temp is 10C higher than cores on my 6950X/R5E10 install.


Same here, maybe it is a broadwell-e thing? At first I thought I needed to reseat the chip but have seen others report the same thing.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *James702283*
> 
> Actually my CPU package temperature is always warmer than the individual cores, sometimes as much as 10C. Not a single core hit 70C, keep in mind also that this was after running 14hr+ of prime overnight in a non air conditioned 80F+ room, right after running several other stress test without a break. In the week solid I have been stress testing this setup, using OCCT, Realbench, Aida64, Cinebench, Prime95 and Intel Burn Test on Exteme Mode on every settings and I have never seen a single core get close to 80c and they typically hover in the mid 50's - low 60s. Under normal pc workloads I have not seen temps exceed 50c and it idles in the low 20's. From what I have seen on this chip regarding temperatures 70c is within normal operating temp for full workload and 80C is the max you would want and my temps dont even get close to 70c under normal full workload conditions. This is also the hottest ambient temperature my pc will ever see. It is not hot in NYC for long. Should I be good?
> Same here, maybe it is a broadwell-e thing? At first I thought I needed to reseat the chip but have seen others report the same thing.


what MB? R5E-10? I didn;t really notice the high package temp on the R5E with a 6950X installed....


----------



## Silent Scone

The package temperature represents the average core temperature as reported by the internal sensors. Over a set period of 256ms. I know this you see because I bothered to read the TCT overview


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The package temperature represents the average core temperature as reported by the internal sensors. Over a set period of 256ms. I know this you see because I bothered to read the TCT overview


you reader you...


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I managed 3000 100:100, but 3200 wont post.
> 
> Its timings related too, I had to change several to post with 32GB at 3000...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Hello

Looser timings or higher voltages can often be used in the place of proper tuning.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The package temperature represents the average core temperature as reported by the internal sensors. Over a set period of 256ms. I know this you see because I bothered to read the TCT overview


It sure doesn't behave that way in linux. I have a temp monitor open (xsensors) pretty much all the time. The package temp is NEVER lower than the warmest core. It follows the warmest core up and then with a lot of load seems to behave as if it is a distinct sensor taking longer to come down than the cores.

Then again linux shows the broadwell cores as something like 0-4 and 7-11, so the above could be something xsensors is doing...


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Looser timings or higher voltages can often be used in the place of proper tuning.


You mean higher voltages in ram or I have to rise any other specific voltages???

Thanks again.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The package temperature represents the average core temperature as reported by the internal sensors. Over a set period of 256ms. I know this you see because I bothered to read the TCT overview


The overview raja wrote ?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> The overview raja wrote ?


No, Santa.

Are you ok?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No, Santa.
> 
> Are you ok?


I don't know. just curious what overview.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> I don't know. just curious what overview.


the thermal control tool review.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Your CPU is fried...
> No it's not
> It's smoking and the die literally jumped out of the cavity...
> I've had worse.
> Your power supply's capacitors are oozing brown fluid...
> It's a flesh wound. Where are you going? Come back here. I'll best your benchmark with my iphone you coward!
> 
> ;-)


LOL - didn't know we were in a Monty Python skit ...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *James702283*
> 
> Actually my CPU package temperature is always warmer than the individual cores, sometimes as much as 10C. Not a single core hit 70C, keep in mind also that this was after running 14hr+ of prime overnight in a non air conditioned 80F+ room, right after running several other stress test without a break. In the week solid I have been stress testing this setup, using OCCT, Realbench, Aida64, Cinebench, Prime95 and Intel Burn Test on Exteme Mode on every settings and I have never seen a single core get close to 80c and they typically hover in the mid 50's - low 60s. Under normal pc workloads I have not seen temps exceed 50c and it idles in the low 20's. From what I have seen on this chip regarding temperatures 70c is within normal operating temp for full workload and 80C is the max you would want and my temps dont even get close to 70c under normal full workload conditions. This is also the hottest ambient temperature my pc will ever see. It is not hot in NYC for long. Should I be good?
> Same here, maybe it is a broadwell-e thing? At first I thought I needed to reseat the chip but have seen others report the same thing.


My package is hotter than yours ... seriously mine also are several degrees hotter than the highest core.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the thermal control tool review.


yeah i have problems with these abbreviations.









My package is always 10c higher aswell.


----------



## James702283

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what MB? R5E-10? I didn;t really notice the high package temp on the R5E with a 6950X installed....


I must of misunderstood you. You said your core temperatures were 10c lower than package temp which is what all the temp programs I am using are reporting as well with this chip. I am using an MSI X99a Gaming 7. What MHZ and vcore are you running at? What are your temps running long term stability testing with prime95, occt, ibt, etc?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The package temperature represents the average core temperature as reported by the internal sensors. Over a set period of 256ms. I know this you see because I bothered to read the TCT overview


Certainly not what all the censor programs with the 6850k I am using are showing and I constantly monitor them, HwMonitopro, aida64, corsair link, etc. My package temps are always as hot as my hottest core if not hotter, if it was an average it would be lower than the hottest core. I have a few screenshots to show. If what you are saying is correct than this would be impossible.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> User Manual Humor:


Bahahaha. That's gold.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Guys I purchased Gigabyte X99 designare
> 
> My first gigabyte board, is it similar to asus etc


Gayest name ever though... good board still.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> yeah i have problems with these abbreviations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My package is always 10c higher aswell.


I even get a 9c difference on my 5930k. This is at 1.376v though. For 4.4ghz... gawd.

I'd love a non leaking, non POS chip for once... lol.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *James702283*
> 
> I must of misunderstood you. You said your core temperatures were 10c lower than package temp which is what all the temp programs I am using are reporting as well with this chip. I am using an MSI X99a Gaming 7. What MHZ and vcore are you running at? What are your temps running long term stability testing with prime95, occt, ibt, etc?
> Certainly not what all the censor programs with the 6850k I am using are showing and I constantly monitor them, HwMonitopro, aida64, corsair link, etc. My package temps are always as hot as my hottest core if not hotter, if it was an average it would be lower than the hottest core. I have a few screenshots to show. If what you are saying is correct than this would be impossible.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


You should only use one sensor monitor at a time - they might interfere with each other.


----------



## Oj010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*
> 
> Wouldn't Skylake at least OC better than this? I rather wait on Skylake-E, but that's me..


I've just heard 2018 for Skylake-X


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oj010*
> 
> I've just heard 2018 for Skylake-X


Sigh.... source? Post a link... not just a response.

*edit*

Figured as much.

Were you not the same guy who posted BS about Skylake-X beforehand? I and others asked you for sources and you couldn't provide them.

Q2 2017 is the only semi reputable information I have. I'd love to see this new update of 2018. I'm sure others would as well.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *James702283*
> 
> I must of misunderstood you. You said your core temperatures were 10c lower than package temp which is what all the temp programs I am using are reporting as well with this chip. I am using an MSI X99a Gaming 7. What MHZ and vcore are you running at? What are your temps running long term stability testing with prime95, occt, ibt, etc?
> Certainly not what all the censor programs with the 6850k I am using are showing and I constantly monitor them, HwMonitopro, aida64, corsair link, etc. My package temps are always as hot as my hottest core if not hotter, if it was an average it would be lower than the hottest core. I have a few screenshots to show. If what you are saying is correct than this would be impossible.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


no misunderstanding... my package temps are 10C higher than hottest core under load. Package temp includes other partsof the architecture besides core temp AFAIK.
Lol -I don't use p95, OCCT or IBT. running 4.4 avx 4.2 cache 3.8 ram 3400c14. 1.355V vcore.
using the ATCT, 4.6 lite loads, 4.3 heavy loads. 1.435V/1.281V


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *James702283*
> 
> I must of misunderstood you. You said your core temperatures were 10c lower than package temp which is what all the temp programs I am using are reporting as well with this chip. I am using an MSI X99a Gaming 7. What MHZ and vcore are you running at? What are your temps running long term stability testing with prime95, occt, ibt, etc?
> Certainly not what all the censor programs with the 6850k I am using are showing and I constantly monitor them, HwMonitopro, aida64, corsair link, etc. My package temps are always as hot as my hottest core if not hotter, if it was an average it would be lower than the hottest core. I have a few screenshots to show. If what you are saying is correct than this would be impossible.


It's not possible for your package temp to be lower than your hottest core.... thermally, that doesn't make any sense. As JPM said, package temp is all your cores averaged, PLUS cache, IMC, etc.

There's just no way a package temp can be lower. Furthermore... use ONE temperature monitoring tool. Only one.

Oh my science....


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oj010*
> 
> I've just heard 2018 for Skylake-X


and it will be $9,000 ;-)

FWIW, I've been comparing various xeon setups to my 4.4gHz rig on paper, but with detailed information about all-core boost clocks and real benchmarks included.. I have a much healthier respect for the pricing of the 6950x. Specifically in that it competes with a 14Core CPU when OC'd even to 4.0GHz because it can do that on all cores sustained where the 14 core CPU drops to 3.2 from its 3.6 base without AVX. Throw AVX in there and that all-core boost of the 14 core drops to 2.8/2.9.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Guys I cancelled the gigabyte designare

I noticed it did not have onboard buttons

I am thinking of msi god like carbon


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Guys I cancelled the gigabyte designare
> 
> I noticed it did not have onboard buttons
> 
> I am thinking of msi god like carbon


I wouldn't be... think RVE10


----------



## MerkageTurk

Problem is its not available on amazon and third party sellers are a selling for 600+


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Problem is its not available on amazon and third party sellers are a selling for 600+


Order from Asus.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Where I am from uk


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Where I am from uk


That'll be why you're looking to be spoonfed then lol. That's the RRP, you won't find it much cheaper.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> That'll be why you're looking to be spoonfed then lol. That's the RRP, you won't find it much cheaper.


Lol. You kill me dude.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Okay I checked the Asus website and I was given a few etailers


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Okay I checked the Asus website and I was given a few etailers


It's 2016. There are so many options to obtain that board anywhere in the world. 

You can pay people half way across the world to buy an item and ship it to you for a nominal fee....


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Ok guys, does this look ok, any more tweaking needed?
Overclocking on this board is so different to the MSI one.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Okay can someone order it for me through amazon.com please, I can pay paypal etc
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01FN9QY52/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
$598


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Okay can someone order it for me through amazon.com please, I can pay paypal etc
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01FN9QY52/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
> $598


Not one of us.... a service.


----------



## Silent Scone

LOL


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Okay can someone order it for me through amazon.com please, I can pay paypal etc
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01FN9QY52/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
> $598


they still don't have stock, I just bought a 2nd one from Newegg. Amazon gives you this message if you add the item in your cart. "Usually ships in 1 to 2 months "


----------



## Praz

Hello

Should keep in mind that warranty support is regionalized.


----------



## MerkageTurk

Okay thanks fellow ocn members.


----------



## Scrimstar

i saw maylasia j608c327 batch at MC, are those any good


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MerkageTurk*
> 
> Okay can someone order it for me through amazon.com please, I can pay paypal etc
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01FN9QY52/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
> $598


You can use BorderLinx.
FYI you might have to pay an import fee on top of the shipping fee.


----------



## Jpmboy

here's some interesting results using the ASUS Thermal Control tool. Really allows for much higher light-load clocks:

Asus realbench benchmark
R5E-10, 6950X, 64GB G.Skill Ram, 2x TitanX, Corsair 1500i
[email protected], [email protected], AVX Auto (no freq drop) 1.425V, cache 37 1.255V ram 3400c13 1.425V. package temp max is 81C - waaay too high and it was a sustained temperature (thought I saw 82C on the OSD.



[email protected] [email protected], AVX Auto 1.45V, cache 3.8 1.325V, ram 3400c13 1.425V. ATCT set to drop to [email protected] when T>60C (which it does) Sustained high temp was only 60-65C. Peak was hit for a moment when the encode began... I need to lower the upper limit slightly..
ATCT works like a charm!




















in both cases adaptive vcore idles at 0.757V

the heavy multitasking score says a lot.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> here's some interesting results using the ASUS Thermal Control tool. Really allows for much higher light-load clocks:
> 
> Asus realbench benchmark
> R5E-10, 6950X, 64GB G.Skill Ram, 2x TitanX, Corsair 1500i
> [email protected], [email protected], AVX Auto (no freq drop) 1.425V, cache 37 1.255V ram 3400c13 1.425V. package temp max is 81C - waaay too high and it was a sustained temperature (thought I saw 82C on the OSD.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] [email protected], AVX Auto 1.45V, cache 3.8 1.325V, ram 3400c13 1.425V. ATCT set to drop to [email protected] when T>60C (which it does) Sustained high temp was only 60-65C. Peak was hit for a moment when the encode began... I need to lower the upper limit slightly..
> ATCT works like a charm!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in both cases adaptive vcore idles at 0.757V
> 
> the heavy multitasking score says a lot.


Nice, you didn't do anything with vccsa at all?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the heavy multitasking score says a lot.


Hows this looking?
I've given up hammering CPU's with OCCT, guess my perspective changed when I dropped $1600 into one....lol.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scrimstar*
> 
> i saw maylasia j608c327 batch at MC, are those any good


I have J608C303 and trying to find the lowest voltage for 4.4GHz right now, currently at 1.250v only tested with XTU for now. I hit 4.6GHz at 1.350v but it eventually crashed, I'm sure if I feed it more voltage it will stabilize but going to run it lower for now because I fried my first 6950x. I actually got mine from MC. The first one that I had was a good clocker also but it fried


----------



## djgar

Status of my 6900K / Asus X99-A USB31:


----------



## Oj010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Sigh.... source? Post a link... not just a response.
> 
> *edit*
> 
> Figured as much.
> 
> Were you not the same guy who posted BS about Skylake-X beforehand? I and others asked you for sources and you couldn't provide them.
> 
> Q2 2017 is the only semi reputable information I have. I'd love to see this new update of 2018. I'm sure others would as well.


The only thing I've said about Skylake-X is it'll use LGA2066 which has since been independently confirmed by multiple sites. I said it on 11 June, confirmation hit the internet on 21 June. Other than that I have not commented on the CPU at all.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Nice, you didn't do anything with vccsa at all?


1.08V via 0.132 offset.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Hows this looking?
> I've given up hammering CPU's with OCCT, guess my perspective changed when I dropped $1600 into one....lol.


Looks good to me. Couple RB stability test with HCI memtest and x265 or x264 and you should be good for most any use. Try the ATCT, it works very well.


----------



## aerotracks

First results with 10 core, how does this thing stack up to other chips?

http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160715-160608lfrz2.png
http://abload.de/image.php?img=image_id_1667456s5xpz.png


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aerotracks*
> 
> First results with 10 core, how does this thing stack up to other chips?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160715-160608lfrz2.png
> http://abload.de/image.php?img=image_id_1667456s5xpz.png


looks like a good one.


----------



## rioja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scrimstar*
> 
> i saw maylasia j608c327 batch at MC, are those any good


Don't know how it's good, but I have one sitting in the box


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> Don't know how it's good, but I have one sitting in the box


You will love it! curious to see how far you can OC it.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> You will love it! curious to see how far you can OC it.


This is OCN! He'd better overclock it and tell us about it as well or he can giiit out! (South Park). Hehe.


----------



## rioja

Sure I will try to overclock it soon, just need to assemble my heavy watercooling system









Also I'm interesting how it will handle 8 dimms at freq 3000 or even higher.

Is this batch latest for 6850?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> Sure I will try to overclock it soon, just need to assemble my heavy watercooling system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I'm interesting how it will handle 8 dimms at freq 3000 or even higher.
> 
> Is this batch latest for 6850?


Should be good with 8 dimms at 3000mhz. 3200+ is where it gets tough.


----------



## djgar

Since the last two AIDA64 betas (3908 & 3916) my dimm D1 SPD listing has dropped off. Have any of you using the AIDA64 betas noticed this or something similar in your SPD list? Regressing to the 3900 build restores it. I get a listing with the betas on first install over 3900, but restarting AIDA again loses the D1 dimm's SPD.

I took it up with Fiery and he has an explanation:

"Quite frankly, it's hard to fathom, since by increasing the timeout value it shouldn't get worse but better







So I'm surprised it's happened on your system, although even with the stable build we've seen such issues. We actually wanted to increase the timeout value to make it easier for the Broadwell-E IMC to pick up the SPD registers when the CPU is overclocked. We've never had issues about Haswell-E, so maybe the problem is more related to certain changes in the Broadwell-E IMC. We have to find a new trick to make sure it works in all cases."


----------



## Silent Scone

Those guys are shet hot, they'll figure it out


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 1.08V via 0.132 offset.
> Looks good to me. Couple RB stability test with HCI memtest and x265 or x264 and you should be good for most any use. Try the ATCT, it works very well.


Thanks mate.
I've run x265 about 10 times (64bit, Pmode, 4k, 4x overkill, normal priority), did a 6 hour run of Realbench, will give the others a god today.

I was exactly sure about the voltages, so was double checking they weren't too high and safe, kinda went off the other guys here, gave me a good place to start.

This board when set to adaptive only seem to have offsets, then turbo boost offset, but i guess I'm not in "full manual voltage mode".


----------



## d4nim4l

I haven't done extensive stress testing yet, but I am 1 hour realbench "stable" with my 6900k at 4.5 @ 1.35v, 3.7 cache, and 32gb in quad channel at 3400 (17-18-18-36-2T).

I am using this ram kit: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232296

what kind of timings should I try for at 3400?


----------



## Jpmboy

Time spy Benchmark !

http://www.overclock.net/t/1606006/3d-mark-time-spy-benchmark-top-30/0_20#post_25351132


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Thanks mate.
> I've run x265 about 10 times (64bit, Pmode, 4k, 4x overkill, normal priority), did a 6 hour run of Realbench, will give the others a god today.
> 
> I was exactly sure about the voltages, so was double checking they weren't too high and safe, kinda went off the other guys here, gave me a good place to start.
> 
> This board when set to adaptive only seem to have offsets, then turbo boost offset, but i guess I'm not in "full manual voltage mode".


You and me have left MSI motherboards for same reasons and we feel more happy With ASUS now , don't we ? ?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> You and me have left MSI motherboards for same reasons and we feel more happy With ASUS now , don't we ? ?


Yep, you can see the difference straight off the bat.
I'm sure MSI are good for other platforms (z97, Z107 etc) but just not the goto board for x99..


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d4nim4l*
> 
> I haven't done extensive stress testing yet, but I am 1 hour realbench "stable" with my 6900k at 4.5 @ 1.35v, 3.7 cache, and 32gb in quad channel at 3400 (17-18-18-36-2T).
> 
> I am using this ram kit: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232296
> 
> what kind of timings should I try for at 3400?


I would first stabilise overclock of core and cache With deeper stress test before going into RAM overclock.
First core, then cache and at the end RAM


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d4nim4l*
> 
> I haven't done extensive stress testing yet, but I am 1 hour realbench "stable" with my 6900k at 4.5 @ 1.35v, 3.7 cache, and 32gb in quad channel at 3400 (17-18-18-36-2T).
> 
> I am using this ram kit: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232296
> 
> what kind of timings should I try for at 3400?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I would first stabilise overclock of core and cache With deeper stress test before going into RAM overclock.
> First core, then cache and at the end RAM


Agreed. I would run it for AIDA64 stability test and OCCT for an hour each and see if your still stable. From my experience with my own 6900k, I'm pretty skeptical that you managed to get 4.5 @ 1.35v stable. If so I'm impressed, but I would really make sure its actually stable before trying to go any further.

Also with OC that high your cooling is probably gonna be a concern under load. What are you using?(You should probably put your rig in your signature for convenience







)


----------



## aerotracks

I bought back my very first 2014 MFR kit, if I recall right people in HW-E club thought DDR4 was degrading at 1.8V and more... no it's not:
http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160715-182016jrs7e.png

Swapped for B-Die, but something seems wrong with Realbench. Crashes as soon as I hit login button to submit result








http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160715-235907aqspa.png


----------



## Jpmboy

need bigger pictures.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Time spy Benchmark !
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1606006/3d-mark-time-spy-benchmark-top-30/0_20#post_25351132


I was wondering if you were gonna create it. You did!








Me being dumb and all, I wasted my time downloading it on my main rig... then there was a message basically saying: FU with your W7, no DX12 for u!








Took me some time to DL it again on W10 on my bench rig, god I hate that you can't install DX12 on W7 like we did Dx9c on WinXP back then. No score for my 4930K and 780Ti SLI then.
I shall submit a score with my 5960X & 980Ti soon.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> I was wondering if you were gonna create it. You did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me being dumb and all, I wasted my time downloading it on my main rig... then there was a message basically saying: *FU with your W7, no DX12 for* u!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Took me some time to DL it again on W10 on my bench rig, god I hate that you can't install DX12 on W7 like we did Dx9c on WinXP back then. No score for my 4930K and 780Ti SLI then.
> I shall submit a score with my 5960X & 980Ti soon.


whoa.... I didn't know it would not run on W7. Even with the new 368 driver?

I have to update 3Dmk on my 4960x rig (295x2)


----------



## aerotracks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> need bigger pictures.


right click open in new tab?


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> whoa.... I didn't know it would not run on W7. Even with the new 368 driver?
> 
> I have to update 3Dmk on my 4960x rig (295x2)


It says this, so I guess it's not driver related.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> whoa.... I didn't know it would not run on W7. Even with the new 368 driver?


You were joking right, sometimes I miss what tone you're going for









"Time Spy is a DirectX 12 benchmark test for gaming PCs running Windows 10"

I don't plan to do it until my GTX1080 shows up, the GTX980ti only got 5789....lol..


----------



## d4nim4l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Agreed. I would run it for AIDA64 stability test and OCCT for an hour each and see if your still stable. From my experience with my own 6900k, I'm pretty skeptical that you managed to get 4.5 @ 1.35v stable. If so I'm impressed, but I would really make sure its actually stable before trying to go any further.
> 
> Also with OC that high your cooling is probably gonna be a concern under load. What are you using?(You should probably put your rig in your signature for convenience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Excellent idea on the sig, I'm a noob. Just finished an hour on aida64 cpu/fpu/cache/memory with the settings i mentioned earlier. Smooth sailing so far and no throttling yet, blipped 80C a few times on the hottest core, but mostly the temp peaks are 75C.

I will move on to OCCT next.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> whoa.... I didn't know it would not run on W7. Even with the new 368 driver?
> 
> I have to update 3Dmk on my 4960x rig (295x2)


It's a DX12 benchmark.

Lol, sleeping are we?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aerotracks*
> 
> right click open in new tab?


lol - no need to.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> You were joking right, sometimes I miss what tone you're going for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Time Spy is a DirectX 12 benchmark test for gaming PCs running Windows 10"
> 
> I don't plan to do it until my GTX1080 shows up, the GTX980ti only got 5789....lol..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> It's a DX12 benchmark.
> 
> Lol, sleeping are we?


yeah, yeah... FM could put a patch to it... concern is HWBOT will not likely accept it as a points benchmark.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - no need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, yeah... FM could put a patch to it... concern is HWBOT will not likely accept it as a points benchmark.


I reeeeally doubt that man. The draw calls alone make DX12 necessary.

I think so anyway.


----------



## Silent Scone

It would be pointless even if they did

Best I can do at the moment without an extra two cores







. The CPU test is harder to pass than FireStrike, not that this is saying much.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13288608


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It would be pointless even if they did
> 
> Best I can do at the moment without an extra two cores
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . The CPU test is harder to pass than FireStrike, not that this is saying much.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13288608


yeah - the physics test is more like Skydiver the Firestrike. Should be able toi squeeze a bit more from the 1080 tho... air cooled?


----------



## aerotracks

Tried Time Spy as well, on my lowly 970









http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160716-144521ibsce.png

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13303854


----------



## Jpmboy

obviously physics is only a minor help in time spy.








http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13285989

top 30 *here*


----------



## aerotracks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> top 30 *here*


Quote:


> Only Futuremark "Valid" Results are Acceptable












GTX 970 having a hard time staying on top of R9 290X, so 6950X does in fact do the trick








http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13307917


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## mrkambo

Alright guys, posting from my 6850K build now









Just getting Windows setup, then ill overclock, for now all ive done is enable XMP, which booted fine at [email protected] with no hesitation!

Im hoping thats a good sign!


----------



## rioja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Alright guys, posting from my 6850K build now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just getting Windows setup, then ill overclock, for now all ive done is enable XMP, which booted fine at [email protected] with no hesitation!
> 
> Im hoping thats a good sign!


What voltage and freq mobo set to Cpu when you enabled Xmp?


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> What voltage and freq mobo set to Cpu when you enabled Xmp?


Stock frequency, and its at 1.14v


----------



## rioja

When I enabled my Xmp 3000C15, it also set Cpu strap 125, freq 4000 and 1.25v


----------



## marc0053

I just switched my RVE for a RE10.
Max core and cache clocks for a specific voltage are identical for me between the 2 platforms except the ram i can run 3400 cl14 on the RE10 at 1.45v while the RVE would often bsod at that so had to back down at 3200mhz. I personally love the DAC that comes with the RE10 and the fact it fits in my pc case as opposed to have a modi/magni Schiit combo taking up real estate space on my small desk.

If you're interests are mostly for benchmarking 3D applications such as firestrike, catzilla, 3dmark11 etc. you won't find much difference between your final score between RVE or RE10. 2D benching such as cinebench, xtu and geekbench may see a small improvement tho from better ram frequency/timings


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aerotracks*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GTX 970 having a hard time staying on top of R9 290X, so 6950X does in fact do the trick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13307917
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Yeah - _validation_ so that "exploits" are removed. No Tess or LOD tweaks... yet.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aerotracks*
> 
> Tried Time Spy as well, on my lowly 970
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160716-144521ibsce.png
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13303854


You want to know about lowly GPU, here I am! I think I get top prize for lamest GPU









XFX R7 250E 800MHz 1GB

One main reason I got it was it only takes up one PCI-E slot space, easy on the case airflow.

On other news, Fiery sent me a temp AIDA64 beta 3917 to test the SPD listing situation I was having which worked fine. So they're going back to the settings they had in the 3900 stable entry for Asus X99 SPD in the next official beta. You can't beat this kind of customer support.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> When I enabled my Xmp 3000C15, it also set Cpu strap 125, freq 4000 and 1.25v


That's because 3000mhz cannot be obtained at 100mhz strap.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> I just switched my RVE for a RE10.
> Max core and cache clocks for a specific voltage are identical for me between the 2 platforms except the ram i can run 3400 cl14 on the RE10 at 1.45v while the RVE would often bsod at that so had to back down at 3200mhz. I personally love the DAC that comes with the RE10 and the fact it fits in my pc case as opposed to have a modi/magni Schiit combo taking up real estate space on my small desk.
> 
> If you're interests are mostly for benchmarking 3D applications such as firestrike, catzilla, 3dmark11 etc. you won't find much difference between your final score between RVE or RE10. 2D benching such as cinebench, xtu and geekbench may see a small improvement tho from better ram frequency/timings


So you selling me that RVE fellow Canadian brother? Hehe.


----------



## Silent Scone

Just purchased a 6950X. I think I genuinely have some kind of problem.


----------



## jdc122

sick of gigabyte, 2nd dead board now, z97 soc force and now x99 soc champion arriving with bent pins. anyone recommend an Edition 10 for replacement?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Just purchased a 6950X. I think I genuinely have some kind of problem.


Just declare bankruptcy and it will work out


----------



## mrkambo

ok so

4.3GHz - 1.29v
[email protected] - 1.35v

havent touched anything else, its been XTU stable for about 40 minutes or so.

I could get 4.4/4.5 to boot but couldnt get it stable, also once i reached 1.37v, i got to the point where temps were little high, i was hitting 80C on 4/6 cores, bit too high for my liking.

Also i cant get realbench to run, keeps telling me that AVIFIL32.dll is missing, but have no idea where to obtain it!


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> That's because 3000mhz cannot be obtained at 100mhz strap.


Hello

Works fine for me and other people as well.


----------



## kingofsorrow

Is there noticeable difference in games between the 5960x and 6950x? I'm still on i7 [email protected] 4.7ghz... If anything - I might go for the 6950x in September.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Works fine for me and other people as well.


Hmph I thought 3000mhz was 125mhz only. My mistake.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Hmph I thought 3000mhz was 125mhz only. My mistake.


For Haswel-E that is still true although asus has done a lot of work to get it working for HWE. On other board's it still might not be attainable. For BWE i think 3000Mhz can be done on 100strap across all boards. not 100% on that though


----------



## alawadhi3000

On HW-E best I could get is 2800MHz CL14, that needed about 1.2V, 2933MHz was like 99.9% stable at ~1.25V VCCSA, switching to 125MHz strap made things much easier, 3000MHz CL14 @ 1.1V VCCSA.
On BW-E 3000MHz is super easy on the 100MHz strap, only ~1.05V VCCSA.

YMMV, all done on my ASUS X99 Deluxe with latest BIOS.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Just purchased a 6950X. I think I genuinely have some kind of problem.


Are you keeping the 6900k as well or replacing it with the 6950x? If so, you may have problems.









I keep going back and forth on whether I'm going to repurchase the 6950x. I continue to monitor this thread hoping to hear of improvements.


----------



## rioja

Cpu strap 125 is set by R5E10 when activating XMP profile 3000C15


----------



## mrkambo

Just a quick update, moved onto x264 stress test, and yeah I'm now currently at 1.330v 4.3GHz

Appears I have a very average cpu, hoping to get this stable at 4.3


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> Cpu strap 125 is set by R5E10 when activating XMP profile 3000C15


That is because the kit would have been binned on Haswell-E with 1.25 as this is the most stable strap for this ratio.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Are you keeping the 6900k as well or replacing it with the 6950x? If so, you may have problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep going back and forth on whether I'm going to repurchase the 6950x. I continue to monitor this thread hoping to hear of improvements.


I will keep it as a spare. Not sure what you mean by problems.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I will keep it as a spare. Not sure what you mean by problems.


Exactly.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Just purchased a 6950X. I think I genuinely have some kind of problem.


I've been thinking about that too, by a problem you mean you can't steer away from Extreme processors?







If so, I think I have a problem too..I have a few Extreme-processors as 'spares' on other platforms. I am kind of waiting for some kind of a deal on 6950X, the lowest I have seen over here is around 1700€ including shipping. Also my old R5E and RAM need a processor anyway, so 6900K would be good there.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Just a quick update, moved onto x264 stress test, and yeah I'm now currently at 1.330v 4.3GHz
> 
> Appears I have a very average cpu, hoping to get this stable at 4.3


So still constant watchdog timeouts

Upped input voltage to 1.9v testing again.....


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> That is because the kit would have been binned on Haswell-E with 1.25 as this is the most stable strap for this ratio.
> I will keep it as a spare. Not sure what you mean by problems.


Like paying the rent?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> That is because the kit would have been binned on Haswell-E with 1.25 as this is the most stable strap for this ratio.
> I will keep it as a spare. Not sure what you mean by problems.


Weird thing is when i installed my ripjaw's v 3000Mhz cl15 on skylake the xmp set to 100 strap and HWE it's 1.25. ?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Exactly.


Oh, I get what you mean now. Sorry I was really slow on the uptake there lol.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> For Haswel-E that is still true although asus has done a lot of work to get it working for HWE. On other board's it still might not be attainable. For BWE i think 3000Mhz can be done on 100strap across all boards. not 100% on that though


This would be why I thought only 125mhz strap worked for 3000mhz... lol.

I'm a wannabe BW-E'er.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Weird thing is when i installed my ripjaw's v 3000Mhz cl15 on skylake the xmp set to 100 strap and HWE it's 1.25. ?


Not sure in truth, it's possible for vendors to program other values into SPD


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Not sure in truth, it's possible for vendors to program other values into SPD


That's sound's more plausible. I was thinking maybe it could be something with the chip set but i have no idea, just guessing.


----------



## mrkambo

Right im struggling now, can anyone help me out here, i cant seem to figure out what it needs!

Watchog timeout error, but its really inconsistant, sometimes it'll do it 30 seconds into stressing or 30 minutes



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Right im struggling now, can anyone help me out here, i cant seem to figure out what it needs!
> 
> Watchog timeout error, but its really inconsistant, sometimes it'll do it 30 seconds into stressing or 30 minutes
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Try adjusting CPU VIN and VIN vdroop.

Less vdroop see if that help's if not try upping it to 1.92vccin-1.95vccin. If all that dosent work it's most likely vcore.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Try adjusting CPU VIN and VIN vdroop.
> 
> Less vdroop see if that help's if not try upping it to 1.92vccin-1.95vccin. If all that dosent work it's most likely vcore.


Tried it and it BSOD'd

So just set it to 1.4v vcore and 1.9v VIN


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> That's because 3000mhz cannot be obtained at 100mhz strap.
> So you selling me that RVE fellow Canadian brother? Hehe.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> For Haswel-E that is still true although asus has done a lot of work to get it working for HWE. On other board's it still might not be attainable. For BWE i think 3000Mhz can be done on 100strap across all boards. not 100% on that though


Can do 3000 on HW and BW here with 8 dimms @ 100BCLK.

BWE was easy. F5, XMP, manually set BCLK/DDR to 100/3000 and go
HWE much less so, but eventually got there with enough SA.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Can do 3000 on HW and BW here with 8 dimms @ 100BCLK.
> 
> BWE was easy. F5, XMP, manually set BCLK/DDR to 100/3000 and go
> HWE much less so, but eventually got there with enough SA.


On what motherboard?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> On what motherboard?


RVE "classsic" ;-)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 1.08V via 0.132 offset.
> Looks good to me. Couple RB stability test with HCI memtest and x265 or x264 and you should be good for most any use. Try the ATCT, it works very well.


Did another RB 6 hour test, x265 and x264, restarts in between to test VCCSA, will do the HCI memtest now.
I know it's not as high as you guys go, once I get some custom watercooling on it I'll give it more of a push, for now max temps are about 73c, but that's not a consistent temp, it generally hovers around 65c - 68c in the more stressful benchmarks/stresstests.

You can see the big difference a 950 Pro makes too, everyday usage is a lot more snappy.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Did another RB 6 hour test, x265 and x264, restarts in between to test VCCSA, will do the HCI memtest now.


Hello

A 4 to 6 hour encode with HandBrake is also a good test of stability.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Just purchased a 6950X. I think I genuinely have some kind of problem.


yup... you got it. Contagious for sure.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Oh, I get what you mean now. Sorry I was really slow on the uptake there lol.


It's price shock and conjuring up a good story to tell the wife... very distracting.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> It's price shock and conjuring up a good story to tell the wife... very distracting.


The whole "I think I ordered the wrong one" doesn't work?
My wife isn't very computer savvy so I've managed to use that one so far, well it's what I used to get the 6900k, she just would of killed me if I dropped the $2500 on the 6950x though because she wanted a $1000 Pug puppy,.
She got it..


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> The whole "I think I ordered the wrong one" doesn't work?
> My wife isn't very computer savvy so I've managed to use that one so far, well it's what I used to get the 6900k, she just would of killed me if I dropped the $2500 on the 6950x though because she wanted a $1000 Pug puppy,.
> She got it..


You should make it your avatar and get brownie points


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> The whole "I think I ordered the wrong one" doesn't work?
> My wife isn't very computer savvy so I've managed to use that one so far, well it's what I used to get the 6900k, she just would of killed me if I dropped the $2500 on the 6950x though because she wanted a $1000 Pug puppy,.
> She got it..


puppies are good! we just got another Corgi... ridiculous cute!


----------



## Kimir

I'd love to get one, a 6950X I mean, not a puppy (I'm more of a kitty guy). I just can't afford it.








First world problem, I know.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> puppies are good! we just got another Corgi... ridiculous cute!


Trying not to go too much ot,
But here is the $1000 I could of spent to get a 6950x, she is cute though...lol..


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Trying not to go too much ot,
> But here is the $1000 I could of spent to get a 6950x, she is cute though...lol..


Definitely cute! And you get to play catch instead of cache!


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Right im struggling now, can anyone help me out here, i cant seem to figure out what it needs!
> 
> Watchog timeout error, but its really inconsistant, sometimes it'll do it 30 seconds into stressing or 30 minutes
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


EVGA Board... that's why lol.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Trying not to go too much ot,
> But here is the $1000 I could of spent to get a 6950x, she is cute though...lol..


$1k to a puppy mill... greaat.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Trying not to go too much ot,
> But here is the $1000 I could of spent to get a 6950x, she is cute though...lol..


$1k to a puppy mill.... or breeder?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> EVGA Board... that's why lol.
> $1k to a puppy mill... greaat.


Registered breeder, we saw her papers when we singed the transfer of ownership, but because she was from another state its a hassle to register her here with the canine council, and you don't need to if she's just going to be a pet, though have have to register her with the local council.
The breeder drove 4 hours to get her to us.
We were just waiting until the 2 little ones got a bit older before getting a new pup.

My wife and her mother years ago used to breed and show English staffies, she's got the inside know how....lol...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Registered breeder, we saw her papers when we singed the transfer of ownership, but because she was from another state its a hassle to register her here, the breeder drove 4 hours to get her to us.
> We were just waiting until the 2 little ones got a bit older before getting a new pup.
> 
> My wife and her mother years ago used to breed and show English staffies, she's got the inside know how....lol...


That's super good news. I have a thing for puppy mills. Registered breeders all the way.

That breeder seems like a keeper too. Drove 4 hours? That's amazing. Speaks to her quality as a breeder.

Glad you're happy with the little one. She is cute as hell. Worth it over a 6950x for sure.


----------



## cekim

This thread has gone to the dogs...

Here's a fun one for you... Just came back after 2 weeks away... Threw in 10T of new HDD (2x1TB SATA SSD and 2x8/8 mirror SATA HDD) and it is throwing memory errors ALL... OVER....THE...PLACE....

Typing this now as stressapp is running without issue, but guess what I just unplugged? So, er, um, ah, the SATA ports in the PCH are munging DMI??? Didn't expect that.

I found this because a 2TB copy after raid/format setup froze the machine. Rebooted and ran stressapp and errors right away.

PSU is a 1600 P2, so system-wide droop should not be an issue. Going to plug things back in one by one now.

EDIT: 2x1T SSD raid0 are back in without issue:
/dev/md126 1.9T 77M 1.8T 1%

On to spinning platter dino-drive...
ok, call Rod Seriling, now everything works?
/dev/md126 1.9T 77M 1.8T 1% /xxxx
/dev/md124 7.3T 120G 6.8T 2% /xxxx

hmmm, I recall the first time I only spun up one drive because the power connector was 3/4 the way in. I fixed that and rebooted. Best guess is it must have bounced (yikes!) during training and it took a power-hold force-off reboot to clear that training...

All's well that ends well? Or gremlins in the waiting?


----------



## Kimir

That's interesting.
I have all my intel sata port populated right now. I guess I could try again GSAT with c13-13-13 instead of 13-14-13 but with all the other sata unplugged.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> That's interesting.
> I have all my intel sata port populated right now. I guess I could try again GSAT with c13-13-13 instead of 13-14-13 but with all the other sata unplugged.


SSD or HDD?

I'm thinking this was a transient electrical issue caused by an intermittent connection at boot time, but I could be wrong... I've had all ports occupied by SSD, but until now, I've not had HDD in this system at all. I've kept spinning disks on backup, NAS or disk servers of various sorts in some other room.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> SSD or HDD?
> 
> I'm thinking this was a transient electrical issue caused by an intermittent connection at boot time, but I could be wrong... I've had all ports occupied by SSD, but until now, I've not had HDD in this system at all. I've kept spinning disks on backup, NAS or disk servers of various sorts in some other room.


All SSDs, cost me nothing to try.








Yeah I keep HDDs for my NAS, 10x 3To in Raid 5 in there already and a box of 10 as backup. My regular rig still has a 2To drive in there, but not the bench table.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Hey guys quick question

What is additional turbo mode cpu core voltage, I have the cpu core voltage set to adaptive, +0.001, but making any changes to additional turbo does seem to do anything.

Machine is stable with the current settings, but I was just curious what it was exactly, and the best setting for it.


----------



## Kimir

In adaptive mode, you set the _target_ voltage you want, not set an offset. Say you want 1.3v, you set 1.3v in the "Additional Turbo Mode CPU Voltage".


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> In adaptive mode, you set the _target_ voltage you want, not set an offset. Say you want 1.3v, you set 1.3v in the "Additional Turbo Mode CPU Voltage".


I thought so, funny thing is I set 1.26v, but CPU-Z is reading 1.271v, I'm guessing that's because I'm using LLC 6?

(I'm fine tuning today, ie fiddling..lol)


----------



## djgar

Make sure you back up that RAID 0 often - no redundancy and if one drive goes, all is gone!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> In adaptive mode, you set the _target_ voltage you want, not set an offset. Say you want 1.3v, you set 1.3v in the "Additional Turbo Mode CPU Voltage".


As I understood it, the stand-by voltage is the offset (starting point with no real CPU load, small like 0.01v, then that plus the turbo volts becomes the max vcore. If turbo was 1.3 then max vcore at 100% cpu would be 1.31v. But I may be wrong ...


----------



## rioja

What max freq of memory can broadwell-e handle? Is 3400 maximum, no matter what chips, Hynix or Samsung?


----------



## aerotracks

3466 on 100 strap working fine here, haven't tried more


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> What max freq of memory can broadwell-e handle? Is 3400 maximum, no matter what chips, Hynix or Samsung?


Hello

If interested in 24/7 settings keep an eye on the thread below.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread


----------



## rioja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aerotracks*
> 
> 3466 on 100 strap working fine here, haven't tried more


Great result









What timings and which modules?


----------



## aerotracks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> Great result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What timings and which modules?


Timings I'm running right now is triple 14 in primaries at 1.45V. I'm using 2 sets of these:
G.Skill F4-3600C17D-16GVK
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232184&cm_re=ripjaws_v_3600-_-20-232-184-_-Product

I haven't really dialled in IMC voltages yet, known good values from my 5960X didn't work here, so I'm running auto on these. I guess that's due to the OC socket boost missing on broadwell.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Trying not to go too much ot,
> But here is the $1000 I could of spent to get a 6950x, she is cute though...lol..


too cute!

here's our little guy and his uncle:



sorry for the OT ... but there's no OP anyway.


----------



## Silent Scone

Sleeping in the same room as your Uncle. Weird.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Sleeping in the same room as your Uncle. Weird.


lol - and it does not matter whether which bathroom you use.


----------



## djgar

Yes indeed, it is a dog's world! I'm thinking my IMC is a dog ... Actually I've been too chicken to up the DIMM volts over 1.41. I had a set of Geil Potenzas go at 1.41 and left a mental scar ...


----------



## Silent Scone

lol, there's nothing wrong with your IMC?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Make sure you back up that RAID 0 often - no redundancy and if one drive goes, all is gone!


ayep, not to worry, I have multiple backups, revision control, etc... the raid0 is just there to go fast at run-time. I had switched away from 4xSATA SSD raid0 to a PCIe M.2 drive for that, but that turned out to cost me some expansion (PCIe) slots that hurt much more than the incremental, benchmark only gains I got from M.2. So, I'm going back to SATA/raid0 for now. The mix of ludicrous sized file streaming and random access makes it tough to paper benchmark real-world impact to what I do, so I just have to try.

This is in part why I wanted local spinning disk as an intermediate high-speed backup, but ultimately everything I care about gets written to multiple places via NAS and then from there potentially backed up again depending on what it is.


----------



## sblantipodi

what are the main difference in overclocking between Haswell-E and Broadwell-E?
Is there someone who owned both CPUs and can list the differences?

Do broadwell-e need less voltage? Is it hotter than Haswell-E?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sblantipodi*
> 
> what are the main difference in overclocking between Haswell-E and Broadwell-E?
> Is there someone who owned both CPUs and can list the differences?
> 
> Do broadwell-e need less voltage? Is it hotter than Haswell-E?


1. more voltage: yes, particularly when you consider absolute GHz you will obtain for any given voltage

2. hotter: no, particularly per core and particularly when you consider the above. A 1.35V HWE would generally be harder to cool than a 1.35V BWE

main difference is narrower range of OC until you get to ludicrous voltages that you should not be using for 24/7.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sblantipodi*
> 
> Is there someone who owned both CPUs and can list the differences?


Hello

I have both and yes I could but ....


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> 1. more voltage: yes, particularly when you consider absolute GHz you will obtain for any given voltage
> 
> 2. hotter: no, particularly per core and particularly when you consider the above. A 1.35V HWE would generally be harder to cool than a 1.35V BWE
> 
> main difference is narrower range of OC until you get to ludicrous voltages that you should not be using for 24/7.


Cache overclock on BWE seems to be also much more difficutl than with HWE


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> I have both and yes I could but ....


Cue droll dull posts about how disappointing an upgrade it is, and how nobody is answering the misguided questions. Finally, followed by several months of sporadic posts telling other users not to bother.

People have been shot for less.


----------



## jonathan13

So it has been several weeks since I posted a photo of my Deluxe II and 6850k. Over the weeks, I have changed the board for an MSI Gaming Pro Carbon, and have had 3 different gtx 1080's. I have finally settled on an EVGA FTW. I switched from the Deluxe II board to the MSI because the lighting on the Deluxe II was faulty among many other quirks and issues.

I just began overclocking tonight and I am seeing just about what everyone else is reporting. I hit 4.3ghz without much effort, but I have been unable to get a stable 4.4ghz as of yet. I feel like when I have more time to mess with it, I could probably achieve 4.4ghz, but it is very hard to make time to dial it in and I also don't want to cook this chip with a ton of voltage since it is the most expensive CPU I have ever owned.

At 4.3ghz, I am able to achieve 1322 in Cinebench R15. I've been letting AIDA64 run for a little over an hour now, and so far everything has been stable. I will probably run a longer stability test once I settle on voltages. Right now I am at 1.300, but I think with a little tweaking I can get it under 1.3.

Overall, unlike many, I am very happy with my chip. With that being said, this is my first X99 build, so I have a feeling I would be a bit more let down if I had come from a 5930k. I realize I am taking a VERY slight performance hit in gaming, coming from a 6700k (4.7ghz), but it is worth it to me.

Just wanted to stop by and share my experience thus far.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonathan13*
> 
> I switched from the Deluxe II board to the MSI because the lighting on the Deluxe II was faulty among many other quirks and issues.
> .


Care to expand on this?


----------



## jonathan13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Care to expand on this?


So the issues I had with the Deluxe II started with hangs on boot. At first I wrote it off as needing to update the BIOS. I then updated the BIOS and installed all of the necessary drivers, which did not help.

The boot issues were very odd. Sometimes it wouldn't boot at all and hang on a blank screen (error light on the board pointed to my video card being the problem). Sometimes it would boot, but it would take over a minute to do so. Sometimes it would boot loop, and finally, sometimes it would boot all the way to the Windows login screen and then reboot before I could enter my password. I did try reseating the video card as well as moving the RAM around and neither helped. I also tried updating the BIOS again which did not help.

I then started messing with the RGB lighting, and the PCH would not change color no matter what I did. It was stuck at the default color which meant it was kind of pointless to have RGB at all since the default color was red. Sometimes the PCIe slots would also not respond to the changes I made inside the Aura software. Also, I didn't realize this before I bought the board, but the lighting stays on even when the computer is off. The only way to turn the lighting off was to flip the switch on my power supply. The issue with that is the motherboard would not save your color selections after turning off the power supply. Incredibly frustrating when this board cost over $400.

I contacted Asus support and explained my issues and what I had already tried to do to remedy the problems I was having. They sent back a message asking me to try what I just told them I had. They weren't asking me to try it AGAIN- their response read as though they had not even read what I told them about my troubleshooting. Upon explaining to them I had already done what they suggested multiple times, they replied with a link to a BIOS to download and asked that I try that. Upon opening the link, it wasn't even the correct BIOS for my board!

At that point, I just gave up and sent the board back for a refund. It's a shame because it was a very feature rich board with tons of accessories. I wish I could have gotten the issues fixed, but after they suggested I update the BIOS with a BIOS from a different board, I lost it. I thought to myself that even if I RMA this board and get a functional one, do I want to have a $400+ motherboard that comes with some of the worst support I had ever encountered.

I ordered the Gaming Pro Carbon, and it has run flawlessly from day one.


----------



## greg1184

I decided to settle with 4.3 ghz / 1.278v. I upped the cache to 3.5ghz. The ~200 points for 3dmark and 30-40 points on cinebench is not worth the amount of time, energy, and volts to stabilize 4.4. ... at least until I get a second radiator.









Now to wait for my step up 1080 to get off queue.


----------



## sblantipodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> 1. more voltage: yes, particularly when you consider absolute GHz you will obtain for any given voltage
> 
> 2. hotter: no, particularly per core and particularly when you consider the above. A 1.35V HWE would generally be harder to cool than a 1.35V BWE
> 
> main difference is narrower range of OC until you get to ludicrous voltages that you should not be using for 24/7.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Cache overclock on BWE seems to be also much more difficutl than with HWE


Thank you guys


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonathan13*
> 
> So the issues I had with the Deluxe II started with hangs on boot. At first I wrote it off as needing to update the BIOS. I then updated the BIOS and installed all of the necessary drivers, which did not help.
> 
> The boot issues were very odd. Sometimes it wouldn't boot at all and hang on a blank screen (error light on the board pointed to my video card being the problem). Sometimes it would boot, but it would take over a minute to do so. Sometimes it would boot loop, and finally, sometimes it would boot all the way to the Windows login screen and then reboot before I could enter my password. I did try reseating the video card as well as moving the RAM around and neither helped. I also tried updating the BIOS again which did not help.
> 
> I then started messing with the RGB lighting, and the PCH would not change color no matter what I did. It was stuck at the default color which meant it was kind of pointless to have RGB at all since the default color was red. Sometimes the PCIe slots would also not respond to the changes I made inside the Aura software. Also, I didn't realize this before I bought the board, but the lighting stays on even when the computer is off. The only way to turn the lighting off was to flip the switch on my power supply. The issue with that is the motherboard would not save your color selections after turning off the power supply. Incredibly frustrating when this board cost over $400.
> 
> I contacted Asus support and explained my issues and what I had already tried to do to remedy the problems I was having. They sent back a message asking me to try what I just told them I had. They weren't asking me to try it AGAIN- their response read as though they had not even read what I told them about my troubleshooting. Upon explaining to them I had already done what they suggested multiple times, they replied with a link to a BIOS to download and asked that I try that. Upon opening the link, it wasn't even the correct BIOS for my board!
> 
> At that point, I just gave up and sent the board back for a refund. It's a shame because it was a very feature rich board with tons of accessories. I wish I could have gotten the issues fixed, but after they suggested I update the BIOS with a BIOS from a different board, I lost it. I thought to myself that even if I RMA this board and get a functional one, do I want to have a $400+ motherboard that comes with some of the worst support I had ever encountered.
> 
> I ordered the Gaming Pro Carbon, and it has run flawlessly from day one.


I'm glad i never have these strange problem, guess I'm just really lucky...


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonathan13*
> 
> So the issues I had with the Deluxe II started with hangs on boot. At first I wrote it off as needing to update the BIOS. I then updated the BIOS and installed all of the necessary drivers, which did not help.
> 
> The boot issues were very odd. Sometimes it wouldn't boot at all and hang on a blank screen (error light on the board pointed to my video card being the problem). Sometimes it would boot, but it would take over a minute to do so. Sometimes it would boot loop, and finally, sometimes it would boot all the way to the Windows login screen and then reboot before I could enter my password. I did try reseating the video card as well as moving the RAM around and neither helped. I also tried updating the BIOS again which did not help.
> 
> I then started messing with the RGB lighting, and the PCH would not change color no matter what I did. It was stuck at the default color which meant it was kind of pointless to have RGB at all since the default color was red. Sometimes the PCIe slots would also not respond to the changes I made inside the Aura software. Also, I didn't realize this before I bought the board, but the lighting stays on even when the computer is off. The only way to turn the lighting off was to flip the switch on my power supply. The issue with that is the motherboard would not save your color selections after turning off the power supply. Incredibly frustrating when this board cost over $400.
> 
> I contacted Asus support and explained my issues and what I had already tried to do to remedy the problems I was having. They sent back a message asking me to try what I just told them I had. They weren't asking me to try it AGAIN- their response read as though they had not even read what I told them about my troubleshooting. Upon explaining to them I had already done what they suggested multiple times, they replied with a link to a BIOS to download and asked that I try that. Upon opening the link, it wasn't even the correct BIOS for my board!
> 
> At that point, I just gave up and sent the board back for a refund. It's a shame because it was a very feature rich board with tons of accessories. I wish I could have gotten the issues fixed, but after they suggested I update the BIOS with a BIOS from a different board, I lost it. I thought to myself that even if I RMA this board and get a functional one, do I want to have a $400+ motherboard that comes with some of the worst support I had ever encountered.
> 
> I ordered the Gaming Pro Carbon, and it has run flawlessly from day one.


When I shut down the computer, My Deluxe II has still lightning working .
To have lightning off , I have also to Turn off the switch of the powerful supply...

This is not an issue .....


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> too cute!
> 
> here's our little guy and his uncle:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry for the OT ... but there's no OP anyway.


Cute little pup, he looks like a larrican.
We're getting ours used to a crate too, she went well the first night, she's now learnt to whinge if she needs to go to the toilet, though Pugs are hard to toilet train, they are the type of dog if they don't wanna do it they won't...lol

Finally done the stress testing, quiet happy with [email protected] core and 3.4Ghz cache, I tried lower voltages but no go.


----------



## Silent Scone

6950X has arrived, let's hope it's a good one.


----------



## aerotracks

4.4 isn't happening at 30C water I don't think, Realbench next








http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160718-041616c6xth.png


----------



## Silent Scone

4.3 at 1.28v on the 10 core, I would be happy with this. I'll be working at similar temperatures also


----------



## aerotracks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 4.3 at 1.28v on the 10 core, I would be happy with this. I'll be working at similar temperatures also


I am more than happy with it. For comparison, this Broadwell fares better than my first 5960X, I dug out a screenshot:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



http://abload.de/image.php?img=5960x_4.3_3.8_1.295asng.jpg



Did you pop in your 6950X yet?


----------



## CerN

AI-suite is not safe at all.

I have my Vcore at 1,38v. Everything stable and fine. I decided I wanted to try to lower my System Agent offset a tad with AI-suite, which was all I touched in it. BAM: Vcore flew up to 1.57, by lowering the System Agent Offset from 0.300 to 0.280... What the heck...

I killed the power. Went into BIOS, set System Agent Offset to 0.280 manually. Everything is OK now.


----------



## jonathan13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> When I shut down the computer, My Deluxe II has still lightning working .
> To have lightning off , I have also to Turn off the switch of the powerful supply...
> 
> This is not an issue .....


I never said it was an issue. I stated that I did not realize the lighting worked in that way before I purchased it. Also, I pointed it out because it is a $400 motherboard that should be able to retain it's color selection after a loss of power. It is just a bad implementation of RGB.


----------



## jonathan13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'm glad i never have these strange problem, guess I'm just really lucky...


I would say that I am probably just the unlucky one.







I have not seen anyone else have issues with that board.

EDIT: Sorry for not combining my two posts guys!! It's too early.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aerotracks*
> 
> I am more than happy with it. For comparison, this Broadwell fares better than my first 5960X, I dug out a screenshot:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://abload.de/image.php?img=5960x_4.3_3.8_1.295asng.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Did you pop in your 6950X yet?


Not till this evening, have ordered some Thermal Grizzly also, but may go without and use EK's offering. Never had any issues with their stuff.


----------



## p4444

Just bought a 6850k to pair it up with a ASRock X99M Killer 3.1

Its been a while since I have done any overclocking. Is there anyone around with experience with Broadwell-E and ASRock motherboards to help me a little?

I have posted here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1606198/help-me-overclock-6850k-asrock-x99m-killer-3-1

Thanks!


----------



## Kimir

Post some screenshots of the ASRock bios in your thread, so someone with an Asus board could also help you.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Cache overclock on BWE seems to be also much more difficutl than with HWE


Oh, its really simple. It just doesn't happen. ;-)

You can have 3.8, 3.8 or 3.8... Even then you might need a fair amount of voltage.

For most use-cases I'd expect 3.5 to be easy, sufficient and not require ludicrous voltage. Some of the weenie reviewers complained about the power consumption even at that level (and they weren't wrong), but with good water/AIO cooling, even really good air, you shouldn't have to fight hard for 3.5 and it will give you good performance.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Not till this evening, have ordered some Thermal Grizzly also, but may go without and use EK's offering. Never had any issues with their stuff.


Yep, seems to work well enough...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Oh, its really simple. It just doesn't happen. ;-)
> 
> You can have 3.8, 3.8 or 3.8... Even then you might need a fair amount of voltage.
> 
> For most use-cases I'd expect 3.5 to be easy, sufficient and not require ludicrous voltage. Some of the weenie reviewers complained about the power consumption even at that level (and they weren't wrong), but with good water/AIO cooling, even really good air, you shouldn't have to fight hard for 3.5 and it will give you good performance.


From what I see BW-E still kills a HW-E with cache at 3.5-3.8 with the competing HW-E doing 4.4 and still not reaching the same level of bandwidth.

According to all the AIDA64 screens I've seen anyway.


----------



## tistou77

For those who have tested H-E and BW-E, a 3.8GHz Cache for BW-E corresponds to how much for H-E ?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> From what I see BW-E still kills a HW-E with cache at 3.5-3.8 with the competing HW-E doing 4.4 and still not reaching the same level of bandwidth.
> 
> According to all the AIDA64 screens I've seen anyway.


Yep, maybe.
But is seriously "kills" the sales and technical argument from ASUS for example concerning the OC socket motherboards....

Should be intresting to get feedback on cache BWE overclocks on "non OC motherboards"


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> For those who have tested H-E and BW-E, a 3.8GHz Cache for BW-E corresponds to how much for H-E ?


Hard to isolate it that way... Cache tends to show itself in synthetics and HPC far less so than games, or other applications.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Oh, its really simple. It just doesn't happen. ;-)
> 
> You can have 3.8, 3.8 or 3.8... Even then you might need a fair amount of voltage.
> 
> For most use-cases I'd expect 3.5 to be easy, sufficient and not require ludicrous voltage. Some of the weenie reviewers complained about the power consumption even at that level (and they weren't wrong), but with good water/AIO cooling, even really good air, you shouldn't have to fight hard for 3.5 and it will give you good performance.


NOt sure INtel was 100% happy with the OC socket on HWE.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonathan13*
> 
> So the issues I had with the Deluxe II started with hangs on boot. At first I wrote it off as needing to update the BIOS. I then updated the BIOS and installed all of the necessary drivers, which did not help.
> 
> The boot issues were very odd. Sometimes it wouldn't boot at all and hang on a blank screen (error light on the board pointed to my video card being the problem). Sometimes it would boot, but it would take over a minute to do so. Sometimes it would boot loop, and finally, sometimes it would boot all the way to the Windows login screen and then reboot before I could enter my password. I did try reseating the video card as well as moving the RAM around and neither helped. I also tried updating the BIOS again which did not help.
> 
> I then started messing with the RGB lighting, and the PCH would not change color no matter what I did. It was stuck at the default color which meant it was kind of pointless to have RGB at all since the default color was red. Sometimes the PCIe slots would also not respond to the changes I made inside the Aura software. Also, I didn't realize this before I bought the board, but the lighting stays on even when the computer is off. The only way to turn the lighting off was to flip the switch on my power supply. The issue with that is the motherboard would not save your color selections after turning off the power supply. Incredibly frustrating when this board cost over $400.
> 
> I contacted Asus support and explained my issues and what I had already tried to do to remedy the problems I was having. They sent back a message asking me to try what I just told them I had. They weren't asking me to try it AGAIN- their response read as though they had not even read what I told them about my troubleshooting. Upon explaining to them I had already done what they suggested multiple times, they replied with a link to a BIOS to download and asked that I try that. Upon opening the link, it wasn't even the correct BIOS for my board!
> 
> At that point, I just gave up and sent the board back for a refund. It's a shame because it was a very feature rich board with tons of accessories. I wish I could have gotten the issues fixed, but after they suggested I update the BIOS with a BIOS from a different board, I lost it. I thought to myself that even if I RMA this board and get a functional one, do I want to have a $400+ motherboard that comes with some of the worst support I had ever encountered.
> 
> I ordered the Gaming Pro Carbon, and it has run flawlessly from day one.


I discovered the Asus AURA software to be pretty useless, and had the exact problem you had with the lighting settings not being saved after turning off the PSU(which as you say is necessary to turn off the motherboard lighting). Also I found if you try to sync the MB RGBs with the RGB header strip, you would have to uncheck the "sync" option, apply, recheck it, and apply again in the AURA software. However, if you change the lighting settings in the BIOS, then your settings are saved just fine, even if you turn off the power supply, and everything is synced by default.

If you tried to contact Asus support about this issue I can see why you would be frustrated, as there is no real resolution and their support techs probably just gave you the general troubleshooting rundown. My experience with Asus phone support was about as smooth as you could hope for. First Deluxe II I got was DOA and wouldn't post. They helped me troubleshoot as much as was possible until it was determined to be mobo failure, which I then RMA'd through Newegg. Haven't had any trouble with this 2nd board beyond the RGB nonsense, which isn't so bad once you decide on lighting settings you like and want to leave them that way.

Also just FYI for anyone else with a Deluxe II, the newer 0801 bios only really improves stability issues with the included usb 3.1 card according to Asus support. So if you were looking for overclocking gains from 0601 -> 0801 its probably better to stick with what you've got unless you were having issues with the 3.1 card.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Yep, maybe.
> But is seriously "kills" the sales and technical argument from ASUS for example concerning the OC socket motherboards....
> 
> Should be intresting to get feedback on cache BWE overclocks on "non OC motherboards"


The "ASUS argument" was much more compelling, as in hands-down with the OC socket. It was a binary differentiator. I still think they have a better board and UI than MSI or EVGA, but now you need to look closer...


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Hard to isolate it that way... Cache tends to show itself in synthetics and HPC far less so than games, or other applications.


The difference can be seen with the bandwidth of AIDA64 for example (even if it is a little biased with the architectural difference) ?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Yep, maybe.
> But is seriously "kills" the sales and technical argument from ASUS for example concerning the OC socket motherboards....
> 
> Should be intresting to get feedback on cache BWE overclocks on "non OC motherboards"


Absolutely. They should put a disclaimer somewhere that the OC socket doesn't do much for BW-E.

I would love to see some tests on a board without the extra pins. Any EVGA Board will do... lol. I believe there is a poor soul with an EVGA Board in here. We should see if he will try out a few tests for us all.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> NOt sure INtel was 100% happy with the OC socket on HWE.


I would not be the least bit surprised to see them blowing some fuses in the chip or just not routing over this.... (to explicitly block this)

[EDIT: Praz mooted my question/ponder with some info... the didn't block it]

They seem to run their xeon chips ludicrously cautious relative to what we know even lower quartile binned i7's can do (in terms of all-core turbo and clock rates).

Can only assume synchronous switching power computations show eventually a 100% chance of "something" they didn't ever want to happen.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> The difference can be seen with the bandwidth of AIDA64 for example (even if it is a little biased with the architectural difference) ?


See "synthetics" in my comment. You can definitely see it there.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> NOt sure INtel was 100% happy with the OC socket on HWE.


Intel added some of the OC socket functions via MSRs for BW-E, so for the masses, the external OC socket is largely redundant barring one of the settings which helps memory stability past DDR4-3200.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> See "synthetics" in my comment. You can definitely see it there.












If someone who has tested a 5930K => 6850K or 5960X => 6900K can give its opinion
Since the cache is "stuck" on BW-E, I wondered for "synthetic" performances


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I would not be the least bit surprised to see them blowing some fuses in the chip or just not routing over this....
> 
> I'd be really curious to see why? I am sure they have a reason, likely longevity/warranty based which would be good to know...
> 
> They seem to run their xeon chips ludicrously cautious relative to what we know even lower quartile binned i7's can do (in terms of all-core turbo and clock rates).


This is because Xeons are sometimes ran with passive heatsinks in 1u chassis. I'm pretty positive of this.

Best binned CPU's, lowest heat output right?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Intel added some of the OC socket functions via MSRs for BW-E, so for the masses, the external OC socket is largely redundant barring one of the settings which helps memory stability past DDR4-3200.


ah, ok, so nothing so exciting as I imagined.. thanks...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Intel added some of the OC socket functions via MSRs for BW-E, so for the masses, the external OC socket is largely redundant barring one of the settings which helps memory stability past DDR4-3200.


So boards that didn't support cache overclock will now support it with a BIOS update with BW-E?

More or less?

If there is any truth to that my EVGA X99 Classy would be great for BW-E where for HW-E it was a joke.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> This is because Xeons are sometimes ran with passive heatsinks in 1u chassis. I'm pretty positive of this.
> 
> Best binned CPU's, lowest heat output right?


Indeed, well aware they are always fighting accumulated thermals in dense systems... It's just that they have all the info they need there to do so without as severe restrictions as they impose, but I understand they are in a bit of a green-field right now in terms of price, performance and power consumption, so they might as well keep the warranty/support/reliability risk very low as they simply don't need even the 30-40% speedup they could get from being more aggressive...

aka: sandbagging. ;-)


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I would not be the least bit surprised to see them blowing some fuses in the chip or just not routing over this.... (to explicitly block this)


Hello

The pads are still connected and functional. I verified this before installing the chip.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Intel added some of the OC socket functions via MSRs for BW-E, so for the masses, the external OC socket is largely redundant barring one of the settings which helps memory stability past DDR4-3200.


Memory overclocking still benefits from the OC Socket but as we are now 2 years into the socket and nobody has bothered to explore this I doubt it is of much value to most.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> The pads are still connected and functional. I verified this before installing the chip.


So, it really just is the BW cache architecture/layout vs the HW that dictates the clock limit. Interesting... Thanks,


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Indeed, well aware they are always fighting accumulated thermals in dense systems... It's just that they have all the info they need there to do so without as severe restrictions as they impose, but I understand they are in a bit of a green-field right now in terms of price, performance and power consumption, so they might as well keep the warranty/support/reliability risk very low as they simply don't need even the 30-40% speedup they could get from being more aggressive...
> 
> aka: sandbagging. ;-)


Haha, definitely sandbagging it right now.

I would 100% agree they can do more, no competition means they don't have to though. So they won't. Hehe.

Intel has such a lead right now in every market... astonishing really. AMD buying ATi spread them way too thin. Look at the time line. Everything has gone downhill since then CPU wise for AMD. They literally don't even have a mobile market anymore.

Just enough to save face... lol.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Indeed, well aware they are always fighting accumulated thermals in dense systems... It's just that they have all the info they need there to do so without as severe restrictions as they impose, but I understand they are in a bit of a green-field right now in terms of price, performance and power consumption, so they might as well keep the warranty/support/reliability risk very low as they simply don't need even the 30-40% speedup they could get from being more aggressive...
> 
> aka: sandbagging. ;-)


I guess that's not entirely fair, since there was an OEM 200W xeon in a rack-mount water cooled system. So, if you can muster the numbers to do an OEM spin of the chip, you can have your flops...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I guess that's not entirely fair, since there was an OEM 200W xeon in a rack-mount water cooled system. So, if you can muster the numbers to do an OEM spin of the chip, you can have your flops...


Love my flops bro... lol.

I've seen ASETEK try really hard to enter the server market. There is some saturation, not enough.

Seems like big copper heatsinks and a massive air conditioner cooling the server room seems to be "The way". I don't understand it.... I would never design a server room like that myself.

People like us don't mind getting our hands dirty though. Most plebs that run server rooms usually don't know hardware the way we do. Or have as many backup pieces of hardware either.

Ahhh, another benefit of being an enthusiast.


----------



## jonathan13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I discovered the Asus AURA software to be pretty useless, and had the exact problem you had with the lighting settings not being saved after turning off the PSU(which as you say is necessary to turn off the motherboard lighting). Also I found if you try to sync the MB RGBs with the RGB header strip, you would have to uncheck the "sync" option, apply, recheck it, and apply again in the AURA software. However, if you change the lighting settings in the BIOS, then your settings are saved just fine, even if you turn off the power supply, and everything is synced by default.
> 
> If you tried to contact Asus support about this issue I can see why you would be frustrated, as there is no real resolution and their support techs probably just gave you the general troubleshooting rundown. My experience with Asus phone support was about as smooth as you could hope for. First Deluxe II I got was DOA and wouldn't post. They helped me troubleshoot as much as was possible until it was determined to be mobo failure, which I then RMA'd through Newegg. Haven't had any trouble with this 2nd board beyond the RGB nonsense, which isn't so bad once you decide on lighting settings you like and want to leave them that way.
> 
> Also just FYI for anyone else with a Deluxe II, the newer 0801 bios only really improves stability issues with the included usb 3.1 card according to Asus support. So if you were looking for overclocking gains from 0601 -> 0801 its probably better to stick with what you've got unless you were having issues with the 3.1 card.


Glad to see that your second board was much better. I ripped on Asus pretty bad on my review of the Deluxe II. I made it clear that it was definitely possible that I just happened to be the unlucky one that got a bad board, but I tore them one nevertheless. My biggest issue was that the support guy I was emailing back and forth with, sent me the link to the BIOS for the wrong motherboard. It was either the Deluxe I or the X99A. Cannot remember off the top of my head, but I just lost it at that point. If I had successfully flashed that BIOS, who the heck knows what would have happened? Probably a bricked motherboard?

Nevertheless, now that I have had time to calm down from that whole exchange, I can say that I would definitely still buy from Asus. My primary laptop and secondary monitor are both Asus and I have been very happy with both. I feel like a lot of the bugs that both of us saw (especially the RGB), can be attributed to it not being fully baked before release.


----------



## done12many2

I've seen a few Broadwell-E Cinebench R15 posts here and there, but not nearly as many as I expected. I expected to see Broadwell-E subs flooding the Cinebench thread.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Oh, its really simple. It just doesn't happen. ;-)
> 
> You can have 3.8, 3.8 or 3.8... Even then you might need a fair amount of voltage.
> 
> For most use-cases I'd expect 3.5 to be easy, sufficient and not require ludicrous voltage. Some of the weenie reviewers complained about the power consumption even at that level (and they weren't wrong), but with good water/AIO cooling, even really good air, you shouldn't have to fight hard for 3.5 and it will give you good performance.


Hmmm, use cases - you must come from the software development business









In my 6900K I could use anything less than 3820 uncore - anything more was instant chaos upon stressing. But the thought that 3800 uncore in BW-E is as good or better than 4200 in HW-E is nonsense. It only seems that way when the BW-E is the 6950X because of the extra 2 cores over the best HW-E







.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jonathan13*
> 
> Glad to see that your second board was much better. I ripped on Asus pretty bad on my review of the Deluxe II. I made it clear that it was definitely possible that I just happened to be the unlucky one that got a bad board, but I tore them one nevertheless. My biggest issue was that the support guy I was emailing back and forth with, sent me the link to the BIOS for the wrong motherboard. It was either the Deluxe I or the X99A. Cannot remember off the top of my head, but I just lost it at that point. If I had successfully flashed that BIOS, who the heck knows what would have happened? Probably a bricked motherboard?
> 
> Nevertheless, now that I have had time to calm down from that whole exchange, I can say that I would definitely still buy from Asus. My primary laptop and secondary monitor are both Asus and I have been very happy with both. I feel like a lot of the bugs that both of us saw (especially the RGB), can be attributed to it not being fully baked before release.


I would recommend phone support in the future. They tried to get me to re-do all the basic troubleshooting for my first board over the phone, but I shut them down pretty quickly when I told them I had tried every memory config, 2 different graphics cards in every slot, multiple monitors ect..

It was a really weird issue. I ran memtest86 for 2 days on the board before I installed windows on it. Installed windows, drivers ect, changed the PC name, restarted, and BOOM! bricked motherboard. No solving that one...

Interesting side note, when I called them a couple weeks ago to ask about the new bios update, the tech randomly asked me how I felt about the on-board RGB lighting. I told him straight up the AURA software sucked and it was a pain in the ass to have to turn the power supply off just to turn off the lighting. So Asus is at least aware that there are problems and we are not the first to complain about them. Hopefully it gets addressed in a future bios update.


----------



## Silent Scone

The 6950x is in, currently running through RB at 4.2 with 1.23v. Ambient here is currently 30c , although at these settings max core temp is under 60c.


----------



## djgar

Nice! Is that weather ambient or room ambient? Speaking of room, looks like you've got plenty of room to grow


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Nice! Is that weather ambient or room ambient? Speaking of room, looks like you've got plenty of room to grow


It's about 25c outside, and 29c inside. Tried up to 1.3v at 4.3 with no joy, decided to try the next ratio down first off. Water temps settled after a full hour of RB at 32c.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The 6950x is in, currently running through RB at 4.2 with 1.23v. Ambient here is currently 30c , although at these settings max core temp is under 60c.


Congrats on the hot room!









Seriously, look forward to hearing about how that chip overclocks and performs.


----------



## djgar

Nice! Is that weather ambient, case ambient or room ambient? Speaking of room, looks like you've got plenty of room to grow







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It's about 25c outside, and 29c inside. Tried up to 1.3v at 4.3 with no joy, decided to try the next ratio down first off. Water temps settled after a full hour of RB at 32c.


I take it that's outside/inside the case? Otherwise time for some A/C! I ended doing 1.38 to get my 6900K to 4.57, core temps between the high 50s and low 70s.


----------



## Silent Scone

We've a heat wave, i use an open bench.

Moody photo.


----------



## vibraslap

PLEASE take the plastic wrap off your Deluxe II. It causes me physical pain.

HNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

It's like literally all my eyes will let me look at in that photo.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> We've a heat wave, i use an open bench.
> 
> Moody photo.


Nice use of retail packaging. Those extreme boxes look nice compared to the rest. I have to agree with vibraslap on the plastic film.


----------



## Silent Scone

I think i'll keep it there now.

I'm able to maintain the same timings at 3400 as the 6900k with 1v VCCSA. As before however, straight 14s still a no go.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I think i'll keep it there now.


Some people just want to watch the world burn...


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The 6950x is in, currently running through RB at 4.2 with 1.23v. Ambient here is currently 30c , although at these settings max core temp is under 60c.


And CPU package temp ?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Some people just want to watch the world burn...


Silent fits that bill nicely.... lol.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Intel added some of the OC socket functions via MSRs for BW-E, so for the masses, the external OC socket is largely redundant barring one of the settings which helps memory stability past DDR4-3200.


ah - Okay. So then what's the hard ceiling with cache frequency, and lack of cache OC about? Did intel basically throttle our ability to spin up cache or just the nature of the BWE architecture. Just a coincidence that 3.8 was basically the limit for cache on a 5960X with a non-OC socket?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Nice! Is that weather ambient, case ambient or room ambient? Speaking of room, looks like you've got plenty of room to grow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that's outside/inside the case? Otherwise time for some A/C! I ended doing 1.38 to get my 6900K to 4.57, core temps between the high 50s and low 70s.


He's in the UK. A/C is not all that common (or necessary). Dehumidifiers are mandatory tho.


----------



## sabishiihito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Intel added some of the OC socket functions via MSRs for BW-E, so for the masses, the external OC socket is largely redundant barring one of the settings which helps memory stability past DDR4-3200.


What setting would that be, pray tell?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I think i'll keep it there now.
> 
> I'm able to maintain the same timings at 3400 as the 6900k with 1v VCCSA. As before however, straight 14s still a no go.


Aah! So you have the same symptom I have (hence my 14-15-14 and your 14-15-15).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ah - Okay. So then what's the hard ceiling with cache frequency, and lack of cache OC about? Did intel basically throttle our ability to spin up cache or just the nature of the BWE architecture. Just a coincidence that 3.8 was basically the limit for cache on a 5960X with a non-OC socket?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's in the UK. A/C is not all that common (or necessary). Dehumidifiers are mandatory tho.










For some weird reason I thought Scone was an Aussie! I claim senility ...


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> He's in the UK. A/C is not all that common (or necessary). Dehumidifiers are mandatory tho.


We need them here, it's the middle of winter and we've got it on..lol..
Strange weather we have on the coast, it was raining for 3 days prior and we were all in warm clothes..

The 72c max I was seeing 2 days ago will go up in summer even with an air con, hoping to have the custom water installed by then though

What are you guys thoughts on this for a first time watercooler (CPU only at this point)

EK KIT P280 Water Cooling Kit
https://www.pccasegear.com/products/35088/ek-kit-p280-water-cooling-kit


----------



## Sazexa

Getting ready for that 6950X! I hope two 360mm radiators is enough for the 6950X overclocked with two 980's


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> Getting ready for that 6950X! I hope two 360mm radiators is enough for the 6950X overclocked with two 980's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I'd want more.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Aah! So you have the same symptom I have (hence my 14-15-14 and your 14-15-15).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some weird reason I thought Scone was an Aussie! I claim senility ...


G'day mate, t's just a touch out of reach, I'll give it a burl after getting this thing into pozzy. If not I'll probably accept getting the rough end of the pineapple.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sabishiihito*
> 
> What setting would that be, pray tell?


An expert like you shouldn't need help


----------



## [email protected]

Duplicate


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ah - Okay. So then what's the hard ceiling with cache frequency, and lack of cache OC about? Did intel basically throttle our ability to spin up cache or just the nature of the BWE architecture. Just a coincidence that 3.8 was basically the limit for cache on a 5960X with a non-OC socket?


Higher IPC, so more data throughput. Not everything is about frequency... I'd call it as coincidental as CPUs having cores.


----------



## Silent Scone

I've capped my uncore off at 3.5 for now with around 1.17v.

Flying request, anyone with the 10 core running Timespy and get a reproducable drop in performance towards the last frames of the CPU test? Need to fly to work but may contact FM later.

Scoring between 8-9000 at 4.2 which isn't right.


----------



## mrkambo

What kind of voltage and frequency are people with 6850K running at?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> What kind of voltage and frequency are people with 6850K running at?


The potential difference and clock rate kind.

(Sorry it's too warm to be helpful). Check the ASUS overview available in the support thread. A good few samples tested for the results given there.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The potential difference and clock rate kind.
> 
> (Sorry it's too warm to be helpful). Check the ASUS overview available in the support thread. A good few samples tested for the results given there.


Tell me about it, its only 29







my side of London, still got 3/4 degrees to go, makes stress testing all that much more heated!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Tell me about it, its only 29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my side of London, still got 3/4 degrees to go, makes stress testing all that much more heated!


Air-con on the go here


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> Getting ready for that 6950X! I hope two 360mm radiators is enough for the 6950X overclocked with two 980's


Looking good man (remiscs)


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> Getting ready for that 6950X! I hope two 360mm radiators is enough for the 6950X overclocked with two 980's


Sweet! Enthoo Evolv or?


----------



## ClemC

Is a Corsair H110 (push/pull) going to be enough to get a 6850K or 6900K to 4.2GHz+ during the Australian summer, without AC?


----------



## Kimir

Depend the voltage needed for that frequency. I'd say no tho.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Higher IPC, so more data throughput. Not everything is about frequency... I'd call it as coincidental as CPUs having cores.


thanks - "asked and answered".


----------



## Sazexa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Sweet! Enthoo Evolv or?


Yeah, Evolv ATX TG.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Looking good man (remiscs)


Hey man! Thanks! I forgot this was your name on here, I think we've chatted long before that other chat app.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'd want more.


Well, hopefully it's enough. I had a 5820K and a single 980 getting acceptable temperatures, on a single 240 in a lot smaller and less ventilated case.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> Yeah, Evolv ATX TG.
> Hey man! Thanks! I forgot this was your name on here, I think we've chatted long before that other chat app.
> Well, hopefully it's enough. I had a 5820K and a single 980 getting acceptable temperatures, on a single 240 in a lot smaller and less ventilated case.


I think you'll do fine, I'd personally be keeping an eye on the water temps initially


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've capped my uncore off at 3.5 for now with around 1.17v.
> 
> Flying request, anyone with the 10 core running Timespy and get a reproducable drop in performance towards the last frames of the CPU test? Need to fly to work but may contact FM later.
> 
> Scoring between 8-9000 at 4.2 which isn't right.


that's a new one... haven't seen it. 9000 physics score? That would be really low - like 6 core low. Is it a fresh w10 install?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's a new one... haven't seen it. 9000 physics score? That would be really low - like 6 core low. Is it a fresh w10 install?


Couple months old, the issue wasn't there with the 6900K. Will play more tonight. I ran a few custom tests this morning, and each time the FPS dipped to around 10 at the last few seconds, which gave me an average of 27. So something isn't right there


----------



## Kimir

I did notice a swing in CPU score myself. I got between 99XX and 110XX.
Could be stuff in the background in my case.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> I did notice a swing in CPU score myself. I got between 99XX and 110XX.
> Could be stuff in the background in my case.


Yeah, that's not a great disparity. This is huge, should be more in the region of 11,000 to 12,000 rather than 8,000 to 9,000. I'm sure I'll get to the bottom of it - was just bugging the shet out of me before I trotted off to work this morning


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've capped my uncore off at 3.5 for now with around 1.17v.
> 
> Flying request, anyone with the 10 core running Timespy and get a reproducable drop in performance towards the last frames of the CPU test? Need to fly to work but may contact FM later.
> 
> Scoring between 8-9000 at 4.2 which isn't right.


I have not OCed my uncore much but I'll find the voltage for 3.5 and run the same test and see what I get when I get home.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've capped my uncore off at 3.5 for now with around 1.17v.
> 
> Flying request, anyone with the 10 core running Timespy and get a reproducable drop in performance towards the last frames of the CPU test? Need to fly to work but may contact FM later.
> 
> Scoring between 8-9000 at 4.2 which isn't right.


Hello

CPU/cache @ 4.2/3.5. CPU Score 12000.

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/50319


----------



## Silent Scone

Thanks, that is what I'd expect. I was scoring around 10,500 with the 6900K clocked at 4.4. Something is dragging the score down towards the end of the test. Now that I've made a thing of it, I'll update when I figure out what is happening


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> CPU/cache @ 4.2/3.5. CPU Score 12000.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/50319


Praz, you using around 1.17v also?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Praz, you using around 1.17v also?


This is a voltage I entered on a whim for 3.6 based on what my other CPU liked, I've only had the CPU for a few hours. Turns out this was optimistic on this, so dialed back to 3.5. What Praz is using depends entirely on his CPU, as it will do for yours too.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> This is a voltage I entered on a whim for 3.6 based on what my other CPU liked, I've only had the CPU for a few hours. Turns out this was optimistic on this, so dialed back to 3.5. What Praz is using depends entirely on his CPU, as it will do for yours too.


I just wanted to get a general idea of what voltages are needed for 3.5 to make it easier for me to find what my voltage would be.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'd want more.
> G'day mate, t's just a touch out of reach, I'll give it a burl after getting this thing into pozzy. If not I'll probably accept getting the rough end of the pineapple.


I just KNEW there was something there!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> CPU/cache @ 4.2/3.5. CPU Score 12000.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/50319


take a screenshot and post that *here*!


----------



## mrkambo

So.....

BCLK - 100
Multi - 43
Uncore - 31
Vcore - 1.36
VIN - 1.810
Mem - [email protected]

2 hour Realbench Stable
1 hour OCCT Stable
4 hour X264 Stable

I'd say its safe to assume im stable, its been way too hot today to do this stuff!

Now to mess with Uncore and Memory speeds.....


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> So.....
> 
> BCLK - 100
> Multi - 43
> Uncore - 31
> Vcore - 1.36
> VIN - 1.810
> Mem - [email protected]
> 
> 2 hour Realbench Stable
> 1 hour OCCT Stable
> 4 hour X264 Stable
> 
> I'd say its safe to assume im stable, its been way too hot today to do this stuff!
> 
> Now to mess with Uncore and Memory speeds.....


fillout rig builder - add it to your sig. how to link in my sig.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> fillout rig builder - add it to your sig. how to link in my sig.


Will do....


----------



## Jpmboy

IDK - maybe I souldn't be using the samsung NVMe driver? this 950 is slower in overall score vs my Intel 750.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> IDK - maybe I souldn't be using the samsung NVMe driver? this 950 is slower in overall score vs my Intel 750.


I don't use Samsung's driver for the 950 Pro. I get inconsistent performance when I do and it just makes the overall experience worse if you ask me.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I just KNEW there was something there!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> CPU/cache @ 4.2/3.5. CPU Score 12000.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/50319


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Thanks, that is what I'd expect. I was scoring around 10,500 with the 6900K clocked at 4.4. Something is dragging the score down towards the end of the test. Now that I've made a thing of it, I'll update when I figure out what is happening


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13424079

Was Sys Info collection causing the performance drop when running custom run with the CPU test standalone. With this disabled the spike is gone. Point for point lol, "Like a glove" as Ace would say.


----------



## Fidelity21

I was wondering the same thing. I have a 6850k CPU and this is my first custom water loop ever so naturally I have stupid questions like "is this normal?"

I went to "sync all cores", set the thermal control tool to kick in above 75C and drop me to 36x from 42x. CPU Core voltage is Adaptive mode with 1.200v

My temps are all over the place so I need to figure out if it's normal for a water cooling rig to have temps like this.

When I run the Intel XTU benchmark utility, my CPU temp reads out as 31,34,63,48,42,58,59,51,44,55,54,33. Is it normal for the temp readout to jump around like that?

In Asus realbench, during the stress test, my CPU temp is 62, CPU package temp is 80, core 1-6 is 64,61,75,60,54,56. The real score provided by the benchmark was 150248

System specs:
6850k CPU
Asus deluxe II mobo
Gskill 32gb 3200mhz ram
Ek X360 water cooling kit with an extra 240mm radiator
Nvidia Asus 1080 gpu with xspc water block

Does this all sound normal? Man do I wish I knew someone local that was into computers and overclocking because this is a huge learning curve.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I was wondering the same thing. I have a 6850k CPU and this is my first custom water loop ever so naturally I have stupid questions like "is this normal?"
> 
> I went to "sync all cores", set the thermal control tool to kick in above 75C and drop me to 36x from 42x. CPU Core voltage is Adaptive mode with 1.200v
> 
> My temps are all over the place so I need to figure out if it's normal for a water cooling rig to have temps like this.
> 
> When I run the Intel XTU benchmark utility, my CPU temp reads out as 31,34,63,48,42,58,59,51,44,55,54,33. Is it normal for the temp readout to jump around like that?
> 
> In Asus realbench, during the stress test, my CPU temp is 62, CPU package temp is 80, core 1-6 is 64,61,75,60,54,56. The real score provided by the benchmark was 150248
> 
> System specs:
> 6850k CPU
> Asus deluxe II mobo
> Gskill 32gb 3200mhz ram
> Ek X360 water cooling kit with an extra 240mm radiator
> Nvidia Asus 1080 gpu with xspc water block
> 
> Does this all sound normal? Man do I wish I knew someone local that was into computers and overclocking because this is a huge learning curve.


Yeah a 10° spread between the coolest / hottest cores under load is about normal. Package temp can sometimes be 10°c higher than the highest core temp


----------



## mrkambo

so my uncore is stable at 35 needed 1.23v to get there, seems alot tbh!


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ClemC*
> 
> Is a Corsair H110 (push/pull) going to be enough to get a 6850K or 6900K to 4.2GHz+ during the Australian summer, without AC?


I doubt it. 6850k maybe, 6900k no.


----------



## Fidelity21

Thank you for the tip on 10C being normal for a delta between cores.

I redid the paste job just to be on the safe side and I also turned off XMP mode in the BIOS. I hadn't even thought about XMP being a possible contributor to the overall temperature but it does seem to add about 5C to the overall CPU temperature when under load.

With XMP off, my Asus Benchmark score is 148000. With XMP on, my Asus Benchmark score is 155565. Not sure if it's worth the 5C increase to temperature but I'll keep experimenting. I'm also going to try and lower the DRAM voltage to 1.30v from 1.35v and see if that can remain stable.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Thank you for the tip on 10C being normal for a delta between cores.
> 
> I redid the paste job just to be on the safe side and I also turned off XMP mode in the BIOS. I hadn't even thought about XMP being a possible contributor to the overall temperature but it does seem to add about 5C to the overall CPU temperature when under load.
> 
> With XMP off, my Asus Benchmark score is 148000. With XMP on, my Asus Benchmark score is 155565. Not sure if it's worth the 5C increase to temperature but I'll keep experimenting. I'm also going to try and lower the DRAM voltage to 1.30v from 1.35v and see if that can remain stable.


Asus Benchmark? Oh Realbench... heh. DRAM voltage won't affect your CPU temperature whatsoever. Don't bother.

I'll say this as best I can....XMP HAS to be on. Period.

Or you might as well just buy cheap 2133mhz RAM without heatspreaders. Not sure why you are worried about 5c... at all.

Enable XMP. You paid for it. If you are so worried about your CPU buy an Intel Overclocking Warranty. $25 one time no questions asked replacement.

If you lived in Canada, I'd help you out np.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Praz, you using around 1.17v also?


Hello

1.144V. Might be more than needed with the memory at 3200. That was the voltage required to stabilize 3400 memory speed.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> take a screenshot and post that *here*!


Nothing special there. Would just add clutter top the thread.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> 1.144V. Might be more than needed with the memory at 3200. That was the voltage required to stabilize 3400 memory speed.
> Nothing special there. Would just add clutter top the thread.


it's all clutter... but a valid run is a valid run.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I doubt it. 6850k maybe, 6900k no.


Fidelity21,

Can you provide something more specific than "That's not hot, this is hot!" [Paul Hogan voice] That's a pretty broad range...

I have an H110gtx that did just fine on top of a 5960x at 4.5GHz that required 1.37v to get there. It tapped 82C in some heavy benchmarks. HOWEVER, it was in a room that averaged ~21-22C ambient. If your room was 10C hotter - a. glad you use dial right? b. then that 82 would obviously be 92... 4.4/1.30 where it is happy, its gentle as a kitten at I rarely see anything higher than mid 50C under real, but heavy load.

So, I'd put a 6900 at a big maybe depending on your ambient and voltage required...


----------



## Fidelity21

Thanks guys. I just want stable! I didn't care so much about temperature until I lost internet access mid GTA5 (and I was doing so well before that happened!







But the system wasn't stable at the settings I had so I started researching and noticed the rapid jumps in temperature.

Now that I've redone the thermal paste, I've noticed that the temperature don't fluctuate as rapidly and it's running a bit cooler so maybe that was the issue causing sudden system issues...like wifi and ethernet disconnect. I decided to re-run the Asus AI 5 way optimizer program and it overclocked me to 4343mhz but the performance is actually lower on all the benchmarks I'm running so I'm heading back to 4200mhz with Vcore set to 1.250

Also, thank you for the tip on XMP...I'm leaving it on!

Paste job before:


Paste job after:


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> IDK - maybe I souldn't be using the samsung NVMe driver? this 950 is slower in overall score vs my Intel 750.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I'm using that Samsung driver and I get 2500-2600/1500. It was originally installed on the old motherboard. Not even sure if I need it for windows 10. I bought my wife the same drive and it's going about the same speed with no Samsung driver installed she's using a 6850k OCed at 4.4GHz 3000Memory, we're both using R5E10.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> This is a voltage I entered on a whim for 3.6 based on what my other CPU liked, I've only had the CPU for a few hours. Turns out this was optimistic on this, so dialed back to 3.5. What Praz is using depends entirely on his CPU, as it will do for yours too.


I ran the test and got a 12180 cpu score http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13438386


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I ran the test and got a 12180 cpu score http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13438386


At 4.4, eek. I can get close to that at 4.2 simply by dropping primary memory timings (settings aren't unconditional). The test seems quite sensitive to latency, which will be nice for the benchmarking folks


----------



## tistou77

Hello

Wishing may be change my 5930K (CPU: @4.6ghz 1.24v, Cache: @4.5ghz 1.26v and ~ 63° in load for the hottest core)

It's better to take a 5960X or 6900K (point of view performance, temperature, etc...) ?
A 6900K is worse in OC, but at the end performance would be the same as the 5930K?

In general, less than 1.30v in Vcore, your OC is how much with a 6900K ?

Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm using that Samsung driver and I get 2500-2600/1500. It was originally installed on the old motherboard. Not even sure if I need it for windows 10. I bought my wife the same drive and it's going about the same speed with no Samsung driver installed she's using a 6850k OCed at 4.4GHz 3000Memory, we're both using R5E10.


thanks for the info... reassuring.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> At 4.4, eek. I can get close to that at 4.2 simply by dropping primary memory timings (settings aren't unconditional). The test seems quite sensitive to latency, which will be nice for the benchmarking folks


I ran it with 3100 cache cause the app crashed with 3500 with 1.144v. I'll try it again later and find out how to stabilize it. Anything I should look at to adjust?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I ran it with 3100 cache cause the app crashed with 3500 with 1.144v. I'll try it again later and find out how to stabilize it. Anything I should look at to adjust?


You run 3100 cache @ 1.44v uncore?? That seems dangerously high. I'm getting 3810 @ ~1.28v.


----------



## Silent Scone

Strewth mate, read it again


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You run 3100 cache @ 1.44v uncore?? That seems dangerously high. I'm getting 3810 @ ~1.28v.


1.*1*44


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I ran it with 3100 cache cause the app crashed with 3500 with 1.144v. I'll try it again later and find out how to stabilize it. Anything I should look at to adjust?


You run 3100 cache @ 1.44v uncore?? That seems dangerously high. I'm getting 3810 @ ~1.28v.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 1.*1*44


----------



## Silent Scone

Ya great big galah


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I ran it with 3100 cache cause the app crashed with 3500 with 1.144v. I'll try it again later and find out how to stabilize it. Anything I should look at to adjust?


gonna need more uncore... and possibly a bigger boat.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You run 3100 cache @ 1.44v uncore?? That seems dangerously high. I'm getting 3810 @ ~1.28v.


Yea sorry slight typo on my mobile device. It's 1.144. Praz suggested using that and may be overkill so something else might be wrong.

I obviously horribly fail at using my mobile device, edited the post.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> gonna need more uncore... and possibly a bigger boat.


It's possible that I need to feed the cpu more voltage because I'm only using 1.26v @4.4GHz at the moment.


----------



## tistou77

In h24, is what the max voltage for the Cache ?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> It's possible that I need to feed the cpu more voltage because I'm only using 1.26v @4.4GHz at the moment.


Indeed, if you can get 4.4 at anything under 1.3v, that's a nice chip.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Indeed, if you can get 4.4 at anything under 1.3v, that's a nice chip.


it's XTU with avx stable* 30min memory/cpu stress though with the cache OCed to 3.1GHz only.

*I know the definition of stability is questionable all across the board.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> It's possible that I need to feed the cpu more voltage because I'm only using 1.26v @4.4GHz at the moment.


That looks like rock solid gold, can it encode at that voltage? (x264/x265/realbench)


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Yea sorry slight typo on my mobile device. It's 1.144. Praz suggested using that and may be overkill so something else might be wrong.
> 
> I obviously horribly fail at using my mobile device, edited the post.


There was no typo on your end. He read your post incorrectly, hehe. You're good.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> There was no typo on your end. He read your post incorrectly, hehe. You're good.


In his defense I must have corrected the typo right after he read it


----------



## Fidelity21

I'm currently at 4.4ghz and 1.380volts. The uncore is 34 at 1.028v but it crashes when I try going to 35. I've changed voltage to adaptive and 1.17 but it still crashes...maybe I need more voltage but 34 seems good at such a low voltage.

Also, according to firestorm ultra (3dmark), my computer is unfit for 4K. I'm getting a score of 5307 and 5500 is the threshold I need to hit. Gpu is an Asus water cooled 1080 with xspc block and it doesn't exceed 52C which is nice!








I can't go any higher than 2000mhz without crashing so maybe I need another 1080 card.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I'm currently at 4.4ghz and 1.380volts. The uncore is 34 at 1.028v but it crashes when I try going to 35. I've changed voltage to adaptive and 1.17 but it still crashes...maybe I need more voltage but 34 seems good at such a low voltage.
> 
> Also, according to firestorm ultra (3dmark), my computer is unfit for 4K. I'm getting a score of 5307 and 5500 is the threshold I need to hit. Gpu is an Asus water cooled 1080 with xspc block and it doesn't exceed 52C which is nice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't go any higher than 2000mhz without crashing so maybe I need another 1080 card.


If your temps are in line I'd keep it there for now. 4.4ghz at 1.380v is hard to cool. Trust me, that's almost exactly what I run.

4.4ghz @ 1.371v.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> In his defense I must have corrected the typo right after he read it


Pfft, last time I have your back... jeez. ;-)


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> That looks like rock solid gold, can it encode at that voltage? (x264/x265/realbench)


Hello

A 5 to 6 hour encode with HandBrake is a very good indication of AVX stability.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I'm currently at 4.4ghz and 1.380volts. The uncore is 34 at 1.028v but it crashes when I try going to 35. I've changed voltage to adaptive and 1.17 but it still crashes...maybe I need more voltage but 34 seems good at such a low voltage.
> 
> Also, according to firestorm ultra (3dmark), my computer is unfit for 4K. I'm getting a score of 5307 and 5500 is the threshold I need to hit. Gpu is an Asus water cooled 1080 with xspc block and it doesn't exceed 52C which is nice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't go any higher than 2000mhz without crashing so maybe I need another 1080 card.


Of course you do...









I need 1.290 to get to 3.7 cache. I didn't spend much time on 3.5, so I don't know where that fell, but 3.8 was above 1.39 and nice and toasty.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Of course you do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need 1.290 to get to 3.7 cache. I didn't spend much time on 3.5, so I don't know where that fell, but 3.8 was above 1.39 and nice and toasty.


Lol sounds about right.

Nice and toasty, heh.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> A 5 to 6 hour encode with HandBrake is a very good indication of AVX stability.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> That looks like rock solid gold, can it encode at that voltage? (x264/x265/realbench)


passed on real bench and I've been using handbrake to encode my motorcycle riding videos. Initially it crashed at 1.25v so I had to give it a nudge to 1.26v, it wasn't a consistent sustained handbrake load though, mostly on and off with batches. Not sure if that counts.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> passed on real bench and I've been using handbrake to encode my motorcycle riding videos. Initially it crashed at 1.25v so I had to give it a nudge to 1.26v, it wasn't a consistent sustained handbrake load though, mostly on and off with batches. Not sure if that counts.


You fix and repair your own vehicles or what?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> You fix and repair your own vehicles or what?


no way dude that was a long time ago when I overhauled the engine on my Porsche. All I do now is ride motorcycles and go to work to take care of a ton of email servers for a bank. No more grease!


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Of course you do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need 1.290 to get to 3.7 cache. I didn't spend much time on 3.5, so I don't know where that fell, but 3.8 was above 1.39 and nice and toasty.


what do you guys use to speed up the voltage increment testing to find the stable uncore voltages? I want to run it at 3.6/3.7 only for now.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> no way dude that was a long time ago when I overhauled the engine on my Porsche. All I do now is ride motorcycles and go to work to take care of a ton of email servers for a bank. No more grease!


Hey bro at least you can say you can fix things if needed.

I hear you, I only do all my own repairs as I have more time on my hands than most....That sounds like a sweet job dude. Right on.

I'm just getting used to all the grease.... it's a bit nuts at times. I seem to always have grease or tar on me now (Truck undercoating). Lol.

Apologies for the off topic people. I digress...


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Hey bro at least you can say you can fix things if needed.
> 
> I hear you, I only do all my own repairs as I have more time on my hands than most....That sounds like a sweet job dude. Right on.
> 
> I'm just getting used to all the grease.... it's a bit nuts at times. I seem to always have grease or tar on me now (Truck undercoating). Lol.
> 
> Apologies for the off topic people. I digress...


where's @Jpmboy ? he's our master of topic derailment of his own OP









Edit. Oops, I always thought he's the one that did the OP on this thread lol.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> where's @Jpmboy ? he's our master of topic derailment of his own OP


Lol.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> what do you guys use to speed up the voltage increment testing to find the stable uncore voltages? I want to run it at 3.6/3.7 only for now.


I'm pretty low-tech: Metered thumb and a variation on Newton's Method:

bump a little. Fails
bump a little. Fails
bump it a lot. Passes, but hot
lower it a little. Still Passes, Still hot.
lower it more... Still Passes, cooler
lower it more... crashes - profanity, breaking things jumping around like an enraged chimp...

repeat as needed...


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I'm pretty low-tech: Metered thumb and a variation on Newton's Method:
> 
> bump a little. Fails
> bump a little. Fails
> bump it a lot. Passes, but hot
> lower it a little. Still Passes, Still hot.
> lower it more... Still Passes, cooler
> lower it more... crashes - profanity, breaking things jumping around like an enraged chimp...
> 
> repeat as needed...


For 37 cache, start with cace @ 1.35v

For me 37 cahce is max on 6900k, I need ~1.33V and 1.37v for 4.4 core. It works with custom watercooling


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Of course you do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need 1.290 to get to 3.7 cache. I didn't spend much time on 3.5, so I don't know where that fell, but 3.8 was above 1.39 and nice and toasty.


Wow! For once I can consider myself lucky with 3810 @ ~1.28v!


----------



## Fidelity21

Does a 3950k overclock just as well as a 3850k? I see a lot of reviews and overclocks for the 3950k but I figured the 3850k would do higher frequencies given the lower core count. I'm at 4.4ghz still but down to 1.35v and dropping. I dropped to 1.25v and crashed my system so the tomshardware review of the 3850k hitting 4.4ghz easily with 1.25v isn't accurate across the board...maybe they had a better chip than I. I'm also thermal throttling at 4.4ghz and 1.38v so I needed to do something to cool it down.


----------



## Silent Scone

10 encode instances running, could do better.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I'm pretty low-tech: Metered thumb and a variation on Newton's Method:
> 
> bump a little. Fails
> bump a little. Fails
> bump it a lot. Passes, but hot
> lower it a little. Still Passes, Still hot.
> lower it more... Still Passes, cooler
> lower it more... crashes - profanity, breaking things jumping around like an enraged chimp...
> 
> repeat as needed...


lol sounds too familiar, what software is good to do quick tests while incrementing? Running something like timespy would be annoying to see it crash/pass at 4 minutes and 59 seconds into the test then make another adjustment then wait until the next 4 minutes and 57 seconds.


----------



## Fidelity21

What is that program on the left? I see Asus but can't read the rest.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> What is that program on the left? I see Asus but can't read the rest.


It's a special program for really important people, currently only available to a select few.

And if you'll believe that, you'll believe anything. It's ASUS TurboV Core.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> passed on real bench and I've been using handbrake to encode my motorcycle riding videos. Initially it crashed at 1.25v so I had to give it a nudge to 1.26v, it wasn't a consistent sustained handbrake load though, mostly on and off with batches. Not sure if that counts.


use this x264 stability test... straight forward. set number of threads to 1.5x actual threads, priority normal.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gpMyj43ZFjSzJ4Nm0xT3pobjA


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> use this x264 stability test... straight forward. set number of threads to 1.5x actual threads, priority normal.
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gpMyj43ZFjSzJ4Nm0xT3pobjA


thanks!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> What is that program on the left? I see Asus but can't read the rest.


Click "Original" and you'll get the big picture


----------



## Kimir

There is one thing on that screen that make me cringe!
It's the shortcut for "My PC".




Spoiler: dis is the right way to add My PC on the desktop




It's in french but, follow the arrow and you shall succeed.


----------



## Silent Scone

And the end result is?

Right, exactly. Jolly good. Next up, i'll show you the correct way to hold a door open, and possibly some other fascinating information. Do me a favour, meight. When you're done entertaining the labyrinth of changing things for the sake of it that is Windows 10, perhaps you could hook me up with your wallpaper.

You fussy git


----------



## Kimir

I could, but I won't. I already had request in PM.


----------



## Silent Scone

That's fair enough. Wouldn't want my material in other people's Warner Bros either.


----------



## nexxusty

Oh come on hook a brother up.


----------



## Mr-Dark

Hello

I'm replacing my 5820k + Deluxe for 6800k + RVE... but my question about the VCCSA.. now i'm at 1.035v @2666mhz CL14-14-14-32 1T what is the voltage range on the 6800k for that ? also is the VCCSA still buggy as He-E (higher not better all time or as skylake one ) ?



my 5820k @4.4ghz 4ghz cache.. at which clock the 6800k beat that ? 4ghz ?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 10 encode instances running, could do better.


I really hate seeing 1T. May not make that big a difference - it's psychological at this point.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Hello
> 
> I'm replacing my 5820k + Deluxe for 6800k + RVE... but my question about the VCCSA.. now i'm at 1.035v @2666mhz CL14-14-14-32 1T what is the voltage range on the 6800k for that ? also is the VCCSA still buggy as He-E (higher not better all time or as skylake one ) ?
> 
> 
> 
> my 5820k @4.4ghz 4ghz cache.. at which clock the 6800k beat that ? 4ghz ?


Why a side grade? Get an 8 core or stand pat.


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I really hate seeing 1T. May not make that big a difference - it's psychological at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why a side grade? Get an 8 core or stand pat.


Not my main upgrade.. a friend of mine drop RVE to me.. and I hate the Deluxe board yo know









I'm waiting the new Rampage + 6900k.. our market is very very slow


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> lol sounds too familiar, what software is good to do quick tests while incrementing? Running something like timespy would be annoying to see it crash/pass at 4 minutes and 59 seconds into the test then make another adjustment then wait until the next 4 minutes and 57 seconds.


Depends on what I am overclocking. My personal flow is aida64, then realbench/handbrake if all that works then stressapp.

If just playing around with memory, I'll often just do stressapp as it usually finds issues right away.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I really hate seeing 1T. May not make that big a difference - it's psychological at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why a side grade? Get an 8 core or stand pat.


What's your problem with 1T?

I've always strived for a 1T command rate. You telling me I'm doing that for no reason? Hehe.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> For 37 cache, start with cace @ 1.35v
> 
> For me 37 cahce is max on 6900k, I need ~1.33V and 1.37v for 4.4 core. It works with custom watercooling


it looks like my cpu wants 1.3v for 3.5 cache and 1.45 for 3.8 ouchie. There must be something else I am missing. My cpu core is 4.4 @ 1.26v.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> At 4.4, eek. I can get close to that at 4.2 simply by dropping primary memory timings (settings aren't unconditional). The test seems quite sensitive to latency, which will be nice for the benchmarking folks


Well it didn't improve much, I got about the same crappy score of 12,380 with cache at 3.5GHz http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113942 I'm not sure what I can run my memory at with sane voltages yet. Currently at stock 3.2GHz 1.35v 15 17 17 35 2T


----------



## Silent Scone

I've seen folks with decent memory primaries, as low as straight 13s at 3400 score less than me. It's in the subtimings i'd imagine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I really hate seeing 1T. May not make that big a difference - it's psychological at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why a side grade? Get an 8 core or stand pat.


You know what to do, take one of the kits out lol.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Hello
> 
> I'm replacing my 5820k + Deluxe for 6800k + RVE... but my question about the VCCSA.. now i'm at 1.035v @2666mhz CL14-14-14-32 1T what is the voltage range on the 6800k for that ? also is the VCCSA still buggy as He-E (higher not better all time or as skylake one ) ?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my 5820k @4.4ghz 4ghz cache.. at which clock the 6800k beat that ? 4ghz ?


I thought you were still sporting a 6700k, when did you go back to the 5820k.

I went from a 5820k to the 6900k, it's a eye opening upgrade and I'm impressed with the Rog X99 Strix for the price.
The Samsung 950 Pro makes a difference too...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> What's your problem with 1T?
> 
> I've always strived for a 1T command rate. You telling me I'm doing that for no reason? Hehe.


won't work on this kit at >2666,
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've seen folks with decent memory primaries, as low as straight 13s at 3400 score less than me. It's in the subtimings i'd imagine.
> You know what to do, take one of the kits out lol.


yeah sure - already showed 32GB at 34001T... but then you have to exit the HOV lane.








(this 64GB kit runs 3200c13-13-13-1T with my 5960X/R5E bios 1701)


----------



## Fidelity21

I'm back down to 4.3ghz at 1.35v and 34 uncore at 1.15v. Pushing to 4.4ghz at 1.38v will result in immediate crashes or frequency reductions caused by the Asus thermal throttling tool. Of course, my water temperature is 35C so even base temps at idle are creaping into the 56C range. I need to buy an AC unit because my room is not about 15 degrees F hotter than any other room in the house thanks to this new computer,


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I thought you were still sporting a 6700k, when did you go back to the 5820k.
> 
> I went from a 5820k to the 6900k, it's a eye opening upgrade and I'm impressed with the Rog X99 Strix for the price.
> The Samsung 950 Pro makes a difference too...


Hahah, 6700k fast cpu but still Quad core..lol

Quad core + SLI = No go... the 5820k eat 3 Ti's like a Monster


----------



## djgar

OK, in order to get RealBench stability @ 4582 CPU / 3818 uncore for 2.5 hours I had to crank up my CPU to .310 offset / 1.395 vcore. Hopefully that's not too toxic for 24/7 since it won't be there often







. I saw no suggested max values in the BW guidelines, maybe not enough data yet.

Funny thing is I bluescreened @ 153 minutes and the screenshots @ 151 minutes are unreadable, so I am left with the 120 minute screenshots. Oh, well ...


----------



## Fidelity21

CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability is set to AUTO in the BIOS. As soon as I boot to windows and load Digi+ Power Control, it loads CPU Power Phase Control to Extreme, CPU Load-Line Calibration to 9 and CPU Current Capability to 140%. Does anyone know why "Auto" would make it max out?

I'm actually going for lower thermal temperatures at this point because my room is becoming VERY hot with this new computer. I have backed down to 31 uncore with Default voltage and 4.2ghz with 1.250v on the CPU. I'm not sure why CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability to want to go to max, but I'm thinking about forcing them to a specific setting in the BIOS to keep them low.

Even though I have CPU Core Voltage set to Adaptive and 1.250v OC Voltage, the CPU Core Voltage is showing 1.298v at idle OR full throttle so I have to imagine that my BIOS is automatically maxing out the voltage and current load just to maintain stability, which is also causing more heat than I need....right?

What settings are you guys using for CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability. Would I be safe leaving it at 3 and 120 respectively or can I be really restrictive and leave it at 1 and 100% to force thermals down while sticking with a 4.2ghz overclock?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability is set to AUTO in the BIOS. As soon as I boot to windows and load Digi+ Power Control, it loads CPU Power Phase Control to Extreme, CPU Load-Line Calibration to 9 and CPU Current Capability to 140%. *Does anyone know why "Auto" would make it max out?*
> 
> I'm actually going for lower thermal temperatures at this point because my room is becoming VERY hot with this new computer. I have backed down to 31 uncore with Default voltage and 4.2ghz with 1.250v on the CPU. I'm not sure why CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability to want to go to max, but I'm thinking about forcing them to a specific setting in the BIOS to keep them low.
> 
> Even though I have CPU Core Voltage set to Adaptive and 1.250v OC Voltage, the CPU Core Voltage is showing 1.298v at idle OR full throttle so I have to imagine that my BIOS is automatically maxing out the voltage and current load just to maintain stability, which is also causing more heat than I need....right?
> 
> What settings are you guys using for CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability. Would I be safe leaving it at 3 and 120 respectively or can I be really restrictive and leave it at 1 and 100% to force thermals down while sticking with a 4.2ghz overclock?


that's the default to cover the range of silicon quality out there. Would be very helpful if you filled out rig builder and add your rig to your sig. how to link in mine.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability is set to AUTO in the BIOS. As soon as I boot to windows and load Digi+ Power Control, it loads CPU Power Phase Control to Extreme, CPU Load-Line Calibration to 9 and CPU Current Capability to 140%. Does anyone know why "Auto" would make it max out?
> 
> I'm actually going for lower thermal temperatures at this point because my room is becoming VERY hot with this new computer. I have backed down to 31 uncore with Default voltage and 4.2ghz with 1.250v on the CPU. I'm not sure why CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability to want to go to max, but I'm thinking about forcing them to a specific setting in the BIOS to keep them low.
> 
> Even though I have CPU Core Voltage set to Adaptive and 1.250v OC Voltage, the CPU Core Voltage is showing 1.298v at idle OR full throttle so I have to imagine that my BIOS is automatically maxing out the voltage and current load just to maintain stability, which is also causing more heat than I need....right?
> 
> What settings are you guys using for CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability. Would I be safe leaving it at 3 and 120 respectively or can I be really restrictive and leave it at 1 and 100% to force thermals down while sticking with a 4.2ghz overclock?


I use LLC 8 and 140% CPU CC, but I'm kind of wacky ...


----------



## Fidelity21

Doesn't seem whacky if "Auto" is the default and that's max power to everything! I went to 3 and 120% and I can't tell any difference in performance at 4.2ghz.

Also, I'll figure out how to add my system configuration tomorrow...thanks.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> What settings are you guys using for CPU Load-Line Calibration and CPU Current Capability. Would I be safe leaving it at 3 and 120 respectively or can I be really restrictive and leave it at 1 and 100% to force thermals down while sticking with a 4.2ghz overclock?


Hello

I would suggest you leave these and other settings on auto until you have an idea as to what their intended functions are and can then adjust them with a specific goal in mind.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> I would suggest you leave these and other settings on auto until you have an idea as to what their intended functions are and can then adjust them with a specific goal in mind.


Completely logical! That said, I've already done my research (as best as I could find anyway) and both settings appear to expand on the amount of power (voltage and current) the CPU sees under load and at idle. They're designed to give you stable overclocks at the cost of lower efficiency...meaning more heat! I want LESS heat because my room is small and this computer is giving off loads of heat already. Even at idle the voltage is hovering around 1.298v for the CPU and I'd like to keep pushing that down...especially when I already have it set to 1.25v in the BIOS. I'm going to keep tinkering until I have a stable system at 4.2ghz with the lowest CPU voltage I can manage.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Completely logical! That said, I've already done my research (as best as I could find anyway) and both settings appear to expand on the amount of power (voltage and current) the CPU sees under load and at idle. They're designed to give you stable overclocks at the cost of lower efficiency...meaning more heat!


Hello

If that is the case your research has failed you. CPU Current Capability sets the allowable amount of current the CPU can draw. If set too low either the amount of overclock will be limited, some programs/games may not run successfully or instability may occur. LLC reshapes and/or alters the amount of overshoot allowed. While LLC will directly affect the max continuous VCCIN voltage in this context that is irrelevant. Stability will require a given minimum VCCIN voltage. This will hold true if it is reached by using a higher set voltage with a lower LLC level or a lower voltage with a higher level. Your reply serves only to validate my previous post. Changing settings without an understanding of what they actually do seldom has a positive outcome.


----------



## Fidelity21

Back to the drawing board...thanks for the heads up.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

Let's see if you've taught me right, machine has been running fine since I last showed you.
But today I had the urge to run x265 Benchmark again, now I've past it many times days ago, but today it hard locked.
I adjusted the SA Offset and well it's passing again, I actually lowered in not increased it.
So I'm guessing like you guys said to me a while back it's a hard thing to test stability in, am I looking in the right area?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Let's see if you've taught me right, machine has been running fine since I last showed you.
> But today I had the urge to run x265 Benchmark again, now I've past it many times days ago, but today it hard locked.
> I adjusted the SA Offset and well it's passing again, I actually lowered in not increased it.
> So I'm guessing like you guys said to me a while back it's a hard thing to test stability in, am I looking in the right area?


yeah so, x265 puts some demands on a few voltage settings that other tests/benches do not seem to pull as hard from . x265 hits VCCIN hard... this supplies all other voltages - vsa, vcore, vcache.. etc - so most times increasing vccin or reducing vdroop will fix x265. Try setting vsa back to where you had it and raise vccin by either method. Depending on how you are running x265 (p-mode and more than 4 threads for example) it will load the ram and cache pretty hard... so vcache can stabilize it too. VSA really supplies voltage to several structures so it may be giving a fix that can be solved more directly.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah so, x265 puts some demands on a few voltage settings that other tests/benches do not seem to pull as hard from . x265 hits VCCIN hard... this supplies all other voltages - vsa, vcore, vcache.. etc - so most times increasing vccin or reducing vdroop will fix x265. Try setting vsa back to where you had it and raise vccin by either method. Depending on how you are running x265 (p-mode and more than 4 threads for example) it will load the ram and cache pretty hard... so vcache can stabilize it too. VSA really supplies voltage to several structures so it may be giving a fix that can be solved more directly.


So I did learn something woohoo...









This was the run I did that passed just then, the same run failed with the higher VCCSA



The SA was set at +0.051 when it failed.
I'm still not sure what LLC to use, currently it's 6.
The VCCIN is set to 1.920v in the BIOS, but on idle it's 1.936v under load it'll drop to 1.904v though.

Edit:
Here's a few screenshots of my BIOS settings.


----------



## Jpmboy

erm.. you are setting adaptive vcore very strangle. Change this to "auto" in offset and enter the necessary vcore in the adaptive field.(eg, the Total voltage needed at load). For cache - again - it's set incorrectly. Either change 0.001V to Auto for cache, or figure out what offset is needed to achieve the necessary vcache for the cache freq you are using.
Try this and let's see.
Example:

6950x44a42c38m3400.zip 2553k .zip file


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm.. you are setting adaptive vcore very strangle. Change this to "auto" in offset and enter the necessary vcore in the adaptive field.(eg, the Total voltage needed at load). For cache - again - it's set incorrectly. Either change 0.001V to Auto for cache, or figure out what offset is needed to achieve the necessary vcache for the cache freq you are using.
> Try this and let's see.
> Example:
> 
> 6950x44a42c38m3400.zip 2553k .zip file


Cool, will change that.
So LLC 6 is fine, and the VCCIN voltages are ok?

If I set the vcore to 1.265, it registers as 1.271v in CPU-Z, I'm guessing thats to do with the LLC 6.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Cool, will change that.
> So LLC 6 is fine, and the VCCIN voltages are ok?
> 
> If I set the vcore to 1.265, it registers as 1.271v in CPU-Z, I'm guessing thats to do with the LLC 6.


nope - cpuZ is reading VID on x99. Use AID64 to monitor voltages. LLC 6 is fine, VCCIN is fine... you can go to 1.95v if there is instability. some CPUs need high VCCIN (eg when adding vcore is not fixing the problem)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nope - cpuZ is reading VID on x99. Use AID64 to monitor voltages. LLC 6 is fine, VCCIN is fine... you can go to 1.95v if there is instability. some CPUs need high VCCIN (eg when adding vcore is not fixing the problem)


Yeah I had a spaz out then after adjusting the settings you recommended, it's hard locking at 33% during x265 benchmark (same settings as the screenshot), I'll try upping the VCCIN to 1.950, it reads higher that the set voltage though.
So I'm guessing 1.265v for 4.2Ghz was ok, but I need voltage somewhere else.

Edit:
Maybe I was being to liberal with the voltages.
Cache I set to offset +0.100 (3.4Ghz), VCCIN 1.950v, though sometimes it reads 1.968v, but not under load.
Passed x265 now, not perfectly with all the FPS's the same, but a pass none the less.
It's certainly given me something to work with.



During the x256 run AIDA63 Sensors.


----------



## -terabyte-

Are there any good comparisons/benchmarks around between the 6850k and the 5930K? All the reviews I've found so far are for either 6800k, 6900k or 6950X.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

Getting my stride on now.
I increase the vcache from +0.100v to +0.110v, got a more consistent score on x265 Benchmark.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Getting my stride on now.
> I increase the vcache from +0.100v to +0.110v, got a more consistent score on x265 Benchmark.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Nice, I can't get my cpu cache to work on adaptive myself so I have it locked at 1.310v for now.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Nice, I can't get my cpu cache to work on adaptive myself so I have it locked at 1.310v for now.


Adaptive cache won't work - offset does.


----------



## Fidelity21

I'm a bit confused about the power saver setting in the Asus AI software. Basically, I want to be able to have Performance mode set to max power for gaming or heavy use programs while switching over to Power Saver mode for causal web surfing or leaving the computer idle. My problem is that I can't find the correct setting to accomplish this. When I set the system to Sync all cores at 43x for max performance, power saver mode doesn't reduce the frequency so I'm pulling 60-70w at idle, which is creating heat I'd like to reduce. When I switch over to Auto mode and let the CPU assign the frequency, Power saver mode pulls around 40w but Performance mode doesn't seem to go any higher than 37x and all benchmarks suffer. I've installed Intels boost 3.0, doesn't help. I've toggled the energy saving mode in the BIOS (which is not recommended for heavy overclocking) and I don't really see any difference when it's on or off, so am I chasing something that isn't possible here? Can I make performance mode fast/overclocked/max settings while still being able to easily toggle to a reduced power mode for reduced power consumption and hence less power/less heat generation?


----------



## vibraslap

What your looking for is adaptive mode. Turn off any Power Saver features you might have turned on, where you adjust cpu voltage, change the mode to adaptive with offset 0.001 and the max voltage being whatever you had it running at before for 43x stable.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> What your looking for is adaptive mode. Turn off any Power Saver features you might have turned on, where you adjust cpu voltage, change the mode to adaptive with offset 0.001 and the max voltage being whatever you had it running at before for 43x stable.


That's what I originally thought which is why I'm so confused right now. I have adaptive mode on for the CPU, OC voltage set to 1.250v. The actual voltage when setting all cores to sync at 4.2ghz is 1.296v. That doesn't change when the system is idle or full throttle and doesn't change when I'm in performance mode or power saver mode. It also doesn't change when the BIOS energy saving feature is on or off. It's just weird...why is it higher than I have set, why doesn't it fluctuate. I want performance on demand, but I also want to lower power draw when idle.

Right now, I'm back to doing what you suggested. I'm pulling 70-75w at idle, voltage is stuck at 1.296, pulling upwards of 150w under load. If/when I go back to auto, I can get idle wattage to 50-60w because the voltage drops to 1.15v and the frequency fluctuates as low as 12x or 1.2ghz...temperatures stay cooler this way and my room doesn't get as hot.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I'm a bit confused about the power saver setting in the Asus AI software. Basically, I want to be able to have Performance mode set to max power for gaming or heavy use programs while switching over to Power Saver mode for causal web surfing or leaving the computer idle. My problem is that I can't find the correct setting to accomplish this. *When I set the system to Sync all cores at 43x for max performance, power saver mode doesn't reduce the frequency so I'm pulling 60-70w at idle*, which is creating heat I'd like to reduce. When I switch over to Auto mode and let the CPU assign the frequency, Power saver mode pulls around 40w but Performance mode doesn't seem to go any higher than 37x and all benchmarks suffer. I've installed Intels boost 3.0, doesn't help. I've toggled the energy saving mode in the BIOS (which is not recommended for heavy overclocking) and I don't really see any difference when it's on or off, so am I chasing something that isn't possible here? Can I make performance mode fast/overclocked/max settings while still being able to easily toggle to a reduced power mode for reduced power consumption and hence less power/less heat generation?


be sure to enable Speedstep in bios and verify that in windows power plan,> advanced power settings> min proc state = 0%


----------



## vmanuelgm

6950x installed on RVE...







Seems RV10 gets a little more bandwidth in Aida64, but more latency too...


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> be sure to enable Speedstep in bios and verify that in windows power plan,> advanced power settings> min proc state = 0%


THANK YOU!!! Mine was set to 100% min.

Problem solved! Cranking away at 4.3ghz now with OC voltage of 1.300v. While idle, I'm dropping voltage to 0.900v and pulling about 40w. Exactly what I wanted!


----------



## djgar

So, can we take a turbo-speed vcore of 1.41-1.42v not overcooking a 6900K for 24x7? Any perspectives on this?

Anyone?


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 6950x installed on RVE...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems RV10 gets a little more bandwidth in Aida64, but more latency too...


Holy molly! What watercooling setup are you using to tam this beast?!


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Adaptive cache won't work - offset does.


thanks. I never used offset, any tricks in setting it up for cache? I know at full speed I need 1.310v. Also should I be able to set cache to 28-35 or lock it at 35?

Edit: I figured out how to do it, thank you for the help!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Holy molly! What watercooling setup are you using to tam this beast?!


lol - it's made by 'SiliconAbuse".


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Holy molly! What watercooling setup are you using to tam this beast?!


I blow it with my mouth...


----------



## MR-e

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Holy molly! What watercooling setup are you using to tam this beast?!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - it's made by 'SiliconAbuse".


SiliconAbuse...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I blow it with my mouth...


The mouth game is strong with this one. No seriously, that's some crazy clocks and voltages!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I blow it with my mouth...


no, I won't do it.. too easy. Must be a language/translation thing.


----------



## vmanuelgm

I was trying to pass cinebench with 1.47v at 4.6, but wasnt able and left voltage at that point, but it needs less to achieve it at 4.5.

The chip is capable of 3600 quad booting at stock boost, but have to tweak timings to pass aida64...

I am quite happy with this 10 core, not bad....










Jpm, Have I made a mistake saying "blow it with my mouth"???

Mouth blowing it ok???

I am spanish so sometimes I can write nonsenses!!!










2406 is a good result for cb15 simply watercooled???


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I was trying to pass cinebench with 1.47v at 4.6, but wasnt able and left voltage at that point, but it needs less to achieve it at 4.5.
> 
> The chip is capable of 3600 quad booting at stock boost, but have to tweak timings to pass aida64...
> 
> I am quite happy with this 10 core, not bad....
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jpm, Have I made a mistake saying "blow it with my mouth"???
> 
> Mouth blowing it ok???
> 
> I am spanish so sometimes I can write nonsenses!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2406 is a good result for cb15 simply watercooled???


lol - I'd just not use that phrase.

So... during that IBT run.. did you monitor package temperature? Also, you should look into the ASUS thermal control tool. Link in any of Raja's posts.
Yup 2406 is prett good. http://hwbot.org/submission/3244186_jpmboy_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6950x_2430_cb
I can tell you that at that voltage and load, your components are getting too hot with just ambient water cooling


----------



## lilchronic

LMAO Great read today thanks guy's.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - I'd just not use that phrase.
> 
> So... during that IBT run.. did you monitor package temperature? Also, you should look into the ASUS thermal control tool. Link in any of Raja's posts.
> Yup 2406 is prett good. http://hwbot.org/submission/3244186_jpmboy_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6950x_2430_cb
> I can tell you that at that voltage and load, your components are getting too hot with just ambient water cooling


Mine is in the tj11 with no fans on it... Not bad then... And mouth blowing... xD

Now it is too hot here, around 28ºC in room, but in a pair of months I will be at 20 and simple watercooling will be enough to maintain 44-43avx-38-3400.

I dont have a waterchiller cos I have the pc in my living room with my home cinema...


----------



## Kimir

Ah if I had the money... for 300€ you get der8auer to do the binning.
Core i7-6950X Extreme 3,0 GHz (Broadwell-E) pretested @ 4,4 GHz - tray
6950X with 4.4Ghz guaranteed with 1.35v or less under Prime95 26.6 1344K. Not sure if it's better than binning with RealBench like SiliconLottery do.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Ah if I had the money... for 300€ you get der8auer to do the binning.
> Core i7-6950X Extreme 3,0 GHz (Broadwell-E) pretested @ 4,4 GHz - tray
> 6950X with 4.4Ghz guaranteed with 1.35v or less under Prime95 26.6 1344K. Not sure if it's better than binning with RealBench like SiliconLottery do.


Does he send em delidded???


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Does he send em delidded???


There is no mention of delid in the text when translated in English, so I guess not.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Ok Kimir.

Have just passed again IBT and max package temp is 85ºC


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

Well I've been hammering x265 for hours last night, finally got that dialed in.
Some of the advanced power settings seem to cause x265 to get vastly different numbers and cause it to be invalid, so I put them back to default.

I'm a little confused what's causing the spike in the VCCIN, I've got it set to 1.950v, drops to 1.938v under load, but while idling it'll spike to 1.968v for a few seconds, I've tired playing with the LLC, which I've set to 5 now, seems to be what most people are using.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no, I won't do it.. too easy. Must be a language/translation thing.


I'm sure he means "I blow *AT* it with my mouth". I too am Spanish originally, but that was a long long time ago. I flew to this continent in a DC-4









The Spanish slang is a bit different for these things







.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> thanks. I never used offset, any tricks in setting it up for cache? I know at full speed I need 1.310v. Also should I be able to set cache to 28-35 or lock it at 35?
> 
> Edit: I figured out how to do it, thank you for the help!


What cache speed and cache voltages did you settle on?

Probably should of asked this to start with, but what's the stock cache voltage?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> What cache speed and cache voltages did you settle on?
> 
> Probably should of asked this to start with, but what's the stock cache voltage?


for now I have it set to 3.5GHz @ 1.310v and it passes timespy but now I went back and tried to do an XTU benchmark and it's now crashing but regular cpu/memory stress test it's fine. I'll try to find out what's wrong later but tied up at work atm. My stock cache voltage was .993v so I was running an offset of .319v.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> for now I have it set to 3.5GHz @ 1.310v and it passes timespy but now I went back and tried to do an XTU benchmark and it's now crashing but regular cpu/memory stress test it's fine. I'll try to find out what's wrong later but tied up at work atm. My stock cache voltage was .993v so I was running an offset of .319v.


Ok, I've got my cache at 3.4Ghz but I think my voltage is too low at +0.120v offset.
It's not unstable, but I'm getting strange x265 results like 10+fps between some of the results causing it to be invalid.


----------



## Silent Scone

Intel Burn in, do people still use that stress test?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no, I won't do it.. too easy. Must be a language/translation thing.


Lol, more the hot air aspect I'd be worried about


----------



## vibraslap

Well I finally hit my goals for this overclock plus a litte.











Cache at 37x multi. I'm sure I could tighten some voltages here and there. But for now I'm happy with it. Temps shown are on realbench load.


----------



## ClemC

Has anyone got results for overclocked Broadwell-E using Cinebench single core?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ClemC*
> 
> Has anyone got results for overclocked Broadwell-E using Cinebench single core?


[email protected] single thread:


----------



## ClemC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> [email protected] single thread:


Thank you!
Bit faster than my 3570K is at 4.6GHz.

I think I should just go with a 6850K (rather than 6700K) and if my H110 can't handle a modest overclock, I'll look into a custom loop.

Damn Intel, they don't make it easy.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ClemC*
> 
> Thank you!
> Bit faster than my 3570K is at 4.6GHz.
> 
> I think I should just go with a 6850K (rather than 6700K) and if my H110 can't handle a modest overclock, I'll look into a custom loop.
> 
> Damn Intel, they don't make it easy.


Well it is kinda easy, if you want single core performance get the 6700k, if you want multi thread performance you can't beat the -E series.
I noticed the difference going from a 5820k to a 6900k instantly.


----------



## ClemC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Well it is kinda easy, if you want single core performance get the 6700k, if you want multi thread performance you can't beat the -E series.
> I noticed the difference going from a 5820k to a 6900k instantly.


But it's not black and white for gaming. Some games will run better on a 6700K and some will run better on a 6850K. And then there's DirectX 12, will games take advantage of more cores in the future... Ugh.

I have no professional use for 6+ cores. I just want something which will be a good gaming chip for ~4 years.

I don't know what to do!


----------



## vmanuelgm

You are thinking about sex too much guys... Dont be so naughty... Better practice than imagine...

I blow AT it then...

Love you have a good time with me...










I am trying classical 100:133 3200 1T and system seems to work more fluidly...


----------



## Associated

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> [email protected] single thread:


So IPC over 5820K is 5%


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Associated*
> 
> So IPC over 5820K is 5%
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Was your 5820k overclocked?

Oh and @Jpmboy I found out what was messing with the x265 Benchmark results, it was the ROG Aura software.
I completely uninstalled it and I get a consistent result each time.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Was your 5820k overclocked?
> 
> Oh and @Jpmboy I found out what was messing with the x265 Benchmark results, it was the ROG Aura software.
> I completely uninstalled it and I get a consistent result each time.


was the rog aura static. cpu temp or a flash pattern?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> was the rog aura static. cpu temp or a flash pattern?


Static, don't like the flashing lights.
It got worse with the latest release I install today (1.03.24), x265 wouldn't even open it was throw a "Hardware detection timed out" error.
I had 1.03.23 installed, this is when I was getting odd results from x265, 1 core would always be faster and I would get an invalid score.

Now without any installed I'm getting the best results I've seen with this overclock, Cinebench included.

Oh (you're gonna slap me for this) it was messing with the L2 Cache benchmark, there's no way I should of got a latency of 5.9ns, doesn't do it anymore..lol


----------



## Silent Scone

I've grown quite fond of leaving it to CPU temperature, didn't like it at first.


----------



## Mr-Dark

6800k installed today..



Stock setting with XMP profile...

I can see the VCCSA at stock is 1.032v while with XMP on 1.220v.. what is the average for 2666C14 ?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> 6800k installed today..
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stock setting with XMP profile...
> 
> I can see the VCCSA at stock is 1.032v while with XMP on 1.220v.. what is the average for 2666C14 ?


On my 2800C14 I can run the VCCSA at 1.080v, haven't come across an issue yet and I've been hammering my system big time today..


----------



## Associated

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Was your 5820k overclocked?


Yes, 4.2GHz core, 3200MHz memory and 4GHz cache.


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> On my 2800C14 I can run the VCCSA at 1.080v, haven't come across an issue yet and I've been hammering my system big time today..


Thanks for letting me know









already passed 30M Asus RB @4.2ghz 1.285v... still playing with this thing


----------



## Associated

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Thanks for letting me know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> already passed 30M Asus RB @4.2ghz 1.285v... still playing with this thing


Can you too do Cinebench test, both single and multithreaded, at 4.2GHz?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Dark*
> 
> Thanks for letting me know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> already passed 30M Asus RB @4.2ghz 1.285v... still playing with this thing


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Associated*
> 
> Can you too do Cinebench test, both single and multithreaded, at 4.2GHz?


At the night Yes, now its the time for 6H.. BF4 + skype


----------



## Mr-Dark

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*


Hahah, i will back to 2666 C14-14-14-32 1T today at the night


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Well I finally hit my goals for this overclock plus a litte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cache at 37x multi. I'm sure I could tighten some voltages here and there. But for now I'm happy with it. Temps shown are on realbench load.


How in heavens did you get those fast memory marks with 3200 dimm / 3700 uncore?









I'm running 3400 dimm / 3800 uncore and barely get 79000 read / 73000 write!

You must tell me your secret!


----------



## mrkambo

So...i've never OC'd memory before, how does it look so far?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> How in heavens did you get those fast memory marks with 3200 dimm / 3700 uncore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running 3400 dimm / 3800 uncore and barely get 79000 read / 73000 write!
> 
> You must tell me your secret!


Hello

Cache speed isn't everything.



http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/2150#post_25365795


----------



## greg1184

I got my memory to 3200mhz and 3700mhz uncore. My timings are 16-18-18-38 1T. I guess I can tighten the timings a little bit.


----------



## Fidelity21

Can someone please explain why my CPU Voltage always jumps to around 1.296-1.298v when in Adaptive mode...even though I have the OC Voltage set to 1.150v? I'm overclocking to a very modest 4000mhz on my 6850k and I'm running very stable at a manual voltage of 1.180v but as soon as I flip from manual to Adaptive the voltage jumps to 1.298v. I can go up to 42x or 4200mhz and the voltage stays at 1.298v...which is obviously more than I need to run the system in a stable state.

The reason I'm asking is because I'd like to stay in Adaptive mode, but the temperature difference between Adaptive 1.180 and manual 1.180 is 12C...54C for manual and 66C for Adaptive while at the exact same 4000mhz or 40x.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Can someone please explain why my CPU Voltage always jumps to around 1.296-1.298v when in Adaptive mode...even though I have the OC Voltage set to 1.150v? I'm overclocking to a very modest 4000mhz on my 6850k and I'm running very stable at a manual voltage of 1.180v but as soon as I flip from manual to Adaptive the voltage jumps to 1.298v. I can go up to 42x or 4200mhz and the voltage stays at 1.298v...which is obviously more than I need to run the system in a stable state.
> 
> The reason I'm asking is because I'd like to stay in Adaptive mode, but the temperature difference between Adaptive 1.180 and manual 1.180 is 12C...54C for manual and 66C for Adaptive while at the exact same 4000mhz or 40x.


Hello

The adaptive voltage cannot be forced lower than the default VID programmed by Intel.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> The adaptive voltage cannot be forced lower than the default VID programmed by Intel.


What what's the best setting for everyday use? All of the articles I've read mention Adaptive as the best option, but that also increases temperatures? Would you stick with manual or just deal with the heat associated with Adaptive?


----------



## Sazexa

Just placed an order for the 6950X. Got free over-night shipping to! So, it'll be here Monday. Going to order some pieces to finish up my custom loop, test it out, and then depending on how the new Titan X performs, I'll likely purchase one of those to pair with it!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> What what's the best setting for everyday use? All of the articles I've read mention Adaptive as the best option, but that also increases temperatures? Would you stick with manual or just deal with the heat associated with Adaptive?


Manual does not allow for low power states, so what do you think is likely the best option here.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Cache speed isn't everything.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/2150#post_25365795


Praz, I fully agree, but he's got the same 8 core 6900K and running the memory at 3200 vs. my 3400! His only advantage is he's 14-14-14 vs. my 14-15-14. That of itself can't make that huge difference.

Which brings me to my sad story. I figured I'd give 14-14-14 anoither go, so set my dimms to 1.45v eventual. GSAT re-booted after 30 seconds. So I said fine, the hell with it, and went back to my previous settings but figured I'd stressapp again while I was there. Got a bunch of errors. Now I can't get better than 3300 no matter what, so looks like I cooked the dimms, which is weird because I had tired 1.45v before (no other voltages were changed).


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Praz, I fully agree, but he's got the same 8 core 6900K and running the memory at 3200 vs. my 3400! His only advantage is he's 14-14-14 vs. my 14-15-14. That of itself can't make that huge difference.
> 
> Which brings me to my sad story. I figured I'd give 14-14-14 anoither go, so set my dimms to 1.45v eventual. GSAT re-booted after 30 seconds. So I said fine, the hell with it, and went back to my previous settings but figured I'd stressapp again while I was there. Got a bunch of errors. Now I can't get better than 3300 no matter what, so looks like I cooked the dimms, which is weird because I had tired 1.45v before (no other voltages were changed).


Hello

Test each stick of memory one at a time using the same slot each time. If all modules pass the issue is not with the memory.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Test each stick of memory one at a time using the same slot each time. If all modules pass the issue is not with the memory.


You mean GSAT each module separately? Will Linux boot with 8GB? I guess probably.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You mean GSAT each module separately? Will Linux boot with 8GB? I guess probably.


Hello

Yes and yes.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Yes and yes.


Thanks! On to it!


----------



## ClemC

Just ordered a 6850K.









This should be interesting...

Have my eye son the Rampage V Edition 10. Just cause it's pretty...


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ClemC*
> 
> Just ordered a 6850K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should be interesting...
> 
> Have my eye son the Rampage V Edition 10. Just cause it's pretty...


All cpu are the same. 6850k, 6900k and 6950x. 4.4Ghz core and 3700cache. So boring









I have 6900k and 6850k.


----------



## ClemC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> All cpu are the same. 6850k, 6900k and 6950x. 4.4Ghz core and 3700cache. So boring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have 6900k and 6850k.


If I can hit the apparent 4.4 wall with my H110, I'll be chuffed!
If not, I'm prepared to look into a custom loop.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> All cpu are the same. 6850k, 6900k and 6950x. 4.4Ghz core and 3700cache. So boring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have 6900k and 6850k.


Maybe you need to be more adventurous and go beyond that ...


----------



## tistou77

With a 6900K (OC) it's better to put the 4 pin (in addition of the 8 pin) or no need ?


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Allways best to populate 4pin ATX in addition to 8pin...especially OCing. In fact in Manual it says to do this to avoid overcurrent shutdowns when OCing....

Spreading power supply out somewhat is always going to help stability:thumb:


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arne Saknussemm*
> 
> Allways best to populate 4pin ATX in addition to 8pin...especially OCing. In fact in Manual it says to do this to avoid overcurrent shutdowns when OCing....
> 
> Spreading power supply out somewhat is always going to help stability:thumb:


Ok thanks

With 5930K, I did not need but with 8 cores


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Praz, I fully agree, but he's got the same 8 core 6900K and running the memory at 3200 vs. my 3400! His only advantage is he's 14-14-14 vs. my 14-15-14. That of itself can't make that huge difference


I've no doubt Praz has other settings tweaked, but the board will make a difference also to a certain small degree when it comes down to the finer numbers. The Rampage is king for a reason


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> All cpu are the same. 6850k, 6900k and 6950x. 4.4Ghz core and 3700cache. So boring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have 6900k and 6850k.


My 6900K doesn't budge to 4.4, at the voltage level I want it to run at and the stability I want to achieve at the given clock. Also cache doesn't go above 3.5 at 1.2 V.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've grown quite fond of leaving it to CPU temperature, didn't like it at first.


same here.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Maybe you need to be more adventurous and go beyond that ...


Can you post Cinebench 15 and 3dmark physics tests with your'e OC?


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've no doubt Praz has other settings tweaked, but the board will make a difference also to a certain small degree when it comes down to the finer numbers. The Rampage is king for a reason


I believe he was referring to MY score with my Deluxe II. It seems the king has been dethroned?









Djgar, I would suggest starting with memory stability, then CPU, then Cache, at least thats what I did for my final round of tweaks. Also make sure your not accidentally over volting anything by leaving it on auto. For instance I had left VCCIO on auto but realized it was auto'd to something like 1.2V+! Noticed improvements when I dropped it back down to 1.05V

Also I don't know if this has anything to do with it but I am running 4x16GB not 8x8

Here's my extended timings if your interested. Nothing impressive at all. In fact as I really don't have any experience tuning secondary or tertiary timings, so any advice on where to start tightening these would be appreciated.


----------



## Silent Scone

Then he has nothing to worry about. All timings look board controlled and latency score reflects this. Looks normal to me


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Can you post Cinebench 15 and 3dmark physics tests with your'e OC?


I think you need Steam for those, no? I basically do Aida benchmarks since I only do it so I can compare my different configs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I believe he was referring to MY score with my Deluxe II. It seems the king has been dethroned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Djgar, I would suggest starting with memory stability, then CPU, then Cache, at least thats what I did for my final round of tweaks. Also make sure your not accidentally over volting anything by leaving it on auto. For instance I had left VCCIO on auto but realized it was auto'd to something like 1.2V+! Noticed improvements when I dropped it back down to 1.05V
> 
> Also I don't know if this has anything to do with it but I am running 4x16GB not 8x8
> 
> Here's my extended timings if your interested. Nothing impressive at all. In fact as I really don't have any experience tuning secondary or tertiary timings, so any advice on where to start tightening these would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Don't think I can consider myself king, more like an occasionally lucky vassal







I take pretty much your approach.

And those timings are scary, because they mean you'll be able to get very noticeably better. Check mine out and they took my memory reads up almost 2,000 in Aida bench.



I'm guessing my memory isn't that great, since I can't get 14-14-14 to work even at 1.40+ volts and you have them running at 1.35 (though 3200 vs. my 3400).

Maybe 4x16 vs. 4x8? But probably your TMZs vs. my Ripjaws. Great OC!


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> same here.


I recreated the same problem yesterday with the latest Aura software (1.03.24), the moment it's installed I get lower Cinebench scores and x265 doesn't open.
The previous version is ok, but I get a miss matched x265 runs, but with no software installed it's perfect.

I can set it to CPU temp directly in the BIOS, which also controls the GTX1080 Strix...

System is stable finally though.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I think you need Steam for those, no? I basically do Aida benchmarks since I only do it so I can compare my different configs.
> Don't think I can consider myself king, more like an occasionally lucky vassal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take pretty much your approach.
> /quote]
> 
> Post result here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/cinebench-15-download.html


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I think you need Steam for those, no? I basically do Aida benchmarks since I only do it so I can compare my different configs.
> Don't think I can consider myself king, more like an occasionally lucky vassal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take pretty much your approach.
> 
> 
> 
> Post result here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/cinebench-15-download.html
Click to expand...

I just get an invalid link message ...


----------



## Silent Scone

Have any of you guys played with Nocuta coolers here? I have some drip on eBay trying to return a 6800K which was brand new. He's trying to put in a return request saying the board is displaying 00 and I'm refusing to accept it. Is there an issue with using them with the ASUS socket mounting tool for instance?

There are two likely scenarios, he's either trying to pull a fast one and send me back an empty box - whilst making me pay return shipping from Ireland, even though i stomached the cost. Or, he's killed the board or CPU himself somehow. He's using it on an X99 Strix so shouldn't need to flash, but have instructed he use USBFlashback and send me a decent photo of the CPU socket.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Using now strap 125-3333 T1 wihich is smoother for me... Still have to try a lot of memory combinations though...


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Have any of you guys played with Nocuta coolers here? I have some drip on eBay trying to return a 6800K which was brand new. He's trying to put in a return request saying the board is displaying 00 and I'm refusing to accept it. Is there an issue with using them with the ASUS socket mounting tool for instance?
> 
> There are two likely scenarios, he's either trying to pull a fast one and send me back an empty box - whilst making me pay return shipping from Ireland, even though i stomached the cost. Or, he's killed the board or CPU himself somehow. He's using it on an X99 Strix so shouldn't need to flash, but have instructed he use USBFlashback and send me a decent photo of the CPU socket.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think 00 had anything to do with the actual CPU.
In the Strix manual 00 is "NOT USED", 5A is "Internal CPU error", 56 is "Invalid CPU type or Speed", so he could have a faulty motherboard not CPU.

If it's the Noctua NH D15 he could of dropped the cooler on the board while installation, I've personally see someone do that (no not me, I'm a AIO user...lol)


----------



## PowerK

Testing 6950X @ 4.4GHz with 1.345 vcore. So far, it's 10 hour Prime95 custom blend stable.
Moving on to Realbench after work today. I swear finding overclock stability sweet spot is one tedious procedure.


----------



## vmanuelgm

A nice bandwidth at 3400 T1 32GB:


----------



## Silent Scone

F22 Raptor 2,410 km/h



My breakfast earlier, quick and easy



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think 00 had anything to do with the actual CPU.
> In the Strix manual 00 is "NOT USED", 5A is "Internal CPU error", 56 is "Invalid CPU type or Speed", so he could have a faulty motherboard not CPU.
> 
> If it's the Noctua NH D15 he could of dropped the cooler on the board while installation, I've personally see someone do that (no not me, I'm a AIO user...lol)


He's sent a shot of the CPU. It can mean the CPU, but it'll be something he has done - asked for a clearer shot of the socket also.

[EDIT] He's just said he was able to use EZFlash to update to the latest UEFI, after I told him to try USB Flashback. Which means unless he really is a potato, and doesn't understand the difference, that he was able to get the system to POST.


----------



## Kimir

I've used my Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 on my R5E before watercooling it, you can't damage the CPU with it, even tightening the screw to the max won't do harm, just affect the TIM performance like it does with a waterblock.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> I've used my Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 on my R5E before watercooling it, you can't damage the CPU with it, even tightening the screw to the max won't do harm, just affect the TIM performance like it does with a waterblock.


The chances of a brand new 6800K being DOA are much less likely, though. I've called him out on using EZ Flash tool and he's yet to reply.


----------



## vmanuelgm

I prefer 125.8 3355 which is completely stable and super smooth:


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I prefer 125.8 3355 which is completely stable and super smooth:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


To each their own, I just can't use 125 strap myself as I prefer adaptive voltage. Nothing wrong with using manual voltage, it's just not my taste for daily.
Tried C13 yet?


----------



## vmanuelgm

Its not manual, its offset, but I selected high performance in order to pass aida... So offset for vcore, cache and system agent.

I find 3400 T2 a bit rough in my system (T1 is not stable at all, only can pass aida).


----------



## Silent Scone

Shouldn't have to change Windows Power Plan in order to pass AIDA, or any stress test for that matter


----------



## vmanuelgm

Just to see real clocks, nothing else...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Its not manual, its offset, but I selected high performance in order to pass aida..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Just to see real clocks, nothing else...


lol make your mind up


----------



## vmanuelgm

CL13, latency is cool...


----------



## Kimir

Erm, I meant stable c13, not ninja test for Aida or w/e. You could do c12 for that.


----------



## vmanuelgm

I think CL13 wont be stable, the clocks are similar to what 5960x achieved...

3355 CL14-1T is stable, I am satisfied...

3355 CL12-1T is a bit difficult, could you post some screens???

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> lol make your mind up


Meaning??? I dont catch you...


----------



## Silent Scone

lol "Totally stable!"

In your post you suggested that you changed the PP in order to pass AIDA, then said in a followup post that it was simply for the screenshot. Perhaps that's just lost in translation, though


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> lol make your mind up


I think you are lost in traslation, as usual...

I meant that if I wanna see real clocks in Aida I need to pass it in high performance, what it is not the same that I need it in order to ensure stability... Have I been clear now or do you need a new explanation???

Have you seen my IBT at the same clocks in adaptive??? Do you think I could pass IBT in standard if I was not stable in Aida64???










Maybe you will understand me better in spanish...


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I think CL13 wont be stable, the clocks are similar to what 5960x achieved...
> 
> 3355 CL14-1T is stable, I am satisfied...
> 
> 3355 CL12-1T is a bit difficult, could you post some screens???
> Meaning??? I dont catch you...


Hello

Post qualifying screenshots in the memory thread.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread


----------



## vmanuelgm

So you doubt I am stable, dont you???










Guys, I am starting to think you have a crusade against me... This ain't normal!!!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I think you are lost in traslation, as usual...
> 
> I meant that if I wanna see real clocks in Aida I need to pass it in high performance, what it is not the same that I need it in order to ensure stability... Have I been clear now or do you need a new explanation???
> 
> Have you seen my IBT at the same clocks in adaptive??? Do you think I could pass IBT in standard if I was not stable in Aida64???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you will understand me better in spanish...


No thanks, I don't think anyone should really care about IBT results these days. The term pass when speaking about a stability test, which strangely enough will end with a result of either pass/fail, infers that you needed to change the PP in order to do this.

Feel free to translate that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> So you doubt I am stable, dont you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys, I am starting to think you have a crusade against me... This ain't normal!!!


No, we have what is known as a case of Déjà vu (that's French) whereby you're claiming totally stable without proof for other peoples benefit, that is all


----------



## vmanuelgm

Well, stable is an adjective that has been discussed before, and some people here finished stating that stability depends on several things, one of them is the tasks for what we use the pc..

But I dont have any problems in passing HCI again, hope this time you will congrat me as a knight you must be, english man...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Well, stable is a thing that has been discussed before, and some people here finished stating that stable depends on several things, one of them is the tasks for what we use the pc..
> 
> But I dont have any problems in passing HCI again, hope this time you will congrat me as a knight you must be, english man...


LOL









Unfortunately I cannot knight anyone without evidence of the claims made. For if you are stable it is truly commendable indeed of our highest honour. The Smiley Face sticker of Memorlotte.

In all seriousness, this would also include you not-having to change timings from your previous claims as you did before. That's what us Brits like to call 'cheating'. Good day to you, sir.


----------



## vmanuelgm

So the thing is saying in this forum to everyone that vmanuelgm cheats...

Ok, then, "knightmare" wise man, hope you feel better and sleep well at night...


----------



## Silent Scone

With the finest silk, that I can assure you. May your overclocking be dreamy and conditional, peasant!









No, we are all good. However fool us once...


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I think CL13 wont be stable, the clocks are similar to what 5960x achieved...
> 
> 3355 CL14-1T is stable, I am satisfied...
> 
> 3355 CL12-1T is a bit difficult, could you post some screens???


Well, you could try 13-14-14-32 1T with 1.45v and see what's up, but I don't know what voltage do you have for 3355C14. If you are already within the 1.45v range, yeah C13 might be difficult.
No can do on BW-E, as I don't own any, nor 3355C12 as I never tried that.
But 3200c12 on HW-E, that I can.
http://hwbot.org/submission/3110295_kimir_cinebench___r15_core_i7_5960x_1928_cb
http://hwbot.org/submission/3231246_kimir_aida64___memory_read_ddr4_sdram_89054_mbs


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> F22 Raptor 2,410 km/h
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My breakfast earlier, quick and easy
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's sent a shot of the CPU. It can mean the CPU, but it'll be something he has done - asked for a clearer shot of the socket also.
> 
> [EDIT] He's just said he was able to use EZFlash to update to the latest UEFI, after I told him to try USB Flashback. Which means u*nless he really is a potato*, and doesn't understand the difference, that he was able to get the system to POST.


looks like it's _potato_
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I prefer 125.8 3355 which is completely stable and super smooth:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


looks good.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Its not manual, its offset, but I selected high performance in order to pass aida... So offset for vcore, cache and system agent.
> 
> I find 3400 T2 a bit rough in my system (T1 is not stable at all, only can pass aida).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CL13, latency is cool...


whoa - slow down cowboy... you have tRAS at 13 in that post.









(but at least you are having fun!)


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> whoa - slow down cowboy... you have tRAS at 13 in that post.


Hello

tRFC can be added as well. But as these screenshot seem to be for the less informed the values are probably irrelevant. Whatever makes things look good.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> tRFC can be added as well. But as these screenshot seem to be for the less informed the values are probably irrelevant. Whatever makes things look good.


In what range should the tRFC be, around 320-340? Is there a formula to calculate that one properly?
I have that at 240 myself, GSAT stable - still stable as of yesterday, as I tried running 13-13-13 instead of 13-14-13 while tweaking the 3 DQ, 3 DQs and ppl termination voltage, without luck, ended up making sure what was previously stable, still was. -

Sorry to ask that here, it's more fit to be in the DDR4 thread.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> CL13, latency is cool...


but not running quite right as you have it set:
\

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I think you are lost in traslation, as usual...
> I meant that if I wanna see real clocks in Aida I need to pass it in high performance, what it is not the same that I need it in order to ensure stability... Have I been clear now or do you need a new explanation???
> Have you seen my IBT at the same clocks in adaptive??? *Do you think I could pass IBT in standard if I was not stable in Aida64*???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


good question. the answer is yes, since IBT standard uses no ram or cache. IBT is really only useful as a peak current test.

drop the real temp - it's missing a number of cores. Use the most recent CoreTemp


----------



## vmanuelgm

Guys, I just post aidas to see bandwidth, but doesnt mean every aida I post is fully stable for things like HCI...

I doubt, Jpbboy I can pass IBT standard if I can pass Aida64 mem and cache.

That Aida is impressive, but is it stable for HCI??? And then, How many GB's have you got??? I guess 64 are offering better results in bandwidth... That or RV10 makes a difference...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Guys, I just post aidas to see bandwidth, but doesnt mean every aida I post is fully stable for things like HCI...
> 
> I doubt, Jpbboy I can pass IBT standard if I can pass Aida64 mem and cache.
> 
> That Aida is impressive, but is it stable for HCI??? And then, How many GB's have you got??? I guess 64 are offering better results in bandwidth... That or RV10 makes a difference...


yes. http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/2040_20#post_25356335


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> In what range should the tRFC be, around 320-340? Is there a formula to calculate that one properly?
> I have that at 240 myself, GSAT stable - still stable as of yesterday, as I tried running 13-13-13 instead of 13-14-13 while tweaking the 3 DQ, 3 DQs and ppl termination voltage, without luck, ended up making sure what was previously stable, still was. -
> 
> Sorry to ask that here, it's more fit to be in the DDR4 thread.


Hello

With that low of tRFC I'd be more concerned about an adequately sized tXS window coming out of self-refresh than passing GSAT.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes. http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/2040_20#post_25356335


Hey Jpm, you must be kidding me, cos aida64 is showing 3.8 in cache and your submission in the stability thread 3.6, whtile cores 4.4 vs 4.2... Its easier with less cache and core clocks...

That or maybe I am totally lost and not in traslation for this time...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Hey Jpm, you must be kidding me, cos aida64 is showing 3.8 in cache and your submission in the stability thread 3.6, whtile cores 4.4 vs 4.2... Its easier with less cache and core clocks...
> 
> That or maybe I am totally lost and not in traslation for this time...


It's also easy to just keep saying "totally stable", as we have discovered


----------



## vmanuelgm

Stable for what???

Hci is valid to test avx2 for example???

I think you mistake things, guys, but its my opinion. Valid for me as yours is valid for you.

I also think jpmboy doesnt need bodyguards, or maybe you're special friends??? Isn't jpmboy cheating, coherent english man?

And talking about coherency, your first post in your stability thread says it needs around 90% memory use, and 2068x20=41360, far from 58982+-


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> With that low of tRFC I'd be more concerned about an adequately sized tXS window coming out of self-refresh than passing GSAT.


Hi Praz,

I'm able to get tRFC down to 248 (I set it to 247 in BIOS but comes out as 248 in OS) good for 2hrs plus RealBench, and really helps the benchtesting results














. Any lower is no good. Interestingly, tWCL which I see many have at 12 or less I can't budge from 14 without instant chaos.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Have any of you guys played with Nocuta coolers here? I have some drip on eBay trying to return a 6800K which was brand new. He's trying to put in a return request saying the board is displaying 00 and I'm refusing to accept it. Is there an issue with using them with the ASUS socket mounting tool for instance?
> 
> There are two likely scenarios, he's either trying to pull a fast one and send me back an empty box - whilst making me pay return shipping from Ireland, even though i stomached the cost. Or, he's killed the board or CPU himself somehow. He's using it on an X99 Strix so shouldn't need to flash, but have instructed he use USBFlashback and send me a decent photo of the CPU socket.


I have.

They have awesome mounting gear and are super easy to install. I am thinking the same as you... he messed something up.

Don't play ball with this chump. Regardless... the CPU you sent worked. Period. Anything else is his fault.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I have.
> 
> They have awesome mounting gear and are super easy to install. I am thinking the same as you... he messed something up.
> 
> Don't play ball with this chump. Regardless... the CPU you sent worked. Period. Anything else is his fault.


Unfortunately this is eBay, he's also ignored every instance of me asking him to contact ASUS. Nightmare. Idiots everywhere.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Hey Jpm, you must be kidding me, cos aida64 is showing 3.8 in cache and your submission in the stability thread 3.6, whtile cores 4.4 vs 4.2... Its easier with less cache and core clocks...
> 
> That or maybe I am totally lost and not in traslation for this time...


I'm afraid to say, it's beginning to look like totally lost.








keep your eye on the ball bro. I posted 4.4/3.8 since those are the core and cache you had. 3.8 or 3.6 is not a problem for this chip. The point is the ram productivity. And yes, it's stable at either.
______________________________________________________

anyway - one of the features in AID64 that helps with understanding some aspects of "tuning" is this:


Current config... sold my 1080


----------



## aerotracks

I've fired up my 6950X at the LN2 Party in PA this past weekend, I could squeeze out another 725MHz over (warm) water cooling
http://abload.de/image.php?img=20880513-035726m8s02.png
http://hwbot.org/submission/3272605_


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Unfortunately this is eBay, he's also ignored every instance of me asking him to contact ASUS. Nightmare. Idiots everywhere.


I know they usually side with the buyer... so annoying.

All 00's is definitely a major CPU issue. Even if he had a BW-E in a board with an outdated BIOS the debug LED would still be active.

Force the issue on the socket pics. It's gotta be a bent pin or a mashed socket. I seriously don't know how someone can screw this up.... or he's a complete snake, empty box style.

Hopefully this works out for you Scone. I feel for you bro.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I seriously don't know how someone can screw this up.... or he's a complete snake, empty box style.


Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.









My money is on a bad motherboard. Seems to be a trendy issue these days.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> *Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My money is on a bad motherboard. Seems to be a trendy issue these days.


True enough brother. True enough. I lol'ed pretty hard at that.

Shakespeare level English right there. ;-)


----------



## MR-e

Scone, Noctua coolers are pretty much idiot proof. I have a NH-D15S myself and there's no way a proper mount will damage the CPU/Socket. This is user error on his behalf and you need to fight the good fight!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> Scone, Noctua coolers are pretty much idiot proof. I have a NH-D15S myself and there's no way a proper mount will damage the CPU/Socket. This is user error on his behalf and you need to fight the good fight!


It's also an OEM CPU, so warranty is with Scan where I originally purchased it from.

God knows what he's done, half tempted to show him this thread so he can see what people make of it.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It's also an OEM CPU, so warranty is with Scan where I originally purchased it from.
> 
> God knows what he's done, half tempted to show him this thread so he can see what people make of it.


So sad.... people these days man.... they're either snakes or complete idiots.

How can we win? Seriously...


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I'm afraid to say, it's beginning to look like totally lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep your eye on the ball bro. I posted 4.4/3.8 since those are the core and cache you had. 3.8 or 3.6 is not a problem for this chip. The point is the ram productivity. And yes, it's stable at either.
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> anyway - one of the features in AID64 that helps with understanding some aspects of "tuning" is this:
> 
> 
> Current config... sold my 1080


I cant agree. Just for example, this 6950x is capable of booting at quad 3600 at stock boost 4 ghz. Once I step up from 4 no boot.

Sum the uncore unstability at higher frequencies and you got a fail big as a house.

But practice is the best way to confirm or refuse theories. So if you are certain that those frequencies and timings are stable with more core and uncore, just post a new hci, but this time using 90% of your 64 gb.

Waiting for it to congrat u...


----------



## MR-e

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I'm afraid to say, it's beginning to look like totally lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep your eye on the ball bro. I posted 4.4/3.8 since those are the core and cache you had. 3.8 or 3.6 is not a problem for this chip. The point is the ram productivity. And yes, it's stable at either.
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> anyway - one of the features in AID64 that helps with understanding some aspects of "tuning" is this:
> 
> Current config... *sold my 1080*


Looks like someone is in for Titan XP







geezus, I just got 24/7 on a 5960X + Titan X after a 6 month delayed build. Can't keep up with you guys, lol


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I cant agree. Just for example, this 6950x is capable of booting at quad 3600 at stock boost 4 ghz. Once I step up from 4 no boot.
> 
> Sum the uncore unstability at higher frequencies and you got a fail big as a house.
> 
> But practice is te best way to confirm or refuse theories. So if ypu are certain that those frequencies and timings are stable with more core and uncore, just post a new hci, but this time using 90% of your 64 gb.
> 
> Waiting for it to congrat u...


It's post like this which is soddening your credibility. This is what is called here in good ol' England a pub argument.

See here for an explanation, kind sir.
Quote:


> "A bored regular will often deliberately spark off an argument by making an outrageous or extreme statement, and then sit back and wait for the inevitable cries of "Rubbish!" - or something less polite. The initiator will then hotly defend his assertion (which he secretly knows to be indefensible), and counter-attack by accusing his opponents of stupidity, ignorance or worse. The exchange may continue in this fashion for some time, although the attacks and counter-attacks will often drift away from the original issue, moving on to other contentious subjects and eventually focusing almost entirely on the personal qualities of the participants. You may notice, however, that opponents continue to buy each other drinks throughout the slanging match."


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It's post like this which is soddening your credibility. This is what is called here in good ol' England a pub argument.
> 
> See here for an explanation, kind sir.


Guy, dont be a kid and let adults talk between em...

Go and play with your toys!!!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Guy, dont be a kid and let adults talk between em...
> 
> Go and play with your toys!!!


Right, ok. Got it. That told me, didn't it!

However, what if I was to tell you - that I could boot my system at 3600? I know, right? Mind blown.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Right, ok. Got it. That told me, didn't it!
> 
> However, what if I was to tell you - that I could boot my system at 3600? I know, right? Mind blown.


Yeah... bigtime. A POST means it's stable right?

;-)


----------



## vmanuelgm

I am talking about my cpu. If my cpu can boot at 4ghz at 3600 but over that core frequency is not able, something must be limiting it, and seems its core frequency...

But if u wanna post some aidas at quad 3600, instead of attacking me every post, I will thank it...

Stability is a tough think to talk about here.

A pc can be stable booting, passing aida, ibt, rb, prime with avx2. ..

You like to discuss everything...


----------



## Silent Scone




----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*


Boom!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I am talking about my cpu. If my cpu can boot at 4ghz at 3600 but over that core frequency is not able, something must be limiting it, and seems its core frequency...
> 
> But if u wanna post some aidas at quad 3600, instead of attacking me every post, I will thank it...
> 
> Stability is a tough think to talk about here.
> 
> A pc can be stable booting, passing aida, ibt, rb, prime with avx2. ..
> 
> *You like to discuss everything*...


Who doesn't? I'm pretty sure that's why we're on a forum....


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*


Perfect!


----------



## vmanuelgm

Hey scone you are very pretty in that picture...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*


Hmmm ... Is that where they keep the horses?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Hey scone you are very pretty in that picture...


I agree. very handsome lol


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> I agree. very handsome lol


He looks handsome, yes, but I'm not sure he looks stable ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I cant agree. Just for example, this 6950x is capable of booting at quad 3600 at stock boost 4 ghz. Once I step up from 4 no boot.
> 
> Sum the uncore unstability at higher frequencies and you got a fail big as a house.
> But practice is the best way to confirm or refuse theories. So if you are certain that those frequencies and timings are stable with more core and uncore, just post a new hci, but this time using 90% of your 64 gb.
> Waiting for it to congrat u...


lol, You kid, right. It's a good thing you don't agree...
Stick to tuning your own system.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> He looks handsome, yes, but I'm not sure he looks stable ...


Still waiting for Cinebench 15 scrore and 3dmark pysics score. Is you're 6900k stable for more than boot?








Quote:


> X99-A USB 3.1, 6900K @4.582GHz, 32GB (4x8) G Skill F4-3200C14Q-32GVR, XSPC Raystorm 2x RX360 L-Cooler
> 24x7: 125 Strap: 36 mult, 127.3 BCLK, 3.818GHz NB, [email protected] 14-15-14-21T1, 1.39v DRAM,
> vcore 0.310 offset, 0.315 vcache offset, 0.130 vccsa offset, 1.94 vinput, 1.05 vccio
> Win 10 Pro x64


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Still waiting for Cinebench 15 scrore and 3dmark pysics score. Is you're 6900k stable for more than boot?


I'd like to see this as well.


----------



## xarot

Purchased a 6950X after going back and forth for weeks. May the wife have mercy on my soul if she figures out the price.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Purchased a 6950X after going back and forth for weeks. May the wife have mercy on my soul if she figures out the price.


lol - ^^ This. Got a good (sympathetic) laugh outta that. Just cancel your life insurance until the better half cools off.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Still waiting for Cinebench 15 scrore and 3dmark pysics score. Is you're 6900k stable for more than boot?


Oh this is the 4.58ghz BW-E guy? Lol.

With 3400mhz CAS 14 to boot?

Congrats bro. You have the fastest 24/7 system in the world. I haven't seen faster.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Purchased a 6950X after going back and forth for weeks. May the wife have mercy on my soul if she figures out the price.


Ohhh no. Be extra nice. Hehe.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol, You kid, right. It's a good thing you don't agree...
> Stick to tuning your own system.


I guess I am older than you, so the kid word is mine...

Kiddo, I neither asked for your help, nor wanted to tune your system, I just asked you to post HCI at 4.4-3.8-3400CL13-14-14 and use 90% of your 64 GB.

Until then, you are a cheater, just as your boyfriend Scone the handsome and "stable" dude called me...


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Guy...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Kiddo, you are a cheater.












This dude's great.


----------



## lilchronic

I got one for you guy's
3600Mhz on a 5820k Gsat stable 1 hr and currently 120% hci.









Do i need proof?


----------



## vmanuelgm

Ok Lil, post it...


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Ok Lil, post it...


Ok, Here you go.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler! 3600Mhz Super Fast Stuff



Hi


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I guess I am older than you, so the kid word is mine...
> 
> Kiddo, I neither asked for your help, nor wanted to tune your system, I just asked you to post HCI at 4.4-3.8-3400CL13-14-14 and use 90% of your 64 GB.
> 
> Until then, you are a cheater, just as your boyfriend Scone the handsome and "stable" dude called me...


blocked.

(edit: and don't let my UserName fool you.)


----------



## lilchronic

No screenshot from GSAT but usually one hour of gsat is good for up to 650% in hci..... at least from what i have seen.
I'm probably guna close it once i hit 450% not looking to run this 24/7.


The forums are much better when people are nice to each other and honestly u guys arguing about nothing is pretty childish.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> No screenshot from GSAT but usually one hour of gsat is good for up to 650% in hci..... at least from what i have seen.
> I'm probably guna close it once i hit 450% not looking to run this 24/7.
> 
> 
> The forums are much better when people are nice to each other and honestly u guys arguing about nothing is pretty childish.


Wasn't arguing about anything... but also wasn't claiming anyone was a cheater.

btw - nice ram OC.


----------



## Fidelity21

I've been using Dual Intelligent Processors 5 to help overclock my computer and I've been very confused on why my CPU Core Voltage measurements were not consistent with the settings I've set in the BIOS. A few pages back, I had asked for help and (sorry, forgot the username as I type this) suggested the VID could not be overwritten. I believe that information, though possibly correct, did not apply to my original question or problem. Apparently the Asus Dual Intelligent Processor 5 is not accurately reporting information when the system is under load.

During an Asus Realbench Stress Test, I opened up TPU within Dual Intelligent Processors 5 and the CPU Core Voltage was set to Adaptive, but the Offset Voltage was 0.300v and the OC Voltage was set to Default...my Voltage was being reported as 1.298v. This was NOT what I had set in the BIOS so I started to wonder what was going on. I opened CPU-Z and noticed the CPU Core Voltage was correctly being reported as 1.279v. I had my BIOS set to Adaptive, Offset Voltage 0.000v and OC Voltage of 1.280v.

So I stop the Realbench Stress Test and go back into TPU within Dual Intelligent Processors 5 and the CPU Core Voltage was being correctly reported as Adaptive, Offset Voltage 0.000v and OC Voltage of 1.280v...back to where it should be.

SO...either I don't understand whats going on within Asus' Dual Intelligent Processors 5 OR it's reporting inaccurate information. Either way, it's nice to see that even though I was chasing my tail trying to figure out why my voltage kept spiking higher than I had it set to, I trust CPU-Z's information to be a bit more accurate.

During Load:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArBDC4AX_aIPuySmezLEA37L-rDb

During Idle:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArBDC4AX_aIPuyxtrZPlwTtBTBuE


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I've been using Dual Intelligent Processors 5 to help overclock my computer and I've been very confused on why my CPU Core Voltage measurements were not consistent with the settings I've set in the BIOS. A few pages back, I had asked for help and (sorry, forgot the username as I type this) suggested the VID could not be overwritten. I believe that information, though possibly correct, did not apply to my original question or problem. Apparently the Asus Dual Intelligent Processor 5 is not accurately reporting information when the system is under load.
> 
> During an Asus Realbench Stress Test, I opened up TPU within Dual Intelligent Processors 5 and the CPU Core Voltage was set to Adaptive, but the Offset Voltage was 0.300v and the OC Voltage was set to Default...my Voltage was being reported as 1.298v. This was NOT what I had set in the BIOS so I started to wonder what was going on. I opened CPU-Z and noticed the CPU Core Voltage was correctly being reported as 1.279v. I had my BIOS set to Adaptive, Offset Voltage 0.000v and OC Voltage of 1.280v.
> 
> So I stop the Realbench Stress Test and go back into TPU within Dual Intelligent Processors 5 and the CPU Core Voltage was being correctly reported as Adaptive, Offset Voltage 0.000v and OC Voltage of 1.280v...back to where it should be.
> 
> SO...either I don't understand whats going on within Asus' Dual Intelligent Processors 5 OR it's reporting inaccurate information. Either way, it's nice to see that even though I was chasing my tail trying to figure out why my voltage kept spiking higher than I had it set to, I trust CPU-Z's information to be a bit more accurate.
> 
> During Load:
> https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArBDC4AX_aIPuySmezLEA37L-rDb
> 
> During Idle:
> https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArBDC4AX_aIPuyxtrZPlwTtBTBuE


Man... I though you made some headway. You're using that BS Auto overclock crap now?


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Man... I though you made some headway. You're using that BS Auto overclock crap now?


Not using it for "auto overclocking" but I was using the information it provided...at least until I realized it wasn't very accurate.

My original problem was that I had a very reliable overclock to 4.0ghz and it was running very cool at only 1.1800v while in Manual mode. As soon as I switched over to Adaptive mode, the voltage shot up to 1.298v regardless of whether I was at 4.0 or up to 4.3ghz. That just didn't make any sense to me so I asked the question and a user responded that I "could not bypass the VID set by Intel". I'm thinking now that my problem had nothing to do with the VID set by intel, but rather the tool I was using to show voltage. The Asus program is not accurately reporting.

Just throwing this out there to anyone else using the program...it's not very accurate!

On another note, I have been able to successfully overclock to 4.3ghz while staying under 1.350v (although now I need to go back and double check the actual voltage with cpu-z.)









I'm sticking with 4.2ghz right now because it's been an incredibly hot summer in NY and I'd really like to avoid adding anymore heat to this room that I already have. 4.2ghz is stable and more than fast enough for anything I'm doing right now.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Not using it for "auto overclocking" but I was using the information it provided...at least until I realized it wasn't very accurate.
> 
> My original problem was that I had a very reliable overclock to 4.0ghz and it was running very cool at only 1.1800v while in Manual mode. As soon as I switched over to Adaptive mode, the voltage shot up to 1.298v regardless of whether I was at 4.0 or up to 4.3ghz. That just didn't make any sense to me so I asked the question and a user responded that I "could not bypass the VID set by Intel". I'm thinking now that my problem had nothing to do with the VID set by intel, but rather the tool I was using to show voltage. The Asus program is not accurately reporting.
> 
> Just throwing this out there to anyone else using the program...it's not very accurate!
> 
> On another note, I have been able to successfully overclock to 4.3ghz while staying under 1.350v (although now I need to go back and double check the actual voltage with cpu-z.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sticking with 4.2ghz right now because it's been an incredibly hot summer in NY and I'd really like to avoid adding anymore heat to this room that I already have. 4.2ghz is stable and more than fast enough for anything I'm doing right now.


Oh okay. Lol I was like "This dude was doing so well and now this!?".

4.2ghz is great. Won't have any issues there. Play with it for now and do some custom watercooling and a portable ac beside it. You'll hit 4.4 then most likely.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I've been using Dual Intelligent Processors 5 to help overclock my computer and I've been very confused on why my CPU Core Voltage measurements were not consistent with the settings I've set in the BIOS. A few pages back, I had asked for help and (sorry, forgot the username as I type this) suggested the VID could not be overwritten. I believe that information, though possibly correct, did not apply to my original question or problem. Apparently the Asus Dual Intelligent Processor 5 is not accurately reporting information when the system is under load.
> 
> During an Asus Realbench Stress Test, I opened up TPU within Dual Intelligent Processors 5 and the CPU Core Voltage was set to Adaptive, but the Offset Voltage was 0.300v and the OC Voltage was set to Default...my Voltage was being reported as 1.298v. This was NOT what I had set in the BIOS so I started to wonder what was going on. I opened CPU-Z and noticed the CPU Core Voltage was correctly being reported as 1.279v. I had my BIOS set to Adaptive, Offset Voltage 0.000v and OC Voltage of 1.280v.
> 
> So I stop the Realbench Stress Test and go back into TPU within Dual Intelligent Processors 5 and the CPU Core Voltage was being correctly reported as Adaptive, Offset Voltage 0.000v and OC Voltage of 1.280v...back to where it should be.
> 
> SO...either I don't understand whats going on within Asus' Dual Intelligent Processors 5 OR it's reporting inaccurate information. Either way, it's nice to see that even though I was chasing my tail trying to figure out why my voltage kept spiking higher than I had it set to, I trust CPU-Z's information to be a bit more accurate.
> 
> During Load:
> https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArBDC4AX_aIPuySmezLEA37L-rDb
> 
> During Idle:
> https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArBDC4AX_aIPuyxtrZPlwTtBTBuE


In my experience, the entire AISuite software program is completely useless, and often a hindrance. Anything you can do with it can be achieved through the bios, more simply, more effectively, and without the bloated software. I would recommend uninstalling it completely.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Not using it for "auto overclocking" but I was using the information it provided...at least until I realized it wasn't very accurate.
> 
> My original problem was that I had a very reliable overclock to 4.0ghz and it was running very cool at only 1.1800v while in Manual mode. As soon as I switched over to Adaptive mode, the voltage shot up to 1.298v regardless of whether I was at 4.0 or up to 4.3ghz. That just didn't make any sense to me so I asked the question and a user responded that I "could not bypass the VID set by Intel". I'm thinking now that my problem had nothing to do with the VID set by intel, but rather the tool I was using to show voltage. The Asus program is not accurately reporting.
> 
> Just throwing this out there to anyone else using the program...it's not very accurate!
> 
> On another note, I have been able to successfully overclock to 4.3ghz while staying under 1.350v (although now I need to go back and double check the actual voltage with cpu-z.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sticking with 4.2ghz right now because it's been an incredibly hot summer in NY and I'd really like to avoid adding anymore heat to this room that I already have. 4.2ghz is stable and more than fast enough for anything I'm doing right now.


What your looking for is Adaptive mode with 0 or 0.001 offset and your target voltage as the "max turbo voltage". You've probably been told that already though...

Don't forget that multiple monitoring programs \can mess with each others readings. Pick one and use it exclusively.(Hinton't use AISuite)

Also I managed to get 4.3 stable at 1.325 on my chip, so lower voltages are possible! Keep trying!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Not using it for "auto overclocking" but I was using the information it provided...at least until I realized it wasn't very accurate.
> 
> My original problem was that I had a very reliable overclock to 4.0ghz and it was running very cool at only 1.1800v while in Manual mode. As soon as I switched over to Adaptive mode, the voltage shot up to 1.298v regardless of whether I was at 4.0 or up to 4.3ghz. That just didn't make any sense to me so I asked the question and a user responded that I "could not bypass the VID set by Intel". I'm thinking now that my problem had nothing to do with the VID set by intel, but rather the tool I was using to show voltage. The Asus program is not accurately reporting.
> 
> Just throwing this out there to anyone else using the program...it's not very accurate!
> 
> On another note, I have been able to successfully overclock to 4.3ghz while staying under 1.350v (although now I need to go back and *double check the actual voltage with cpu-z.*)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sticking with 4.2ghz right now because it's been an incredibly hot summer in NY and I'd really like to avoid adding anymore heat to this room that I already have. 4.2ghz is stable and more than fast enough for anything I'm doing right now.


just so you know, cpuZ will report the VID, not the actual vcore on x99. It may be close, but in an overvoltage situation, it is not reliable. Either use AID64 or HWmonitor... or better yet, a digital multimeter. AID64 is the best software to use IMO.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> No screenshot from GSAT but usually one hour of gsat is good for up to 650% in hci..... at least from what i have seen.
> I'm probably guna close it once i hit 450% not looking to run this 24/7.
> 
> 
> The forums are much better when people are nice to each other and honestly u guys arguing about nothing is pretty childish.


Nice result.

I wanna post one, its cheat of course, xD...



Some people (if we can call em people) here are pathetic and overrated (in their minds)... They attack in group, they laugh at foreigners and so on... But they only joke, and if you defend yourself, then you are the bad guy... 4-6-270-3333 xD

PATHETIC!!!


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Wasn't arguing about anything... but also wasn't claiming anyone was a cheater.
> 
> btw - nice ram OC.


Thank's

I saw what was said. It's all there to read back if you need.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Nice result.
> 
> I wanna post one, its cheat of course, xD...
> 
> 
> 
> Some people (if we can call em people) here are pathetic and overrated (in their minds)... They attack in group, they laugh at foreigners and so on... But they only joke, and if you defend yourself, then you are the bad guy... 4-6-270-3333 xD
> 
> PATHETIC!!!


Nice results.

I blame silent scone he started it.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> just so you know, cpuZ will report the VID, not the actual vcore on x99. It may be close, but in an overvoltage situation, it is not reliable. Either use AID64 or HWmonitor... or better yet, a digital multimeter. AID64 is the best software to use IMO.


I tried searching for the option but do you know if the AIDA64 sensor monitor can do highest and current.
I'm still getting that strange spike in the VCCIN it's set to 1.950v in BIOS, but on odd occasions it will spike to 1.968v then back to 1.950v, it only for like a split second.


----------



## Silent Scone

Nice, although TRRD
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Nice result.
> 
> I wanna post one, its cheat of course, xD...
> 
> 
> 
> Some people (if we can call em people) here are pathetic and overrated (in their minds)... They attack in group, they laugh at foreigners and so on... But they only joke, and if you defend yourself, then you are the bad guy... 4-6-270-3333 xD
> 
> PATHETIC!!!


Hi, TRWDR and DD are quite high for the density you are using. I'm glad you've posted something more concrete though.

A few of us are running these speeds no problem, this isn't CAS13 like you posted earlier, either.


----------



## vmanuelgm

You look nicer in this picture, getting better... xD

Guys, I never said I was stable at 3333 CL13, but please post the stuff and stop saying nonsenses... I am still waiting to see your 3600 aida scores...










PS: 1475x20=90% of 32 GB... Just in case...


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> In my experience, the entire AISuite software program is completely useless, and often a hindrance. Anything you can do with it can be achieved through the bios, more simply, more effectively, and without the bloated software. I would recommend uninstalling it completely.
> What your looking for is Adaptive mode with 0 or 0.001 offset and your target voltage as the "max turbo voltage". You've probably been told that already though...
> 
> Don't forget that multiple monitoring programs \can mess with each others readings. Pick one and use it exclusively.(Hinton't use AISuite)
> 
> Also I managed to get 4.3 stable at 1.325 on my chip, so lower voltages are possible! Keep trying!


Ok, AI Suite is gone! Using CPU-Z for Core Voltage measurement only and using RealBench for stress testing. I thought I finally knew what I was doing, so I set Adaptive Voltage, Offset 0.000v and OC Voltage 1.250v. Not a HUGE deal but it's still jumping to 1.279v under load so I guess there was some truth to the VID comment posted earlier. I have no idea why it refuses to stay at 1.250v under load like I have it set to, so I have to assume that it's because of the VID setting within the CPU itself. I know the system can run stable at a lower voltage, but I can't seem to force it lower while staying in Adaptive Mode so I'm going to just leave it be.

60 minutes of stress testing with RealBench at the above mentioned settings and max temps as follows:

CPU: 61C
CPU Core #1: 70C
CPU Core #2: 61C
CPU Core #3: 73C
CPU Core #4: 63C
CPU Core #5: 66C
CPU Core #6: 57C
VRM: 61C
GPU: 48C
Water temp: 33C

So my EK X360 kit with an extra SE240mm radiator seems to be working well enough to keep everything nice and cool!









Almost forgot to mention, 4.3ghz at 1.325 is great! I haven't tried jumping to 4.3ghz since discovering that AI Suite Software is junk...so I'll go back and see what voltage I can get at that setting. By the way, are you able to get lower than 1.325v if you set the Adaptive OC Voltage to a lower value? I'm just curious because I'd really like to know if it's truly the VID that's preventing me from dropping the voltage further or if it's another settings I haven't been able to find yet.


----------



## vmanuelgm

My pc entered godmode cheat and still running at 4-6-270-3333...

This is a big fake:


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> just so you know, cpuZ will report the VID, not the actual vcore on x99. It may be close, but in an overvoltage situation, it is not reliable. Either use AID64 or HWmonitor... or better yet, a digital multimeter. AID64 is the best software to use IMO.


That's exactly what I needed to know...thank you sir!

4.2ghz CPU Core Voltage showed 1.279v in AIDA64
4.3ghz CPU Core Voltage showed 1.285v in AIDA64.

I'm running a 30 minute Asus RealBench test now and I'm just touching a CPU temperature of 70C. This might be a good chip after all if these measurements are true. I'll post a screen shot of everything as soon as the Benchmark is done running. (I'm typing this from a laptop)

Also, I went back into the BIOS and changed the Adaptive OC Voltage to 1.285v just to match the voltage I'm seeing in AIDA64. I'm sure it probably doesn't make a difference but it's nice to have numbers matching. Also, I tried 4.4ghz and immediately locked up so I'm guessing those voltage measurements are just far to low for operation at 4.4ghz.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Still waiting for Cinebench 15 scrore and 3dmark pysics score. Is you're 6900k stable for more than boot?


The Cinebench link you sent me doesn't work ... and yes, 80 minutes GSAT and 2 hour+ RealBench stable


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> The Cinebench link you sent me doesn't work ... and yes, 80 minutes GSAT and 2 hour+ RealBench stable


It is easy to find 3dmark and cinebench









I just want to see the results, because I have 6900k


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> It is easy to find 3dmark and cinebench
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to see the results, because I have 6900k


And I just compete with myself







. 3dmark I believe requires Steam, which I don't do - not a gamer, look at my totally lame GPU







! Now I'm moving to a new MB - ROG Strix Gaming, for the non-gamer


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> The Cinebench link you sent me doesn't work ... and yes, 80 minutes GSAT and 2 hour+ RealBench stable


You can download Cinebench R15 from the Cinebench thread here.


----------



## Fidelity21

4.3ghz seems to be working well at 1.285v. Time for another Benchmark I guess. Prime95 and CineBench next


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> You can download Cinebench R15 from the Cinebench thread here.


I go to the thread, click on Download Here, and get a 404 ...









EDIT:
OK, I found the proper page in the Maxon site and downloaded. Will post after I move to my new Strix Gaming board


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I go to the thread, click on Download Here, and get a 404 ...


Yeah, apparently MAXON changed the site around and the thread wasn't updated. I fixed the original link for you.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I go to the thread, click on Download Here, and get a 404 ...


http://www.just*******googleit.com
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=3dmark
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cinebench+15

You do not need steam for 3dmark.

No waiting, post now !


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> http://www.just*******googleit.com
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=3dmark
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cinebench+15
> 
> You do not need steam for 3dmark.
> 
> No waiting, post now !


I love how other people like to manage my time


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Yeah, apparently MAXON changed the site around and the thread wasn't updated. I fixed the original link for you.


Thanks, but I found it - check my edited post







.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> That's exactly what I needed to know...thank you sir!
> 
> 4.2ghz CPU Core Voltage showed 1.279v in AIDA64
> 4.3ghz CPU Core Voltage showed 1.285v in AIDA64.
> 
> I'm running a 30 minute Asus RealBench test now and I'm just touching a CPU temperature of 70C. This might be a good chip after all if these measurements are true. I'll post a screen shot of everything as soon as the Benchmark is done running. (I'm typing this from a laptop)
> 
> Also, I went back into the BIOS and changed the Adaptive OC Voltage to 1.285v just to match the voltage I'm seeing in AIDA64. I'm sure it probably doesn't make a difference but it's nice to have numbers matching. *Also, I tried 4.4ghz and immediately locked up* so I'm guessing those voltage measurements are just far to low for operation at 4.4ghz.


Figure 10mV per 100MHz per core... so on an 8 core each 100MHz is approx 80mV over the stable starting point... when the mV/MHz curve get very non-linear, the chip is outside it's comfort range for OC. Fine for benchmarking, but for 24/7 use, settle at the pio9nt where this is not getting very far from this rule-of-thumb.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> 4.3ghz seems to be working well at 1.285v. Time for another Benchmark I guess. Prime95 and CineBench next


It may be a great chip.. but not for long running p95. R15 is fine - it's not a stress test at all. download x265, run it with at least p-mode. 4x and as many "parts" as your ram will allow.


----------



## PowerK

I've been fiddling with overclocking my 6950X since Sunday afternoon.

My current setting in BIOS looks like below. (I'm at work and it's going by memory)

Frequency = 4.4GHz core, 3.7GHz cache
Ai Overclock Tuner = XMP
CPU Strap = 100MHz
BCLK Frequency = 100.0
Min. CPU Cache Ratio = Auto
Max. CPU Cache Ratio = 37
AVX Negative offset = 4
CPU Core Voltage = 1.340V (Adaptive)
Cache Voltage = I forgot. I'm at work. But I think it's about 1.150V
CPU system agent voltage = 1.200V (Offset +0.200V)
CPU SVID Support = Auto
CPU Input Voltage = 1.800V (default/stock)
DRAM Voltage = 1.350V

So far, it seems Prime95 custom blend stable (Non-AVX). However, x264 encoding benchmark loop in Asus RealBench fails within 10~15 minutes. (screen freeze hard lock or sudden reboot without BSOD error code). Also, Memtest86 (http://www.memtest86.com/) failed over night.
Also, Power Management (saver) features such as CPU C-state (C3 & C6 I think) in BIOS, I have them all enabled. However, it seems that people leave it disabled on X99 systems. Should I disable them again in BIOS ?

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I've been fiddling with overclocking my 6950X since Sunday afternoon.
> 
> My current setting in BIOS looks like below. (I'm at work and it's going by memory)
> 
> Frequency = 4.4GHz core, 3.7GHz cache
> Ai Overclock Tuner = XMP
> CPU Strap = 100MHz
> BCLK Frequency = 100.0
> Min. CPU Cache Ratio = Auto
> Max. CPU Cache Ratio = 37
> AVX Negative offset = 4
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.340V (Adaptive)
> Cache Voltage = I forgot. I'm at work. But I think it's about 1.150V
> CPU system agent voltage = 1.200V (Offset +0.200V)
> CPU SVID Support = Auto
> CPU Input Voltage = 1.800V (default/stock)
> DRAM Voltage = 1.350V
> 
> So far, it seems Prime95 custom blend stable (Non-AVX). However, x264 encoding benchmark loop in Asus RealBench fails within 10~15 minutes. (screen freeze hard lock or sudden reboot without BSOD error code). Also, Memtest86 (http://www.memtest86.com/) failed over night.
> Also, Power Management (saver) features such as CPU C-state (C3 & C6 I think) in BIOS, I have them all enabled. However, it seems that people leave it disabled on X99 systems. Should I disable them again in BIOS ?
> 
> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.


c-states when using adaptive vcore are kinda superfluous. The system will already down clock and down volt to 1200 @ ~ 0.75V. So there is not much power to save. Also, c-states can get deep and park cores which can wake slowly at times (this is readily seen in benchmarks). p95 with AVX/FMA3 disabled is not a good logic test for these processors, whereas x264 will use these instruction sets. x265 will load the system a bit harder that 254 - it's worth checking with x265 also (you will need to enable the HPET to use it).
Input voltage? LLC? Tweak page VCCU? PLL step setting?

.. good to see someone else using AVX offset. You should look into the ASUS Thermal control tool linked in any opf Raja's posts.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> c-states when using adaptive vcore are kinda superfluous. The system will already down clock and down volt to 1200 @ ~ 0.75V. So there is not much power to save. Also, c-states can get deep and park cores which can wake slowly at times (this is readily seen in benchmarks). p95 with AVX/FMA3 disabled is not a good logic test for these processors, whereas x264 will use these instructin sets. x265 wil load the system a bit harder that 254 - it's worth checking with x265 also (you will need to enable the HPET to use it).
> Input voltage? LLC? Tweak page VCCU? PLL step setting?
> 
> .. good to see someone else using AVX offset. You should look into the ASUS Thermal control tool linked in any opf Raja's posts.


Thanks, JPM.
I'll disable C-state related settings in BIOS.
By input voltage, if you mean 'CPU Input Voltage', it's at 1.800V which is stock. Load-line calibration is at Level 5. VCCU, PLL etc are all left at stock (untouched) which must be at Auto. (Unless I know for sure what each setting means/does, I leave them at stock/auto) Heh.
Cheers.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Thanks, JPM.
> I'll disable C-state related settings in BIOS.
> By input voltage, if you mean 'CPU Input Voltage', it's at 1.800V which is stock. Load-line calibration is at Level 5. VCCU, PLL etc are all left at stock (untouched) which must be at Auto. (Unless I know for sure what each setting means/does, I leave them at stock/auto) Heh.
> Cheers.


cool - for the clocks you are running, VCCIN around 1.92-1.96V would be beneficial; it is very cpu dependent. LLC5 is perfect. at 1.95 it will droop vccin to below 1.9V with a high load.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> *You look nicer in this picture, getting better... xD*
> 
> Guys, I never said I was stable at 3333 CL13, but please post the stuff and stop saying nonsenses... I am still waiting to see your 3600 aida scores...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: 1475x20=90% of 32 GB... Just in case...


Do you not have Muppets in Romania?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Do you not have Muppets in Romania?


"How many muppets do we have in Romania?" -The Count


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> cool - for the clocks you are running, VCCIN around 1.92-1.96V would be beneficial; it is very cpu dependent. LLC5 is perfect. at 1.95 it will droop vccin to below 1.9V with a high load.


Thanks. I'll fiddle around with VCCIN when I get home tonight.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> use this x264 stability test... straight forward. set number of threads to 1.5x actual threads, priority normal.
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gpMyj43ZFjSzJ4Nm0xT3pobjA


6950X = 10 core / 20 threads. Hence, 20 threads x 1.5 = *30 threads* is the number I enter ?
EDIT: If it indeed is 30, is there any particular reason for 30 instead of actual number of threads which is 20 ?


----------



## djgar

OK, no laughing please


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> OK, no laughing please


Not too shabby. What did you run that at?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Not too shabby. What did you run that at?


My current sig ...


----------



## vibraslap

WOW! Almost 4.6Ghz! Nice OC!

Nice bench too! Beats mine by a good bit.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> OK, no laughing please


Nice CB, first time I see a 6900K getting over 1900 on air/water...



And finally one error over 1000 coverage, ITS NOT STABLE!!! XD





Sorry for using your personal image...


----------



## PowerK

Guys,

is VCCIO = CPU Input Voltage (under Extreme Tweaker menu in UEFI BIOS) for Rampage V Extreme (& Edition 10) ??
I ask because I'm at work and Google image search doesn't seem to provide so called "VCCIO" in BIOS for Rampage V board.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Guys,
> 
> is VCCIO = CPU Input Voltage (under Extreme Tweaker menu in UEFI BIOS) for Rampage V Extreme (& Edition 10) ??
> I ask because I'm at work and Google image search doesn't seem to provide so called "VCCIO" in BIOS for Rampage V board.


No, Input voltage is VCCIN. Check the descriptions in the UEFI when the items are selected


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No, Input voltage is VCCIN


Ah.. sorry. My bad. I meant VCCIN. (Not VCCIO)
So, VCCIN = CPU Input Voltage (under Extreme Tweaker's menu) for Rampage V boards ?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Ah.. sorry. My bad. I meant VCCIN. (Not VCCIO)
> So, VCCIN = CPU Input Voltage (under Extreme Tweaker's menu) for Rampage V boards ?


Correct


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Correct


Thank you.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> I got one for you guy's
> 3600Mhz on a 5820k Gsat stable 1 hr and currently 120% hci.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i need proof?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> No screenshot from GSAT but usually one hour of gsat is good for up to 650% in hci..... at least from what i have seen.
> I'm probably guna close it once i hit 450% not looking to run this 24/7.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The forums are much better when people are nice to each other and honestly u guys arguing about nothing is pretty childish.


I agree entirely!


----------



## vmanuelgm

Mornings are a bit hard for some guys!!!

Hey Scone, gonna post my 400 at your thread, hope you list me, gentleman!!!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mornings are a bit hard for some guys!!!
> 
> Hey Scone, gonna post my 400 at your thread, hope you list me, gentleman!!!


Yes, all results welcome


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Yes, all results welcome












This is how I'll remain after flashing bios 3301 (comes with latest microcode) in my RVE...










Liking this new firm, runs a lot softer than previous, good job Asus!!!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> 6950X = 10 core / 20 threads. Hence, 20 threads x 1.5 = *30 threads* is the number I enter ?
> EDIT: If it indeed is 30, is there any particular reason for 30 instead of actual number of threads which is 20 ?


Using 1.5x is an optimal load. but you can run it with 1.0x just as well (may take a little longer to find any instability)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> OK, no laughing please


lookin very good buddy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Guys,
> 
> is VCCIO = CPU Input Voltage (under Extreme Tweaker menu in UEFI BIOS) for Rampage V Extreme (& Edition 10) ??
> I ask because I'm at work and Google image search doesn't seem to provide so called "VCCIO" in BIOS for Rampage V board.


AS scone said, VCCIN.


----------



## Zero-Cold

Hello guys! I'm completely new to the x99 overclocking and I never had LGA-2011v3 platform before. My previous rig was based on LGA1366 with a Xeon x5650.

So... I purchased the i7-6800k with an Asrock x99 Extreme 4. The board is *not* the 3.1 version with OC socket.

I'm having some problems overclocking my CPU. I'm using "Override" for Vcore in order to eliminate the weird things happening with Adaptive, but so far it seems I can't pass Linx (AVX) at 4000 MHz with anything lower than 1.25v. I'm kind of frustrated and I'm not sure if this is normal or my CPU is extremely poor. Or maybe I need to manually set some other voltages too. Currently I have all other voltages at AUTO except for the CPU Input voltage which is set to 1.9v. Is this actually a normal thing with 6800k? Am I the only one needing ~ 1.25v for just 4GHz? I know AVX is usually a lot heavier than non-AVX, but still...
 








Today I started examining the steps between 100MHz... So far I have:
3600 MHz (3 hours Linx with AVX) at 1.15v - pass
3700 MHz at 1.175v - BSOD in less than 10 minutes


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero-Cold*
> 
> Hello guys! I'm completely new to the x99 overclocking and I never had LGA-2011v3 platform before. My previous rig was based on LGA1366 with a Xeon x5650.
> 
> So... I purchased the i7-6800k with an Asrock x99 Extreme 4. The board is *not* the 3.1 version with OC socket.
> 
> I'm having some problems overclocking my CPU. I'm using "Override" for Vcore in order to eliminate the weird things happening with Adaptive, but so far it seems I can't pass Linx (AVX) at 4000 MHz with anything lower than 1.25v. I'm kind of frustrated and I'm not sure if this is normal or my CPU is extremely poor. Or maybe I need to manually set some other voltages too. Currently I have all other voltages at AUTO except for the CPU Input voltage which is set to 1.9v. Is this actually a normal thing with 6800k? Am I the only one needing ~ 1.25v for just 4GHz? I know AVX is usually a lot heavier than non-AVX, but still...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today I started examining the steps between 100MHz... So far I have:
> 3600 MHz (3 hours Linx with AVX) at 1.15v - pass
> 3700 MHz at 1.175v - BSOD in less than 10 minutes


That's the hardest test on the CPU, so it pulls the most power and heat. 1.25v doesn't seem unreasonable for 4.0ghz during that test. On my motherboard, there is a setting to modify voltage when running AVX instructions. Do you have that option? AVX offset I think it's called. Also, if you're running adaptive voltage, set the OC offset to 1.200. Use aida64 to monitor voltage so you get an accurate measurement but 1.200v is still relatively low. I'm currently at 1.285v for 4.3ghz but I have a water cooled system. It was 4.2ghz at 1.279v so there wasn't much of an increase voltage wise...meaning 1.200v range for 4.0ghz is completely normal...not doing AVX instructions. What are your temps and what cooling system?

Also, leave CPU input voltage to auto unless you have a reason to change it. Mine stays between 1.92 and 1.95v while on auto.


----------



## Zero-Cold

I'm not sure about modifying the voltage during AVX workloads, but I have an option to throttle the multiplier. Say, 100 x40 for non-AVX and 100 x36 for AVX. But I see a lot of people going around the 4300-4400 mark with just 1.35v? Are they all using AVX throttling?









If someone with an Asrock board could help I would appreciate it a lot!


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero-Cold*
> 
> I'm not sure about modifying the voltage during AVX workloads, but I have an option to throttle the multiplier. Say, 100 x40 for non-AVX and 100 x36 for AVX. But I see a lot of people going around the 4300-4400 mark with just 1.35v? Are they all using AVX throttling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone with an Asrock board could help I would appreciate it a lot!


I don't have your mobo so I can't help there. But most of the tests I've seen are not using AVX. I get around this by using the Asus thermal throttling tool. The tool is set to lower my multiplier to 36x and core voltage to 1.250v when temps exceed 82C. When temps drop below 50C the multiplier and core voltage return to default. This is my protection against sudden jolts to temperature or wattage.

All that said, there seems to be many different ways of setting the system up to your preferences, but I read this thread and it helped a lot...which pushed me toward the throttling tool.

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero-Cold*
> 
> I'm not sure about modifying the voltage during AVX workloads, but I have an option to throttle the multiplier. Say, 100 x40 for non-AVX and 100 x36 for AVX. But I see a lot of people going around the 4300-4400 mark with just 1.35v? Are they all using AVX throttling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone with an Asrock board could help I would appreciate it a lot!


these 10 core CPUs really benefit from allowing the cpu to downclock when AVX is in the instruction set stack... BWE provides a setting that we can set to accomplish this. E-class chips do it automatically. The AVX/FMA3 current load is extremely high and can result in degradation. IMO, Either use the AVX offset or set a lower overalll clock. I run 4.4core AVX4.2Cache3.8 at 1.36V with no stability issues... or I use the ASUS thermal control tool to run 4.5core4.5AVXcache3.8 with 1.425V and the ATCT set to drop to [email protected] if the package temp exceeds 60C. All use Adaptive voltage on core and offset on cache.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I don't have your mobo so I can't help there. But most of the tests I've seen are not using AVX. I get around this by using the Asus thermal throttling tool. The tool is set to lower my multiplier to 36x and core voltage to 1.250v when temps exceed 82C. When temps drop below 50C the multiplier and core voltage return to default. This is my protection against sudden jolts to temperature or wattage.
> 
> All that said, there seems to be many different ways of setting the system up to your preferences, but I read this thread and it helped a lot...which pushed me toward the throttling tool.
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


Asus realbench x264 encode, x265 or any x264, handbrake encode uses AXV as one of the instruction sets. It's the manner in which LinX or p95 hammer the FPU that results in such high temperatures. If either is a must for your stability testing, then you'll end up with a 200MHz or so lower overall OC even for light loads. So using the AVX offset or the ATCT avoids this issue.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Yes, all results welcome


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> these 10 core CPUs really benefit from allowing the cpu to downclock when AVX is in the instruction set stack... BWE provides a setting that we can set to accomplish this. E-class chips do it automatically. The AVX/FMA3 current load is extremely high and can result in degradation. IMO, Either use the AVX offset or set a lower overalll clock. I run 4.4core AVX4.2Cache3.8 at 1.36V with no stability issues... or I use the ASUS thermal control tool to run 4.5core4.5AVXcache3.8 with 1.425V and the ATCT set to drop to [email protected] if the package temp exceeds 60C. All use Adaptive voltage on core and offset on cache.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus realbench x264 encode, x265 or any x264, handbrake encode uses AXV as one of the instruction sets. It's the manner in which LinX or p95 hammer the FPU that results in such high temperatures. If either is a must for your stability testing, then you'll end up with a 200MHz or so lower overall OC even for light loads. So using the AVX offset or the ATCT avoids this issue.


Now guys, with this Broadwell-E option for AVX2/FMA3, you can test and set "First class" overclocks with P95 v28xx blend by managing beter the overheating ?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Now guys, with this Broadwell-E option for AVX2/FMA3, you can test and set "First class" overclocks with P95 v28xx blend by managing beter the overheating ?


Hello

Sure if one has a compelling need to do so. I'm not sure what that would be though and an excessive amount of current would still be pulled needlessly.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Sure if one has a compelling need to do so. I'm not sure what that would be though and an excessive amount of current would still be pulled needlessly.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Now guys, with this Broadwell-E option for AVX2/FMA3, you can test and set "First class" overclocks with P95 v28xx blend by managing beter the overheating ?


yes... if you believe p95 is a good test of the chip's logic.









I did a lot of these at 6950X launch on my R5E... this is with the R5E-10 ram at 3400c13
straight [email protected]

max package temp = 76C

9x4.5, 1x4.6 @ 1.430V in bios. ATCT 65C -> [email protected]

max package temp = 65C


----------



## X3NEIZE

A bit of a noob question... With the 6850k and Asus Rampage V Edition 10, I'm currently running at 4.2Ghz with 34x125, Do you guys think i'll be more successful by lowering the bus speed and increasing the multiplier?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *X3NEIZE*
> 
> A bit of a noob question... With the 6850k and Asus Rampage V Edition 10, I'm currently running at 4.2Ghz with 34x125, Do you guys think i'll be more successful by lowering the bus speed and increasing the multiplier?


Gear ratio (strap) does not seem to buy an advantage on x99 (unlike x79). Depending on the memory speed you want to run, Strap 100 BCLK 100 certainly has the advantage of working with adaptive voltage. It's just unlikely that you will get higher core frequencies based only on strap used.


----------



## nexxusty

Gear ratio
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Gear ratio (strap) does not seem to buy an advantage on x99 (unlike x79). Depending on the memory speed you want to run, Strap 100 BCLK 100 certainly has the advantage of working with adaptive voltage. It's just unlikely that you will get higher core frequencies based only on strap used.


Gear ratio? Don't tell me you're a car geek too. He he.


----------



## MR-e

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Gear ratio
> Gear ratio? Don't tell me you're a car geek too. He he.


Have you seen JP's garage? I could live in there and not come out for years - with free food and a washroom, haha


----------



## X3NEIZE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Gear ratio (strap) does not seem to buy an advantage on x99 (unlike x79). Depending on the memory speed you want to run, Strap 100 BCLK 100 certainly has the advantage of working with adaptive voltage. It's just unlikely that you will get higher core frequencies based only on strap used.


Haha Could you translate? I'm running DDR 2400, so should I try running 45X and BCLK to ~100? my temperatures are golden with prime95 with current OC (under 40C)


----------



## Silent Scone

Yes, no need to change straps.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> Have you seen JP's garage? I could live in there and not come out for years - with free food and a washroom, haha


I have not.

Haha, that sounds like heaven to me. I knew I liked him. Heh.


----------



## nexxusty

I'm going to be binning my 8 sticks of 3200mhz E-Die today.

I've never binned before although I understand the process. Any tips?

Use the same slot, use GSAT or HCI. What I don't understand is what to do when testing more than one stick. Just aim for what your best sticks do and tweak downward accordingly basically?

I think I have a grasp on this, always want to be thorough however. Any tips would be appreciated.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Which model are you using to bin???


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Which brand are you using to bin???


G.Skill Ripjaws V E-Die 3200mhz.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *X3NEIZE*
> 
> A bit of a noob question... With the 6850k and Asus Rampage V Edition 10, I'm currently running at 4.2Ghz with 34x125, Do you guys think i'll be more successful by lowering the bus speed and increasing the multiplier?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes... if you believe p95 is a good test of the chip's logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did a lot of these at 6950X launch on my R5E... this is with the R5E-10 ram at 3400c13
> straight [email protected]
> 
> max package temp = 76C
> 
> 9x4.5, 1x4.6 @ 1.430V in bios. ATCT 65C -> [email protected]
> 
> max package temp = 65C











I really need to go to WC in order to reduce this package temp.
This is what limit more my overclocks, even with the NH-D15.
Otherwise, cores temp are "ok" and well cooled.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Never heard of e-die, thats why I asked brand/model...

In regards to binning procedure, the simple way is to test individually in the same slot and select the fastest sticks (try max stable clock). Then use the max clock of the worst stick after selection...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I'm going to be binning my 8 sticks of 3200mhz E-Die today.
> 
> I've never binned before although I understand the process. Any tips?
> 
> Use the same slot, use GSAT or HCI. What I don't understand is what to do when testing more than one stick. Just aim for what your best sticks do and tweak downward accordingly basically?
> 
> I think I have a grasp on this, always want to be thorough however. Any tips would be appreciated.


You can start with: set a target/desired cas value in bios (like 11, 12 or 13) and 3200 frequency, and for each stick determine the lowest voltage each stick will post at - if any. once you get thru the post bin, Splave has some pointers using SPi32M as a cut here

There are a few more guides around (@Kimir may know a few).


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> You can start with: set a target/desired cas value in bios (like 11, 12 or 13) and 3200 frequency, and for each stick determine the lowest voltage each stick will post at - if any. once you get thru the post bin, Splave has some pointers using SPi32M as a cut here
> 
> There are a few more guides around (@Kimir may know a few).


I was looking for that post by Splave! Thanks JPM. Your rock bro, I'll go ahead using those tips.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Never heard of e-die, thats why I asked brand/model...
> 
> In regards to binning procedure, the simple way is to test individually in the same slot and select the fastest sticks (try max stable clock). Then use the max clock of the worst stick after selection...


Hello

If binning for use with a particular board that is only part of the process. But with your expertise I'm sure you know this.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> If binning for use with a particular board *that is only part of the process*. But with your expertise I'm sure you know this.


The reason I never bother binning ram sticks.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I was looking for that post by Splave! Thanks JPM. Your rock bro, I'll go ahead using those tips.


aerotracks and rt123 ca probably help ya.


----------



## vmanuelgm

I am not as expert as you, Praz... Just a spanish guy trying to get better...

I answer myself, Samsung e die ics, I thought there was a special Gskill e die edition...

I tried both the gskill 3200 CL14 and now the 3600 CL15 that should be a bit better, but almost no difference in spite of price.

One question, after installing the 6950x I am having some stuttering in Witcher 3, which was not present with 5960x, happened to you???


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> The reason I never bother binning ram sticks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aerotracks and rt123 ca probably help ya.


Seems like I may like it. Who knows.

I understand MUCH better now. 32gb is too much for gaming anyway, seems like finding the fastest 16gb would be best. If I can manage 4 sticks.

Thanks again man.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Seems like I may like it. Who knows.
> 
> I understand MUCH better now. 32gb is too much for gaming anyway, seems like finding the fastest 16gb would be best. If I can manage 4 sticks.
> 
> Thanks again man.


you have 8GB or 4GB sticks?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I am not as expert as you, Praz


Hello

Neither am I.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Lets be friends, I like commenting without ironies... Discussed and now talk like adults...

Did you experience stuttering (a little bit) in games (if you play games)???

Many people are complaining about latest 3xxx bios's and gen3 pciexpress with B-E, maybe related...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Gear ratio (strap) does not seem to buy an advantage on x99 (unlike x79). Depending on the memory speed you want to run, Strap 100 BCLK 100 certainly has the advantage of working with adaptive voltage. It's just unlikely that you will get higher core frequencies based only on strap used.


I guess I'm the wild card here. I've been getting significantly better OC with 125 strap, in spite of really trying in adaptive because I prefer it (for all the reasons you mentioned). I think I'm more of an odd (lame?) duck than a wild card though ...









Could be an odd combination of my MB & DIMM instances. I ended up with 3400 by raising my BCLK from 125 to 127+ which gave me a better CPU OC, whereas with 100 I ended up with too low or too high a DIMM clock when I got a similar CPU clock. I think you mentioned this ...

And now to square one ... unbeliavably my Strix Gaming which I ordered yesterday with cheap shipping just got delivered! I guess it helped that it was shipped from Jersey to NYC, and not from CA







.

This is going to take a while ...


----------



## vmanuelgm

I am liking strap 125 too, but without decimals, which tend to spoil stability...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I am liking strap 125 too, but without decimals, which tend to spoil stability...


That's the fun challenge!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I guess I'm the wild card here. I've been getting significantly better OC with 125 strap, in spite of really trying in adaptive because I prefer it (for all the reasons you mentioned). I think I'm more of an odd (lame?) duck than a wild card though ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be an odd combination of my MB & DIMM instances. I ended up with 3400 by raising my BCLK from 125 to 127+ which gave me a better CPU OC, whereas with 100 I ended up with too low or too high a DIMM clock when I got a similar CPU clock. I think you mentioned this ...
> 
> And now to square one ... unbeliavably my Strix Gaming which I ordered yesterday with cheap shipping just got delivered! I guess it helped that it was shipped from Jersey to NYC, and not from CA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> This is going to take a while ...


Something is not clicking... achieving 3400 on 125 with a PEG/DMI of 101.8, yet the available divider on strap 100 for 3400 changed the DIMM clock? Hard to grasp. you should try 46x100 (add a small amount to your current vcore) and 3400 on the ram. Should be less of a convoluted OC for the board to manage. I would think,

Oh yeah, I refer to strap as gear ratio... when it first showed up on x79 that was a common explanation, shift the CPU but not the PEG/DMI (and throw a wrench in the PCIE bus







)


----------



## PowerK

Hi folks.

Here's an update on my overclocking venture. Heh.

*** Stability testings I've done so far ***
1. Prime95 v26.6 (Non-AVX) = 8 hours custom blend (1344k, 409k FFTs) passed
2. ASUS RealBench x264 benchmark loop = 6 hours passed.
3. X264 Stability Test V2 (Thanks to Jpmboy) = 4 hours passed
4. HCI MemTest Pro v4.6 = Error found at 641% coverage (a log file attached)
Ran 20 instances (6950X = 20 threads) overnight and one of those 20 instances showed an error at 641.7% coverage.









log.txt 67k .txt file


Core temps are good. Max. load temp I've seen was 71C.

*** My UEFI BIOS settings ***
Ai Overclock Tuner = XMP (DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28)
CPU Strap = 100MHz
BCLK Frequency = 100.0
ASUS MultiCore Enhancement = Disabled
CPU Core Ratio = 44 (Sync All Cores)
AVX Instruction Negative Offset = 2
Min. CPU Cache Ratio = Auto
Max. CPU Cache Ratio = 37
Internal PLL Overvoltage = Auto
DRAM Frequency = DDR4-2400MHz
Xtreme Tweaking = Enabled
TPU = Keep Current Settings
CPU Core Voltage = 1.350V (Adaptive)
CPU Cache Voltage = +0.310 (Offset) (BIOS reading = 1.315V)
CPU System Agent Voltage Offset = +0.250 (BIOS reading = 1.264V)
CPU SVID Support = Auto
CPU Input Voltage (VCCIN) = 1.90V (BIOS reading = 1.872V)
DRAM SVID Support = Auto
DRAM Voltage = 1.350V
Load-line Calibration = Level 5

Perhaps, CPU System Agent Voltage is little too high resulting in the HCI MemTest error ?
Please advise which settings I should alter to make HCI MemTest 100% stable.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi folks.
> 
> Here's an update on my overclocking venture. Heh.
> 
> *** Stability testings I've done so far ***
> 1. Prime95 v26.6 (Non-AVX) = 8 hours custom blend (1344k, 409k FFTs) passed
> 2. ASUS RealBench x264 benchmark loop = 6 hours passed.
> 3. X264 Stability Test V2 (Thanks to Jpmboy) = 4 hours passed
> 4. HCI MemTest Pro v4.6 = Error found at 641% coverage (a log file attached)
> Ran 20 instances (6950X = 20 threads) overnight and one of those 20 instances showed an error at 641.7% coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> log.txt 67k .txt file
> 
> 
> Core temps are good. Max. load temp I've seen was 71C.
> 
> *** My UEFI BIOS settings ***
> Ai Overclock Tuner = XMP (DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28)
> CPU Strap = 100MHz
> BCLK Frequency = 100.0
> ASUS MultiCore Enhancement = Disabled
> CPU Core Ratio = 44 (Sync All Cores)
> AVX Instruction Negative Offset = 2
> Min. CPU Cache Ratio = Auto
> Max. CPU Cache Ratio = 37
> Internal PLL Overvoltage = Auto
> DRAM Frequency = DDR4-2400MHz
> Xtreme Tweaking = Enabled
> TPU = Keep Current Settings
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.350V (Adaptive)
> CPU Cache Voltage = +0.310 (Offset) (BIOS reading = 1.315V)
> CPU System Agent Voltage Offset = +0.250 (BIOS reading = 1.264V)
> CPU SVID Support = Auto
> CPU Input Voltage (VCCIN) = 1.90V (BIOS reading = 1.872V)
> DRAM SVID Support = Auto
> DRAM Voltage = 1.350V
> Load-line Calibration = Level 5
> 
> Perhaps, CPU System Agent Voltage is little too high resulting in the HCI MemTest error ?
> Please advise which settings I should alter to make HCI MemTest 100% stable.


Hello

I would work on SA voltage. It would be surprising if anywhere near that much voltage was needed for 2400MHz speed.


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ This for sure.
... and if your ram is getting hot, it may be heat-fouled by 600+%. If this is a gaming rig, I'd call it stable and enjoy.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> I would work on SA voltage. It would be surprising if anywhere near that much voltage was needed for 2400MHz speed.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This for sure.
> ... and if your ram is getting hot, it may be heat-fouled by 600+%. If this is a gaming rig, I'd call it stable and enjoy.


Thanks for the input, guys. I guess it's almost 99.9% stable. Hehe
As for the SA voltage, I think I should lower it. However, not sure how much.
The Corsair RAM is DDR4-2400 at 10-12-12-28 which I think is about the same speed as DDR4-3200 with CL14.
From my searching this thread, it seems that our Mr.Jpmboy is using +0.132V (offset) for SA (BIOS reading = 1.080V?) for his DDR4-3400. I'll lower the SA voltage to around 1.10V
Cheers!


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you have 8GB or 4GB sticks?


4GB sticks.

1 stick so far is completely bad. Won't even run stock XMP. Lol.

Back to binning.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Lets be friends, I like commenting without ironies... Discussed and now talk like adults...
> 
> Did you experience stuttering (a little bit) in games (if you play games)???
> 
> Many people are complaining about latest 3xxx bios's and gen3 pciexpress with B-E, maybe related...


More likely to be an issue with coming out of low power states.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I am liking strap 125 too, but without decimals, which tend to spoil stability...


No decimals is best


----------



## vmanuelgm

You love animations, dont you??? Favourite series??? xD

Next time post episodes in spanish from Spain, that is mexican accent and music...







Only genuine thing is "olé"!!!

Cant be power states since I have all disabled and tried high performance also with the same result...


----------



## Silent Scone

But he writes numbers in the desert sand?

Oh well, apologies.

El Numbreeeeee!


----------



## vmanuelgm

El NOMBRE!!!

Your spanish (latin or castillian) is fantastic!!! Ironic mode on!!!










You're out guy, you have to watch tv series as "orange is the new black", they speak latin spanish very helpful to progress...

By the way, which is the logic in using "el nombre" when the man is expert in writing numbers in the sand??? Should be better "El número"... BBC english wise men...









I now understand your point, Scone, too much BBC...


----------



## Silent Scone

Sorry, was speaking British Latin American, it's spelt that way here.







. It wasn't really meant to be taken that seriously, but it's made it all the better lol

Anyway, that's enough of that







No stuttering here in games or anything else with the 6950x.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> 4GB sticks.
> 
> 1 stick so far is completely bad. Won't even run stock XMP. Lol.
> 
> Back to binning.


you have sammy e 4GB sticks?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you have sammy e 4GB sticks?


I thought he said b-die, which those are not if so


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I thought he said b-die, which those are not if so


ah, B-, E-, D-, ... too many to remember.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Sorry, was speaking British Latin American, it's spelt that way here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . It wasn't really meant to be taken that seriously, but it's made it all the better lol
> 
> Anyway, that's enough of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No stuttering here in games or anything else with the 6950x.


BBC men logic:

If english number=then spanish nombre...

Wow...

Scone...










I bet the bit of stuttering (every while) is pciexpress related, something wrong in these bios's...

Also the voltages are not very accurate, specially vccio... In spite of all, the 3301 runs softer and a bit more stable...


----------



## Silent Scone

I think it's more likely something to do with your system specifically, to be honest. Although what do I know, I don't speak Spanish. Running softer will help cushion your fallo de memoria


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Something is not clicking... achieving 3400 on 125 with a PEG/DMI of 101.8, yet the available divider on strap 100 for 3400 changed the DIMM clock? Hard to grasp. you should try 46x100 (add a small amount to your current vcore) and 3400 on the ram. Should be less of a convoluted OC for the board to manage. I would think,
> 
> Oh yeah, I refer to strap as gear ratio... when it first showed up on x79 that was a common explanation, shift the CPU but not the PEG/DMI (and throw a wrench in the PCIE bus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Hey guys, as long as we remember, you don't have to FEEL stable as long as you LOOK stable! On a Strix on Auto!

No, I meant the available 3400 dimm speed BCLK on 125 is more conducive to a feasible high cpu oc. On 100 strap by the time I get to the CPU BCLK I have 3400 @ 125 I have a choice of 33xxx or 35xx, or something like that, I forget the exact numbers.

Anyway, about to begin Strix OC, so I'll be looking at that again!


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I think it's more likely something to do with your system specifically, to be honest. Although what do I know, I don't speak Spanish. Running softer will help cushion your fallo de memoria


Hey scone, my only one fallo de memoria is over 1000% and 4375-3750-3333-14-14-14-32-1T, would like to see the same parameters in your system and an HCI using 90% of your memory...

Do you dare???

Would also like to see my 400% in your B-E list, as promised!!!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Hey guys, as long as we remember, you don't have to FEEL stable as long as you LOOK stable! On a Strix on Auto!
> 
> No, I meant the available 3400 dimm speed BCLK on 125 is more conducive to a feasible high cpu oc. On 100 strap by the time I get to the CPU BCLK I have 3400 @ 125 I have a choice of 33xxx or 35xx, or something like that, I forget the exact numbers.
> 
> Anyway, about to begin Strix OC, so I'll be looking at that again!


Burn that Strix!!!


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you have sammy e 4GB sticks?


AFAIK yes. According to HWBOT Forums anything made after May 2016 for Ripjaws V is E-Die.

It plays like e-die..... seems to anyway. I could be wrong. There's always room for that! Lol.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> BBC men logic:
> 
> If english number=then spanish nombre...
> 
> Wow...
> 
> Scone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet the bit of stuttering (every while) is pciexpress related, something wrong in these bios's...
> 
> Also the voltages are not very accurate, specially vccio... In spite of all, the 3301 runs softer and a bit more stable...


You're still using our letters to create your languages word.

Get your own alphabet....


----------



## X3NEIZE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really need to go to WC in order to reduce this package temp.
> This is what limit more my overclocks, even with the NH-D15.
> Otherwise, cores temp are "ok" and well cooled.


Awesome... I'm very happy with my testing so far...

Windows boots with 48X!! although so far running it and testing the crap out of 45X, 100 BLCK, 1.30V. I was told that with Broadwell-E I would be a lucky soul to ever see 4.4Ghz...

I can post screenshots if anyone is interested but super stable, not one crash, ran Prime95 for 3 hours and Intel Burn Test overnight....

Broke 1400 for the first time ever in Cinebench... best thing is my temps top at 72C at max load after hours of Prime95.. Watercooling is most definitely the way to go.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Hey guys, as long as we remember, you don't have to FEEL stable as long as you LOOK stable! On a Strix on Auto!
> 
> No, I meant the available 3400 dimm speed BCLK on 125 is more conducive to a feasible high cpu oc. On 100 strap by the time I get to the CPU BCLK I have 3400 @ 125 I have a choice of 33xxx or 35xx, or something like that, I forget the exact numbers.
> 
> Anyway, about to begin Strix OC, so I'll be looking at that again!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> AFAIK yes. According to HWBOT Forums anything made after May 2016 for Ripjaws V is E-Die.
> 
> It plays like e-die..... seems to anyway. I could be wrong. There's always room for that! Lol.
> You're still using our letters to create your languages word.
> 
> Get your own alphabet....


Long live Julio Iglesias!!!


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Long live Julio Iglesias!!!


Haha!

Julio's cool mang.


----------



## GRABibus

delete


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Haha!
> 
> Julio's cool mang.


But Papuchi (his father) was the King, he was able to fecundate at the age of 90!!!

http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2005/12/16/iglesias/


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi folks.
> 
> Here's an update on my overclocking venture. Heh.
> 
> *** Stability testings I've done so far ***
> 1. Prime95 v26.6 (Non-AVX) = 8 hours custom blend (1344k, 409k FFTs) passed
> 2. ASUS RealBench x264 benchmark loop = 6 hours passed.
> 3. X264 Stability Test V2 (Thanks to Jpmboy) = 4 hours passed
> 4. HCI MemTest Pro v4.6 = Error found at 641% coverage (a log file attached)
> Ran 20 instances (6950X = 20 threads) overnight and one of those 20 instances showed an error at 641.7% coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> log.txt 67k .txt file
> 
> 
> Core temps are good. Max. load temp I've seen was 71C.
> 
> *** My UEFI BIOS settings ***
> Ai Overclock Tuner = XMP (DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28)
> CPU Strap = 100MHz
> BCLK Frequency = 100.0
> ASUS MultiCore Enhancement = Disabled
> CPU Core Ratio = 44 (Sync All Cores)
> AVX Instruction Negative Offset = 2
> Min. CPU Cache Ratio = Auto
> Max. CPU Cache Ratio = 37
> Internal PLL Overvoltage = Auto
> DRAM Frequency = DDR4-2400MHz
> Xtreme Tweaking = Enabled
> TPU = Keep Current Settings
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.350V (Adaptive)
> CPU Cache Voltage = +0.310 (Offset) (BIOS reading = 1.315V)
> CPU System Agent Voltage Offset = +0.250 (BIOS reading = 1.264V)
> CPU SVID Support = Auto
> CPU Input Voltage (VCCIN) = 1.90V (BIOS reading = 1.872V)
> DRAM SVID Support = Auto
> DRAM Voltage = 1.350V
> Load-line Calibration = Level 5
> 
> Perhaps, CPU System Agent Voltage is little too high resulting in the HCI MemTest error ?
> Please advise which settings I should alter to make HCI MemTest 100% stable.


Your SA is high.
Set it at 1.05V.
High SA can sometimes destabilize RAM.

Keep an eye also on CPU Package temp (Through HWInfo or Aida64 for example).
Core temps are not the only temps to check.

And you know, HCI 100% stable is difficult to define, as all stability criterias....
From my side, I run 8 hours HCI Memtest (Which is roughly 2250% coverage), and maybe, at the 9th hour, I would get an error...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> But Papuchi (his father) was the King, he was able to fecundate at the age of 90!!!


Doing anything but drooling at the age of 90 is impressive. Lol.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Started binning???

EDIT: yep you did, didnt read you with so much jokes...

When you finish, send me your best sticks, I will appreciate it...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Started binning???
> 
> EDIT: yep you did, didnt read you with so much jokes...
> 
> When you finish, send me your best sticks, I will appreciate it...


I've actually though about doing this. Trusted members exchanging RAM and seeing if we can beat each other.

Using specific guidelines, voltage, etc.

I know I'm a better than average overclocker, however in my area, I have NO one that can even hold a candle. It be fun to see what someone with more skills can do with the gear I've already overclocked.

I've never had that opportunity before. I'm sure MANY of us haven't.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I've actually though about doing this. Trusted members exchanging RAM and seeing if we can beat each other.
> 
> Using specific guidelines, voltage, etc.
> 
> I know I'm a better than average overclocker, however in my area, I have NO one that can even hold a candle. It be fun to see what someone with more skills can do with the gear I've already overclocked.
> 
> I've never had that opportunity before. I'm sure MANY of us haven't.


If we were closer we could do it easily...

But no prob, you try first and then send to me, I will do my best...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> If we were closer we could do it easily...
> 
> But no prob, you try first and then send to me, I will do my best...


your DDR4 goes up to 2.8v right?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> your DDR4 goes up to 2.8v right?


lol 2.3v is the max my z170m oc formula allows


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> your DDR4 goes up to 2.8v right?


Dont need that much, 1.20v enough for me...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> lol 2.3v is the max my z170m oc formula allows


Have wires, will solder...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Dont need that much, 1.20v enough for me...


Are you telling us that all the DDR4 scores you've posted have been with 1.20v to the DIMM's?

Yeah....


----------



## vmanuelgm

A bit more... But closer to 1.20v than 1.90v max in my RVE...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Long live Julio Iglesias!!!


I was thinking Fernando Lamas


----------



## PowerK

Hi folks. What a sad day...








Here's another update.

I thought I had pretty much got my 6950X stable at 4.4GHz (3.7 Cache) when I made this post yesterday. Hence, when I went back home after work, I *cleared CMOS and entered values that I had written down (with lowered SA voltage).

Now, the system is not stable even though UEFI BIOS settings are the same as what I had prior to clearing CMOS.








I may sound stupid but perhaps, the system was not stable @ 4.4 to begine with. I altered voltages settings so many times during the process, I regret that I did not made a changes log and keep track of it.









ASUS RealBench results in system reboot in 30 mins.
Prime95 throws random errors in worker threads in 20 mins.
X264 Stability V2 stops working around loop 77.
























I guess I have to start from the scratch all over again. Anyway, here's my *current* UEFI BIOS settings.

Ai Overclock Tuner = XMP (DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28)
CPU Strap = 100MHz
BCLK Frequency = 100.0
ASUS MultiCore Enhancement = Disabled
CPU Core Ratio = 44 (Sync All Cores)
AVX Instruction Negative Offset = 2
Min. CPU Cache Ratio = Auto
Max. CPU Cache Ratio = 38
Internal PLL Overvoltage = Auto
DRAM Frequency = DDR4-2400MHz
Xtreme Tweaking = Enabled
TPU = Keep Current Settings
CPU Core Voltage = 1.350V (Adaptive)
CPU Cache Voltage = +0.310 (Offset) (BIOS reading = 1.315V)
CPU System Agent Voltage Offset = +0.100 (BIOS reading = 1.094V)
CPU SVID Support = Auto
CPU Input Voltage (VCCIN) = 1.90V (BIOS reading = 1.872V)
DRAM SVID Support = Auto
DRAM Voltage = 1.350V
Load-line Calibration = Level 5

1. Should I raise vcore from 1.350V to something like 1.370V ~ 1.380V ?
2. Is cache voltage = 1.315V ok for 3.8GHz ?
3. I have CPU VCCIO at default which is Auto. Should I make a change? If so, any sugestions?

Thank you!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi folks. What a sad day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another update.
> 
> I thought I had pretty much got my 6950X stable at 4.4GHz (3.7 Cache) when I made this post yesterday. Hence, when I went back home after work, I *cleared CMOS and entered values that I had written down (with lowered SA voltage).
> 
> Now, the system is not stable even though UEFI BIOS settings are the same as what I had prior to clearing CMOS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may sound stupid but perhaps, the system was not stable @ 4.4 to begine with. I altered voltages settings so many times during the process, I regret that I did not made a changes log and keep track of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS RealBench results in system reboot in 30 mins.
> Prime95 throws random errors in worker threads in 20 mins.
> X264 Stability V2 stops working around loop 77.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to start from the scratch all over again. Anyway, here's my *current* UEFI BIOS settings.
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner = XMP (DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28)
> CPU Strap = 100MHz
> BCLK Frequency = 100.0
> ASUS MultiCore Enhancement = Disabled
> CPU Core Ratio = 44 (Sync All Cores)
> AVX Instruction Negative Offset = 2
> Min. CPU Cache Ratio = Auto
> Max. CPU Cache Ratio = 38
> Internal PLL Overvoltage = Auto
> DRAM Frequency = DDR4-2400MHz
> Xtreme Tweaking = Enabled
> TPU = Keep Current Settings
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.350V (Adaptive)
> CPU Cache Voltage = +0.310 (Offset) (BIOS reading = 1.315V)
> CPU System Agent Voltage Offset = +0.100 (BIOS reading = 1.094V)
> CPU SVID Support = Auto
> CPU Input Voltage (VCCIN) = 1.90V (BIOS reading = 1.872V)
> DRAM SVID Support = Auto
> DRAM Voltage = 1.350V
> Load-line Calibration = Level 5
> 
> 1. Should I raise vcore from 1.350V to something like 1.370V ~ 1.380V ?
> 2. Is cache voltage = 1.315V ok for 3.8GHz ?
> 3. I have CPU VCCIO at default which is Auto. Should I make a change? If so, any sugestions?
> 
> Thank you!


Start with a stable base OC at a lower multiplier... use it for a while and make sure it is behaving properly. Then juice the CPU up to what it needs from there to reach 4.4 if that is your target. IMO, 1.9V input voltage (VCCIN) is low for a 10 core at 4.4GHz. But more importantly, just realize that running a 6950X for a long time, eg 24/7 at >1.35V and higher is pretty much uncharted territory.

shoot for 4.3/3/7, solidify the ram OC and build from there.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi folks. What a sad day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another update.
> 
> I thought I had pretty much got my 6950X stable at 4.4GHz (3.7 Cache) when I made this post yesterday. Hence, when I went back home after work, I *cleared CMOS and entered values that I had written down (with lowered SA voltage).
> 
> Now, the system is not stable even though UEFI BIOS settings are the same as what I had prior to clearing CMOS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may sound stupid but perhaps, the system was not stable @ 4.4 to begine with. I altered voltages settings so many times during the process, I regret that I did not made a changes log and keep track of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS RealBench results in system reboot in 30 mins.
> Prime95 throws random errors in worker threads in 20 mins.
> X264 Stability V2 stops working around loop 77.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to start from the scratch all over again. Anyway, here's my *current* UEFI BIOS settings.
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner = XMP (DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28)
> CPU Strap = 100MHz
> BCLK Frequency = 100.0
> ASUS MultiCore Enhancement = Disabled
> CPU Core Ratio = 44 (Sync All Cores)
> AVX Instruction Negative Offset = 2
> Min. CPU Cache Ratio = Auto
> Max. CPU Cache Ratio = 38
> Internal PLL Overvoltage = Auto
> DRAM Frequency = DDR4-2400MHz
> Xtreme Tweaking = Enabled
> TPU = Keep Current Settings
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.350V (Adaptive)
> CPU Cache Voltage = +0.310 (Offset) (BIOS reading = 1.315V)
> CPU System Agent Voltage Offset = +0.100 (BIOS reading = 1.094V)
> CPU SVID Support = Auto
> CPU Input Voltage (VCCIN) = 1.90V (BIOS reading = 1.872V)
> DRAM SVID Support = Auto
> DRAM Voltage = 1.350V
> Load-line Calibration = Level 5
> 
> 1. Should I raise vcore from 1.350V to something like 1.370V ~ 1.380V ?
> 2. Is cache voltage = 1.315V ok for 3.8GHz ?
> 3. I have CPU VCCIO at default which is Auto. Should I make a change? If so, any sugestions?
> 
> Thank you!


Do you game with this system?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Start with a stable base OC at a lower multiplier... use it for a while and make sure it is behaving properly. Then juice the CPU up to what it needs from there to reach 4.4 if that is your target. IMO, 1.9V input voltage (VCCIN) is low for a 10 core at 4.4GHz. But more importantly, just realize that running a 6950X for a long time, eg 24/7 at >1.35V and higher is pretty much uncharted territory.
> 
> shoot for 4.3/3/7, solidify the ram OC and build from there.


I'll try tonight after work. Thanks, Jpm.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Do you game with this system?


Yes, indeed. It's a gaming PC. Heh.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I'll try tonight after work. Thanks, Jpm.
> Yes, indeed. It's a gaming PC. Heh.


Just keep in mind, dont attempt this now as your CPU and Cache are more important... RAM being under even 2666mhz has a significant impact on frametime in modern games.

You really want 3200mhz RAM you make sure you have nothing bottlenecking your frametimes.

What kit do you have? LMK and we can figure out which IC's they use and have a rough idea of how they will clock.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Just keep in mind, dont attempt this now as your CPU and Cache are more important... RAM being under even 2666mhz has a significant impact on frametime in modern games.
> 
> You really want 3200mhz RAM you make sure you have nothing bottlenecking your frametimes.
> 
> What kit do you have? LMK and we can figure out which IC's they use and have a rough idea of how they will clock.


It's my understanding that DDR4-2400 with 10-12-12-28 (XMP) is about equal or faster than DDR4-3200 with CL14. (I think it's same kit as DDR4-3200 CL14 with different XMP profile).
Last time I checked with Aida64, my DDR4-2400 quad channel kit from Corsair uses SK Hynix chip.
http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10

With that being said, I just found a 6950X overclocking guide from ASUS.
http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/
According to the article,
Quote:


> For memory speeds over DDR4-3000 or if using high-density memory kits, voltages up to 1.30V may be required. Some CPUs have "weak" memory controllers that require elevated voltages to maintain stability. If possible, do not venture too far from 1.30V as a maximum.


Perhaps, I should bump up SA voltage back to 1.20V~1.25V and see how it goes. (I lowered it to 1.10V)


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> It's my understanding that DDR4-2400 with 10-12-12-28 (XMP) is about equal or faster than DDR4-3200 with CL14. (I think it's same kit as DDR4-3200 CL14 with different XMP profile).
> Last time I checked with Aida64, my DDR4-2400 quad channel kit from Corsair uses SK Hynix chip.
> http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10
> 
> With that being said, I just found a 6950X overclocking guide from ASUS.
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/
> According to the article,
> Perhaps, I should bump up SA voltage back to 1.20V~1.25V and see how it goes. (I lowered it to 1.10V)


Even with the lowest CAS rating for DDR4 (9 AFAIK) 2400mhz wouldn't be faster than 3200mhz CAS 14. No way.

I would raise SA to 1.20v and leave it there when testing RAM 3000mhz and above. Your IMC may not need it though. I'd test 1.10 and 1.20v.

Those IC's are almost assuredly Hynix MFR. You'll almost assuredly make 3200mhz CAS 15.

You'll need 1.45v to 1.5v most likely though. No problem for MFR IC's. I ran mine at 1.520v 24/7.

All speculation until you try however. Just going on what I and others have experienced with MFR.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Even with the lowest CAS rating for DDR4 (9 AFAIK) 2400mhz wouldn't be faster than 3200mhz CAS 14. No way.
> 
> I would raise SA to 1.20v and leave it there when testing RAM 3000mhz and above. Your IMC may not need it though. I'd test 1.10 and 1.20v.
> 
> Those IC's are almost assuredly Hynix MFR. You'll almost assuredly make 3200mhz CAS 15.
> 
> You'll need 1.45v to 1.5v most likely though. No problem for MFR IC's. I ran mine at 1.520v 24/7.
> 
> All speculation until you try however. Just going on what I and others have experienced with MFR.


Thanks. I'll try another go after work today and share the daily progress here.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Thanks. I'll try another go after work today and share the daily progress here.


No problem at all man, looking forward to seeing what those IC's can do. Especially on BW-E. Those mhz figures I quoted you, those were for Haswell-E. You might be able to do much better with your CPU.

Love them updates bro!

Lol.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Even with the lowest CAS rating for DDR4 (9 AFAIK) 2400mhz wouldn't be faster than 3200mhz CAS 14. No way.
> 
> I would raise SA to 1.20v and leave it there when testing RAM 3000mhz and above. Your IMC may not need it though. I'd test 1.10 and 1.20v.
> 
> Those IC's are almost assuredly Hynix MFR. You'll almost assuredly make 3200mhz CAS 15.
> 
> You'll need 1.45v to 1.5v most likely though. No problem for MFR IC's. I ran mine at 1.520v 24/7.
> 
> All speculation until you try however. Just going on what I and others have experienced with MFR.


I dont like to run memory that high, 1.40v max for 24/7...


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Don't know what's going on here, I've tried adjusting VCCIN, VCACHE and VCCSA all day and still can't get them close to each other..
Funny I never had any crashes though...


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Don't know what's going on here, I've tried adjusting VCCIN, VCACHE and VCCSA all day and still can't get them close to each other..
> Funny I never had any crashes though...


1.25v for "VCCIO CPU 1.05V" ?
I am sure this is the Auto Value, right ?
If it is , it is very high.
If you enter manually 1.25v for this voltage, you will get a red value mark, right ?

You should decrease it, until 1.1V for example.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 1.25v for "VCCIO CPU 1.05V" ?
> I am sure this is the Auto Value, right ?
> If it is , it is very high.
> If you enter manually 1.25v for this voltage, you will get a red value mark, right ?
> 
> You should decrease it, until 1.1V for example.


It's Auto...lol..

These are the values under load, I tweaked them a bit and now get the same FPS.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> It's Auto...lol..
> 
> These are the values under load, I tweaked them a bit and now get the same FPS.


Yes, but you Will see in Bios 1.25v for vccio (so at idle ).
It is High. Just set it at 1.05v or 1.1v


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Yes, but you Will see in Bios 1.25v for vccio (so at idle ).
> It is High. Just set it at 1.05v or 1.1v


You're right, here's a screenshot of the setting in the BIOS.
I'll go try 1.1v


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> *It's my understanding that DDR4-2400 with 10-12-12-28 (XMP) is about equal or faster than DDR4-3200 with CL14. (I think it's same kit as DDR4-3200 CL14 with different XMP profile).*
> Last time I checked with Aida64, my DDR4-2400 quad channel kit from Corsair uses SK Hynix chip.
> http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10
> 
> With that being said, I just found a 6950X overclocking guide from ASUS.
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/
> According to the article,
> Perhaps, I should bump up SA voltage back to 1.20V~1.25V and see how it goes. (I lowered it to 1.10V)


Raja is saying that some chips may need VSa at those levels, not the majority, and with 2400 ram it is unlikely. But, this can be very Edisonian, so try it and see how it works. You may have a high VSA cpu.Regarding ram speed and cas. 2400c10 will not be as fast on x99 as 3200c14 no matter how you calc or measure it. Low latency is good and for gaming, I doubt you would notice any difference between 2400c10 and 3200c14. As an FYI, the GSkill 3200c14 8GB sticks are Samsung ICs, Hynix is fine and I ran my Hynix kit for a long time at 3200c15 or 3000c13... let us know how the VSA adjustment works out.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> You're right, here's a screenshot of the setting in the BIOS.
> I'll go try 1.1v


did you flash it to the most recent bios for that board?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Raja is saying that some chips may need VSa at those levels, not the majority, and with 2400 ram it is unlikely. But, this can be very Edisonian, so try it and see how it works. You may have a high VSA cpu.Regarding ram speed and cas. 2400c10 will not be as fast on x99 as 3200c14 no matter how you calc or measure it. Low latency is good and for gaming, I doubt you would notice any difference between 2400c10 and 3200c14. As an FYI, the GSkill 3200c14 8GB sticks are Samsung ICs, Hynix is fine and I ran my Hynix kit for a long time at 3200c15 or 3000c13... let us know how the VSA adjustment works out.
> did you flash it to the most recent bios for that board?


"
I had the same auto value1.25v for Vccio CPU 1.05" on my Deluxe II with 0401 BIOS and also with last 0801.
This auto value is crazy...This is why it must be set manually.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> did you flash it to the most recent bios for that board?


Yeah, have been using it since day one (Version 0801).
Lowering the VCCIO to 1.1v threw out the x265 run bigtime, got a invalid run when using 1.05v, where with Auto it was fine.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Yeah, have been using it since day one (Version 0801).
> Lowering the VCCIO to 1.1v threw out the x265 run bigtime, got a invalid run when using 1.05v, where with Auto it was fine.


So, looks like some board models need a higher VCCIO, no big deal. Run the Auto setting if it works. I have to DL the manual for that board, doe the bios have a Tweakers menu?

edit: does not seem to have the "Tweakers" menu.









* post your observation *HERE*


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> So, looks like some board models need a higher VCCIO, no big deal. Run the Auto setting if it works. I have to DL the manual for that board, doe the bios have a Tweakers menu?
> 
> edit: does not seems to have the "Tweakers" menu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * post your observation *HERE*


Went back to Auto VCCIO, got closer x265 results (All within 1FPS).

The board has a "Tweakers Paradise" section:





I posted what I found with the Aura software over there when I first came across the problem of it lowering benchmark results/performance when installed.
But will keep posting new findings like the high VCCIO as well..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Went back to Auto VCCIO, got closer x265 results (All within 1FPS).
> 
> The board has a "Tweakers Paradise" section:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted what I found with the Aura software over there when I first came across the problem of it lowering benchmark results/performance when installed.
> But will keep posting new findings like the high VCCIO as well..


Ah.. missed it skimming the manual... try this and gradually lower VCCIO:


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Start with a stable base OC at a lower multiplier... use it for a while and make sure it is behaving properly. Then juice the CPU up to what it needs from there to reach 4.4 if that is your target. IMO, 1.9V input voltage (VCCIN) is low for a 10 core at 4.4GHz. But more importantly, just realize that running a 6950X for a long time, eg 24/7 at >1.35V and higher is pretty much uncharted territory.
> 
> shoot for 4.3/3/7, solidify the ram OC and build from there.


not uncharted territory

but my thermal limit hits around 1.385V when using the stress tests OP was using, non AVX stress tests around 1.41V.

I'm alright with input at about 1.94V, but prob need anywhere in that range up to 2V

I don't use adaptive voltage/SVID supports so this skews it.. but I definitely need over 1.375V for 4.4GHz to work on multiple 6950Xs on mprime/aida/etc. - but have to lower the cache to avoid hitting max temps and throttling.

side note: anyone know where I can find some in depth info on overclocking with ln2/alternative cooling methods? I found some stuff by Gigabyte which was helpful but would really like to soak in more info on it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> not uncharted territory
> 
> but my thermal limit hits around 1.385V when using the stress tests OP was using, non AVX stress tests around 1.41V.
> 
> I'm alright with input at about 1.94V, but prob need anywhere in that range up to 2V
> 
> I don't use adaptive voltage/SVID supports so this skews it.. but I definitely need over 1.375V for 4.4GHz to work on multiple 6950Xs on mprime/aida/etc. - but have to lower the cache to avoid hitting max temps and throttling.
> 
> side note: anyone know where I can find some in depth info on overclocking with ln2/alternative cooling methods? I found some stuff by Gigabyte which was helpful but would really like to soak in more info on it.


the chip has been out for only a few weeks .. so it's uncharted territory for 24/7.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Raja is saying that some chips may need VSa at those levels, not the majority, and with 2400 ram it is unlikely. But, this can be very Edisonian, so try it and see how it works. You may have a high VSA cpu.Regarding ram speed and cas. 2400c10 will not be as fast on x99 as 3200c14 no matter how you calc or measure it. *Low latency is good and for gaming*, I doubt you would notice any difference between 2400c10 and 3200c14. As an FYI, the GSkill 3200c14 8GB sticks are Samsung ICs, Hynix is fine and I ran my Hynix kit for a long time at 3200c15 or 3000c13... let us know how the VSA adjustment works out.
> did you flash it to the most recent bios for that board?


I used to be of this school of thought....I had 2666mhz C12 instead of 3000mhz c15.

Frametimes were better with 3000mhz. Much more consistent. There's a write up about this somewhere.....


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I used to be of this school of thought....I had 2666mhz C12 instead of 3000mhz c15.
> 
> Frametimes were better with 3000mhz. Much more consistent. There's a write up about this somewhere.....


bandwidth also has a large influence on the true latency. Those 2 kits latency would only have a difference of like ~5% and would be barely noticeable.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> bandwidth also has a large influence on the true latency. Those 2 kits latency would only have a difference of like ~5% and would be barely noticeable.


That 5% got me noticeable frametime increases in The Division.

Very noticeable in fact.


----------



## Sazexa

This is a really random question but;

Does anyone know why some software won't read/register my CPU properly? Is it just because it's so new? I'm using the 6950X. NZXT's CAM software can display the name of the CPU, but doesn't show the temperature. Speccy only shows "Intel Processor @ 3.0GHz" and doesn't have a temperature read out either. My motherboard is the ASUS Rampage V Edition 10, so, BW-E was/is supported out of the box. So I don't believe it's that it needs a BIOS update. And the temperature sensor works, as in BIOS I can see CPU temperature.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> This is a really random question but;
> 
> Does anyone know why some software won't read/register my CPU properly? Is it just because it's so new? I'm using the 6950X. NZXT's CAM software can display the name of the CPU, but doesn't show the temperature. Speccy only shows "Intel Processor @ 3.0GHz" and doesn't have a temperature read out either. My motherboard is the ASUS Rampage V Edition 10, so, BW-E was/is supported out of the box. So I don't believe it's that it needs a BIOS update. And the temperature sensor works, as in BIOS I can see CPU temperature.


Hello

Try software that actually works such as AIDA64.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> This is a really random question but;
> 
> Does anyone know why some software won't read/register my CPU properly? Is it just because it's so new? I'm using the 6950X. NZXT's CAM software can display the name of the CPU, but doesn't show the temperature. Speccy only shows "Intel Processor @ 3.0GHz" and doesn't have a temperature read out either. My motherboard is the ASUS Rampage V Edition 10, so, BW-E was/is supported out of the box. So I don't believe it's that it needs a BIOS update. And the temperature sensor works, as in BIOS I can see CPU temperature.


What about aida64 ? HWinfo ? Cpuz?


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the chip has been out for only a few weeks .. so it's uncharted territory for 24/7.


How long do you consider 24 7 to be, want to know if im at your designated 24/7 milestone yet


----------



## Sazexa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Try software that actually works such as AIDA64.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> What about aida64 ? HWinfo ? Cpuz?


I'll try out those softwares; but I just opened up CAM and saw they released an update for BW-E. And it's working fine, now.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Went back to Auto VCCIO, got closer x265 results (All within 1FPS).
> 
> The board has a "Tweakers Paradise" section:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted what I found with the Aura software over there when I first came across the problem of it lowering benchmark results/performance when installed.
> But will keep posting new findings like the high VCCIO as well..


I have the same issue as you With last aura software. Decrease of performances on aida cache and memory benchmark.
I came back to aura former version


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sazexa*
> 
> I'll try out those softwares; but I just opened up CAM and saw they released an update for BW-E. And it's working fine, now.


Ok.
If you want the top, use aida


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> How long do you consider 24 7 to be, want to know if im at your designated 24/7 milestone yet


- "smoke 'em if you got 'em".

I've been running 1.425V for most of the time the chip has been available to us consumers.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Ah.. missed it skimming the manual... try this and gradually lower VCCIO:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Done, this run was a heck of a lot better now than without those settings, still not perfect though, a little bit of fine tuning today...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Done, this run was a heck of a lot better now than without those settings, still not perfect though, a little bit of fine tuning today...


yup - there some gains to be found with those and other Tweak settings.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yup - there some gains to be found with those and other Tweak settings.


Do you think I should look at the VCCSA voltages, the VCCIN is at 1.950v in BIOS, reads 1.968v in Windows on idle, drops to 1.936v under load.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Do you think I should look at the VCCSA voltages, the VCCIN is at 1.950v in BIOS, reads 1.968v in Windows on idle, drops to 1.936v under load.


erm...
I'd need to see bios screenshots to make any further (informed) suggestions.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm...
> I'd need to see bios screenshots to make any further (informed) suggestions.


I'll grab some now, wife dragged me shopping...









BIOS Settings...










And just for reference, I ran an second x265 benchmark, nearly the same result as the last one:


----------



## PowerK

Hi folks.

Another update.
Raising CPU Input Voltage (aka, VCCIN) liitle bit more to 1.950V (BIOS reading = 1.936) did the trick.








4.4GHz Core (1.350V core) / 3.8GHz Cache (1.310V cache) with AVX negative offset at 2
- Passed 9 hours of Prime95 v28.9 custom blend
- Currently running X264 Stability Test V2 (6 hours and counting)

Will try RealBench and HCI MemTest today.


----------



## vibraslap

Great stuff!! Welcome to the 4.4 club


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm...
> I'd need to see bios screenshots to make any further (informed) suggestions.


Just a followup, I increase the VCCSA from +0.110v to +0.120v.
This is what I got from that run:


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi folks.
> 
> Another update.
> Raising CPU Input Voltage (aka, VCCIN) liitle bit more to 1.950V (BIOS reading = 1.936) did the trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.4GHz Core (1.350V core) / 3.8GHz Cache (1.310V cache) with AVX negative offset at 2
> - Passed 9 hours of Prime95 v28.9 custom blend
> - Currently running X264 Stability Test V2 (6 hours and counting)
> 
> Will try RealBench and HCI MemTest today.


Bam!

Make sure that's stable and on to RAM.

Good job so far man.


----------



## ClemC

Have a 6850K sitting on my desk. Expensive and not very attractive ornament, until I get a motherboard for it. Have ordered a Rampage V E10.
Batch #J608C343


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Just a followup, I increase the VCCSA from +0.110v to +0.120v.
> This is what I got from that run:


Are you changing settings purely based on these runs? Background activity can also influence the overkill score.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Are you changing settings purely based on these runs? Background activity can also influence the overkill score.


No not 100% on these runs, they give me a good starting point for fine tuning.
When tuning in the OC I've had a process stop and 3 finish, I increase voltages and it's fine.

I was getting reproducible results with every clean restart, change vccsa or vccin and the run results change.
Though that last run has yielded me my highest score ever with x265 benchmark, but my Cinebench 15 score is down









I stopped using OCCT since having the 6900k, been running Realbench for a hour and a half now, that's fine too.


----------



## Raess

Hi folks

First time poster, long time lurker.
Recently made the dive to upgrade to a 6800K (rig in sig) and I am trying to dial in a daily usage overclock.
Looking towards somewhere in the region of 4 - 4.2 but have not the foggiest what to move onto after setting adaptive voltage and the additional turbo mode voltage to 1.26v.
Absolutely fine with the CL16 2666 on the ram, so I would prefer to focus on dialing in the CPU for the time being.

Temps on the 4.2 at 1.26 adaptive have been around 45-50 give or take which seem okay.

So my question is whats next from here?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> - "smoke 'em if you got 'em".
> 
> I've been running 1.425V for most of the time the chip has been available to us consumers.


Coming up for air ... this Strix rocks but as it appeared earlier my Ripjaws 5 3200Q14 finally really bit it. I could get them stable ~3328 but nothing anywhere near 3400. Now running my old Ripjaws 4 3400Q16 @ 16-17-17 . Fortunately looks like Newegg got some Trident 3200Q14s in, just placed my order.

I'm back on adaptive again and running 4600 / 3800 but needing 1.4 vcore. What amazed me was that I was getting Aida R/W/C benchmarks in the 83Ks @ DDR4-3328 14-15-14 where in mt X99-A I could only get high78Ks reads and 79s copy @ 3400 14-15-14! Did the same improvements apply to the X99 series II boards, figuring it's some BW-E particular circuit enhancement?

I hope those Tridents come from NJ, not CA. I need a nap ...


----------



## vmanuelgm

No prob here with 3333 and Rampage Tweak...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I'll grab some now, wife dragged me shopping...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIOS Settings...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just for reference, I ran an second x265 benchmark, nearly the same result as the last one:


lookin good. Just fine tune voltages at this point... as you are doing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Just a followup, I increase the VCCSA from +0.110v to +0.120v.
> This is what I got from that run:


x265 did it's job... add in other tests. As SCone said, x265 is the last thing to use if fine tuning since it is finicky (and peculiar at times). It is a good "coarse" dial tho. Also , the RB benchmark is pretty good at helping with finding a performance sweetspot.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Coming up for air ... this Strix rocks but as it appeared earlier my Ripjaws 5 3200Q14 finally really bit it. I could get them stable ~3328 but nothing anywhere near 3400. Now running my old Ripjaws 4 3400Q16 @ 16-17-17 . Fortunately looks like Newegg got some Trident 3200Q14s in, just placed my order.
> 
> I'm back on adaptive again and running 4600 / 3800 but needing 1.4 vcore. What amazed me was that I was getting Aida R/W/C benchmarks in the 83Ks @ DDR4-3328 14-15-14 where in mt X99-A I could only get high78Ks reads and 79s copy @ 3400 14-15-14! Did the same improvements apply to the X99 series II boards, figuring it's some BW-E particular circuit enhancement?
> 
> I hope those Tridents come from NJ, not CA. I need a nap ...


Yeah, the Strix is optimized for BWE, so the improvements are there to be had. The RJ5 3200c14... how are they dead? Completely fail to train or are not even showing up? Seems like the Strix is doin' ya well?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lookin good. Just fine tune voltages at this point... as you are doing
> x265 did it's job... add in other tests. As SCone said, x265 is the last thing to use if fine tuning since it is finicky (and peculiar at times). It is a good "coarse" dial tho. Also , the RB benchmark is pretty good at helping with finding a performance sweetspot.
> Yeah, the Strix is optimized for BWE, so the improvements are there to be had. The RJ5 3200c14... how are they dead? Completely fail to train or are not even showing up? Seems like the Strix is doin' ya well?


They all show but the performance is drastically reduced with occasional freezing even at reduced OC clock. I actually checked each dimm on A1 and all GSAT OK for the first two spikes (no patience for more







) then took one stick and checked each MB connector same way and they all checked. It did appear I had to increase the vcache some more than before, nothing extravagant. But some time later I started getting freezes and weird bluescreens @ 3400. I tuned town to 3328 and OK. Then that started to go.

Anyway, I've been wanting to get the 32GB TZ 3200C14Qs as my Ripjaws showed some lacking (e.g. couldn't get 14-14-14 even at stock and had to use 14-15-14) but nobody seemed to have the TZs except Amazon UK (with a 2-4 week wait). Last night I checked again and Newegg had them! So now it's packaging


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> They all show but the performance is drastically reduced with occasional freezing even at reduced OC clock. I actually checked each dimm on A1 and all GSAT OK for the first two spikes (no patience for more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) then took one stick and checked each MB connector same way and they all checked. It did appear I had to increase the vcache some more than before, nothing extravagant. But some time later I started getting freezes and weird bluescreens @ 3400. I tuned town to 3328 and OK. Then that started to go.
> 
> Anyway, I've been wanting to get the 32GB TZ 3200C14Qs as my Ripjaws showed some lacking (e.g. couldn't get 14-14-14 even at stock and had to use 14-15-14) but nobody seemed to have the TZs except Amazon UK (with a 2-4 week wait). Last night I checked again and Newegg had them! So now it's packaging


Slot B1 for binning with X99 bro.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Slot B1 for binning with X99 bro.


Not binning, just testing


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> They all show but the performance is drastically reduced with occasional freezing even at reduced OC clock. I actually checked each dimm on A1 and all GSAT OK for the first two spikes (no patience for more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) then took one stick and checked each MB connector same way and they all checked. It did appear I had to increase the vcache some more than before, nothing extravagant. But some time later I started getting freezes and weird bluescreens @ 3400. I tuned town to 3328 and OK. Then that started to go.
> 
> Anyway, I've been wanting to get the 32GB TZ 3200C14Qs as my Ripjaws showed some lacking (e.g. couldn't get 14-14-14 even at stock and had to use 14-15-14) but nobody seemed to have the TZs except Amazon UK (with a 2-4 week wait). Last night I checked again and Newegg had them! *So now it's packaging*


may the silicon gods be with you...


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Slot B1 for binning with X99 bro.


Hello

This also need testing as the strongest channels are dependent on board layout.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> This also need testing as the strongest channels are dependent on board layout.


Indeed - I tested all 4 in use (A1, B1, C1 & D1) on the X99-A, all good with same stick.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> may the silicon gods be with you...


Thanks, Bro! Just got my FedEx notice, unfortunately from CA. Oh well! At least it's 3-day business, not ground









I did a preliminary RealBench stress with the temporary DIMMs and got a WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR after 32 minutes. Is that usually from vcore or memory error?

At 4.6GHz @ 1.4v my temps are climbing but still not too bad - 76c highest after 32 mins and seemed to have stabilized, that core normally high 60s to low 70s.


----------



## MR-e

Check your event viewer, and try tweaking based on the following codes:

0x124 = VCore
0x101 = Vinput
0x1E = VCore
0x50 = RAM/Cache
0x9C = Cache or System Agent
0X109 = Cache/VDIMM
0x0A = VTT/Sys Agent


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> Check your event viewer, and try tweaking based on the following codes:
> 
> 0x124 = VCore
> 0x101 = Vinput
> 0x1E = VCore
> 0x50 = RAM/Cache
> 0x9C = Cache or System Agent
> 0X109 = Cache/VDIMM
> 0x0A = VTT/Sys Agent


Thanks for the info!


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lookin good. Just fine tune voltages at this point... as you are doing
> x265 did it's job... add in other tests. As SCone said, x265 is the last thing to use if fine tuning since it is finicky (and peculiar at times). It is a good "coarse" dial tho. Also , the RB benchmark is pretty good at helping with finding a performance sweetspot.


Done, 3 hours of Realbench, 2 hours of AIDA64 Stress (CPU/FPU/Cache), HCI Memtest, Stresstest app, no OCCT like old times though...lol.
No crashes, blue screens or hangs, so I guess for now it's stable, everyday use will be the best test









Thanks again guys, you all are always a big help.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Done, 3 hours of Realbench, 2 hours of AIDA64 Stress (CPU/FPU/Cache), HCI Memtest, Stresstest app, no OCCT like old times though...lol.
> No crashes, blue screens or hangs, so I guess for now it's stable, everyday use will be the best test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again guys, you all are always a big help.


What's your OC ?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> What's your OC ?


Only 4.2Ghz on the CPU and 3.4Ghz cache, I will try for higher when I get some customer watercooling on it, at the moment I'm only using a Kraken x61.
We're coming into an Australian summer so the CPU will start to "feel the heat"......


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Only 4.2Ghz on the CPU and 3.4Ghz cache, I will try for higher when I get some customer watercooling on it, at the moment I'm only using a Kraken x61.
> We're coming into an Australian summer so the CPU will start to "feel the heat"......


----------



## vmanuelgm

Whea is usually vcore or vccin related...

Memory usually shows as memory management or irql...

I was trying 4.4 (4.3 avx), 3.8 and 4400 but wasnt stable, changing to 3200 CL13 all ok and softer with 1T...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Thanks, Bro! Just got my FedEx notice, unfortunately from CA. Oh well! At least it's 3-day business, not ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did a preliminary RealBench stress with the temporary DIMMs and got a WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR after 32 minutes. Is that usually from vcore or memory error?
> 
> At 4.6GHz @ 1.4v my temps are climbing but still not too bad - 76c highest after 32 mins and seemed to have stabilized, that core normally high 60s to low 70s.


whea, or an MCE (machine check error) is voltage to the logic cores, so vcore and possibly vccin if the stress test is high current. But hey, I usually raise vcore and vccin as a team.








WHEA, MCE is a good sign.. it's very close to stable (stable enough to loop the checksum mismatch until it's hopeless -> "uncorrectable".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Done, 3 hours of Realbench, 2 hours of AIDA64 Stress (CPU/FPU/Cache), HCI Memtest, Stresstest app, no OCCT like old times though...lol.
> No crashes, blue screens or hangs, so I guess for now it's stable, everyday use will be the best test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again guys, you all are always a big help.


Enjoy!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> whea, or an MCE (machine check error) is voltage to the logic cores, so vcore and possibly vccin if the stress test is high current. But hey, I usually raise vcore and vccin as a team.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEA, MCE is a good sign.. it's very close to stable (stable enough to loop the checksum mismatch until it's hopeless -> "uncorrectable".
> Enjoy!


----------



## PowerK

Hi folks.

Another update. Hehe

4.4GHz core with 1.350V Vcore (adaptive)
3.8GHz cache with 1.312V cache voltage (offset)

VCCSA = 1.232V (0.240V offset)
VCCIN = 1.936V (1.950V offset)
LLC = Level 5

1. Prime95 v28.9 custom blend (1344k, 768k, 4096k, 448k, 864k) 9 hours passed.
2. X264 Stability Test V2 = 12 hours passed
3. AIDA64 FPU stability test = 4 hours passed.
4. OCCT Large Data Set = 7 hours passed

I was about to move on with HCI MemTest after a few hours of ASUS RealBench.
However.. RealBench H.264 Video Encoding benchmark loop gives BSOD around 40 mins mark. (it said something like IRQL_less_or_not_equal)

I thought RealBench was one of easier stress test to pass. But I guess I was wrong. Even though my current overclock passed Prime95, X264, AIDA64 and OCCT..... it shows BSOD in RealBench H264 benchmark loop.
BSOD was not clock_watch dog which usually means more vcore needed. What's IRQL_less_or_not_equal bsod code ?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*


that's a right clicker...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi folks.
> 
> Another update. Hehe
> 
> 4.4GHz core with 1.350V Vcore (adaptive)
> 3.8GHz cache with 1.312V cache voltage (offset)
> 
> VCCSA = 1.232V (0.240V offset)
> VCCIN = 1.936V (1.950V offset)
> LLC = Level 5
> 
> 1. Prime95 v28.9 custom blend (1344k, 768k, 4096k, 448k, 864k) 9 hours passed.
> 2. X264 Stability Test V2 = 12 hours passed
> 3. AIDA64 FPU stability test = 4 hours passed.
> 4. OCCT Large Data Set = 7 hours passed
> 
> I was about to move on with HCI MemTest after a few hours of ASUS RealBench.
> However.. RealBench H.264 Video Encoding benchmark loop gives BSOD around 40 mins mark. (it said something like IRQL_less_or_not_equal)
> 
> I thought RealBench was one of easier stress test to pass. But I guess I was wrong. Even though my current overclock passed Prime95, X264, AIDA64 and OCCT..... it shows BSOD in RealBench H264 benchmark loop.
> BSOD was not clock_watch dog which usually means more vcore needed. What's IRQL_less_or_not_equal bsod code ?


Likely memory corruption. How much memory did you commit to the test?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Likely memory corruption. How much memory did you commit to the test?


Hi Jpm.
It was a benchmark loop. (Not the stress test)
Hence, no settings for memory commit size.
So... it's memory related, it seems. Hmm..


----------



## PowerK

Lowered SA voltage to 1.10V (every other settings remain unchanged).
Currently running RealBench H.264 Video Encoding benchmark loop.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Lowered SA voltage to 1.10V (every other settings remain unchanged).
> Currently running RealBench H.264 Video Encoding benchmark loop.


here's an easy to set up x264. Set the number of threads to 1.5x the actual number - finds errors faster.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gpMyj43ZFjSzJ4Nm0xT3pobjA


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> here's an easy to set up x264. Set the number of threads to 1.5x the actual number - finds errors faster.
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gpMyj43ZFjSzJ4Nm0xT3pobjA


I ran it for 12 hours yesterday and passed. However, RealBench H.264 benchmark loop failed.
So, it seems that there's an area where RealBench's H.264 benchmark loop touches while X264 Stability Test V2 doesn't.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I ran it for 12 hours yesterday and passed. However, RealBench H.264 benchmark loop failed.
> So, it seems that there's an area where RealBench's H.264 benchmark loop touches while X264 Stability Test V2 doesn't.


Interesting.. I haven;t experienced that.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> whea, or an MCE (machine check error) is voltage to the logic cores, so vcore and possibly vccin if the stress test is high current. But hey, I usually raise vcore and vccin as a team.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEA, MCE is a good sign.. it's very close to stable (stable enough to loop the checksum mismatch until it's hopeless -> "uncorrectable".


Oops! I got my errors mixed! It's the CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT error. And thank you for the teamwork!









So the Trident Zs get here Wednesday, Silicon Gods permitting


----------



## PowerK

This is BSOD code from event viewer.
It's SA / memory related, right?


I'm slowly bumping up SA voltage from 1.10V.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> This is BSOD code from event viewer.
> It's SA / memory related, right?
> 
> 
> I'm slowly bumping up SA voltage from 1.10V.


Dont know your memory frequency, but I would bump up llc to 7, maintaining 1.35v in cores, vccin to 1.968v and cache voltage to 1.326, I am stable 4.4 (4.3 avx)-3.8-3200CL13-1T passing RB with no problems...

If you use 100:133 divider, a dram clock period of 13 is the ideal.

If you use 100:100 3400, period of 14...

SA shouldn't be over 1.12, unless your imc is weak...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> This is BSOD code from event viewer.
> It's SA / memory related, right?
> 
> 
> I'm slowly bumping up SA voltage from 1.10V.


post to bios and try these settings in the tweaker menu:


----------



## PowerK

Thank you djgar and Jpm.
Here's what I've found today.

1. Even though Prime95, X264 Stability Test V2, OCCT passed stress test... Asus RealBench H264 Encoding benchmark loop fails within the first 30-40 mins. (I'm surprised that RealBench can be more sensitive to memory stability compared to other stress test such as Prime95, OCCT, X264 stability test)

2. Tried different SA voltages.. didn't help.
3. Tried different VCCIN voltages, didn't seem to help.

So, I disabled XMP, and ran the memory in SPD (DDR4-2133) with stock SA voltage.. (Other settings left untouched. 4.4 core(1.350V), 3.8 cache(1.310V), LLC level5), 1.90 VCCIN.
And voila, RealBench H264 loop is running for 6 hours and counting. No errors, no BSOD.

So... It definitely is my Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28 kit making extremely difficult to stabilize my system.
http://www.corsair.com/en/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10

How should I make these Corsair suckers stable?


----------



## vibraslap

Check out the 24/7 memory stability thread. Also running GSAT on Linux Mint is highly recommended for testing memory stability as it takes it much less time to find errors. It's definitely worth the "trouble" of installing linux.(its pretty simple compared to overclocking







)


----------



## combat fighter

Why is the cache overclock so crap with these chips?

Pointless anyone buying 3200Mhz memory when your cache is only 3.8Ghz.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *combat fighter*
> 
> Why is the cache overclock so crap with these chips?
> 
> Pointless anyone buying 3200Mhz memory when your cache is only 3.8Ghz.


Noob question but how do you know what your cache should be relative to RAM?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Noob question but how do you know what your cache should be relative to RAM?


min cache frequency needs to be at least 50% of Dram Speed so just leave the min cache multi on Auto, after that the performance gains from a cache OC are pretty limited to specific ram IO intensive operations and benchmarks. "Core is (still) King".








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *combat fighter*
> 
> Why is the cache overclock so crap with these chips?
> 
> Pointless anyone buying 3200Mhz memory when your cache is only 3.8Ghz.


wrong.

Proof:
GSkill 3200c14 sticks, 64GB @ 3467c13


----------



## PowerK

I lowered uncore from 3.8 to 3.7GHz. And this made life a lot easier. Passed 8 hours of RealBench H.264 encoding benchmark loop.

After RealBench, I re-ran Prime95 custom blend, OCCT large data set as well as X264 Stability Test V2. All passed. :-D

I'm going to run HCI MemTest after work today. Fingers crossed.

I'd like to thank Jpm, djgar, vibraslap, vmanuelgm, nexxusty and Praz for your advice.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I lowered uncore from 3.8 to 3.7GHz. And this made life a lot easier. Passed 8 hours of RealBench H.264 encoding benchmark loop.
> 
> After RealBench, I re-ran Prime95 custom blend, OCCT large data set as well as X264 Stability Test V2. All passed. :-D
> 
> I'm going to run HCI MemTest after work today. Fingers crossed.
> 
> I'd like to thank Jpm, djgar, vibraslap, vmanuelgm, nexxusty and Praz for your advice.


Hello

Good to hear and you're welcome.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I lowered uncore from 3.8 to 3.7GHz. And this made life a lot easier. Passed 8 hours of RealBench H.264 encoding benchmark loop.
> 
> After RealBench, I re-ran Prime95 custom blend, OCCT large data set as well as X264 Stability Test V2. All passed. :-D
> 
> I'm going to run HCI MemTest after work today. Fingers crossed.
> 
> I'd like to thank Jpm, djgar, vibraslap, vmanuelgm, nexxusty and Praz for your advice.


I'm nowhere as useful as the others, but occasionally have my moments - happy to contribute!


----------



## NKrader

My brand new setup


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Noob question but how do you know what your cache should be relative to RAM?


faster cache gets you better latency on your ram also allows you the liberty of not having to access the ram as often (if the cache is fast enough)

but that person is incorrect simply due to the fact that there is 5MB MORE cache with this chip, so 3.7-3.8GHz is still pretty fast even vs. a 5960X at 4.3-4.4 GHz cache.

you can run intel's MLC tool to compare speeds with diff cpus and specific cache speeds, and you will notice the difference in the idle latency as well as the loaded latencies.


----------



## djgar

I noticed a big difference in mem speed with BW-E specific motherboards vs. BIOS-updated previous HW-E boards.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> faster cache gets you better latency on your ram also allows you the liberty of not having to access the ram as often (if the cache is fast enough)


Can you expand on what you mean by this? You're still going to get the same number of accesses, but faster. So this statement makes no sense.


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Can you expand on what you mean by this? You're still going to get the same number of accesses, but faster. So this statement makes no sense.


It seems like you agreed with a portion of the statement do you mean for me to expand on the part about not accessing the ram as often as a possibility for having a larger and faster cache or the part about it the cache lowering memory latency


----------



## djgar

So currently I'm running 1.35v vcache, 1.405 adaptive turbo and 1.98 vccin on my 6900K / Strix @ 4600 cpu / 3800 cache. RAM is running at stock 3400 16-18-18-36. I'm definitely close to the edge (or on it







) - I'm getting the clock watchdog timeout at 60 minutes in RealBench and high core temp is 77c max, though usually that core is high 60s low 70s. VRM is 65c.

I should try 1.41 vcore but ... paranoia is setting in ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> So currently I'm running 1.35v vcache, 1.405 adaptive turbo and 1.98 vccin on my 6900K / Strix @ 4600 cpu / 3800 cache. RAM is running at stock 3400 16-18-18-36. I'm definitely close to the edge (or on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) - I'm getting the clock watchdog timeout at 60 minutes in RealBench and high core temp is 77c max, though usually that core is high 60s low 70s. VRM is 65c.
> 
> I should try 1.41 vcore but ... paranoia is setting in ...


what multiplier and what AVX multiplier?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> It seems like you agreed with a portion of the statement do you mean for me to expand on the part about not accessing the ram as often as a possibility for having a larger and faster cache or the part about it the cache lowering memory latency


The part I quoted (and expanded upon) lol.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> So currently I'm running 1.35v vcache, 1.405 adaptive turbo and 1.98 vccin on my 6900K / Strix @ 4600 cpu / 3800 cache. RAM is running at stock 3400 16-18-18-36. I'm definitely close to the edge (or on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) - I'm getting the clock watchdog timeout at 60 minutes in RealBench and high core temp is 77c max, though usually that core is high 60s low 70s. VRM is 65c.
> 
> I should try 1.41 vcore but ... paranoia is setting in ...


4600!? Madman on the loose!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what multiplier and what AVX multiplier?


Strap 100 adaptive vcore, 100 bclk, 46x cpu, 38x cache.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> 4600!? Madman on the loose!


I'll take that as a compliment


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I'll take that as a compliment


That's a good chip and OC. Most times I'm running [email protected],36V cache 3.8 1.33V, adaptive and offset resp. Often (eg, for days at a time) 4.5/3.8 at 1.425V core.


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The part I quoted (and expanded upon) lol.


http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/234253/why-is-cpu-cache-memory-so-fast

This might help to explain

Most of the comments and questions there hit the points made and some decent info in there


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> That's a good chip and OC. Most times I'm running [email protected],36V cache 3.8 1.33V, adaptive and offset resp. Often (eg, for days at a time) 4.5/3.8 at 1.425V core.


I'll give 1.41 a shot and see where that gets me in RealBench. Wednesday my 3200-14 TZs get in and then the real testing starts, but I'm trying to get a good feel for the CPU / board side. Thanks for the perspectives









BTW I noticed Win 10 doesn't show activated if there's no internet connection







. Still seems to run - in my stress test disk I usually turn ethernet off, no need for that during testing..


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/234253/why-is-cpu-cache-memory-so-fast
> 
> This might help to explain
> 
> Most of the comments and questions there hit the points made and some decent info in there


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> faster cache gets you better latency on your ram *also allows you the liberty of not having to access the ram as often (if the cache is fast enough)*


Can you show me where that link says anything about faster cache reduces memory accesses?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Can you show me where that link says anything about faster cache changing cache and memory accesses?


I can't tell, but it's a decent website in general...


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Now that you have pointed out the specific portion of your question about my comment i will say that no, icant. Often was the wrong word to use, maybe As Much works since less time will be spent accessing the ram, but the first sentence covered that anways.

Here is my comment corrected for you:

You spend less time accessing the ram with a faster cache, which you can see by using the MLC tool.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Now that you have pointed out the specific portion of your question about my comment i will say that no, icant. Often was the wrong word to use, maybe As Much works since less time will be spent accessing the ram, but the first sentence covered that anways.
> 
> Here is my comment corrected for you:
> 
> You spend less time accessing the ram with a faster cache, which you can see by using the MLC tool.


The cache is serving as a substitute holder of data for the memory that is faster for the CPU to access. But the speed of the cache does not affect its content. Data gets fed from the memory to the cache first time it gets accessed - what is in the cache depends of what the cpu is requesting, So faster cache does not result in less memory access, just in faster feeding from the cache to the cpu and possibly faster loading from the memory. My 2 cents ...


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> The cache is serving as a substitute holder of data for the memory that is faster for the CPU to access. But the speed of the cache does not affect its content. Data gets fed from the memory to the cache first time it gets accessed - what is in the cache depends of what the cpu is requesting, So faster cache does not result in less memory access, just in faster feeding from the cache to the cpu and possibly faster loading from the memory. My 2 cents ...


Has it.

Speed of cache does not determine what goes in it. Ultimately it's the programmers / application's optimizations that determines if their data can be retrieved via a cache hit, if it's a cache miss, then bummer, we now have spent an extra cycle instead of just going to RAM to fetch.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> That's a good chip and OC. Most times I'm running [email protected],36V cache 3.8 1.33V, adaptive and offset resp. Often (eg, for days at a time) 4.5/3.8 at 1.425V core.


Well I tried 1.41 vcore and got 20 mins. instead of 60 so I went back to 1.405. I didn't want to up vccin to 1.90 so I figured l'd try some vccsa research. I've been using the .13 offset from my previous board which was working fairly well and had tried .14 & .12 which didn't do so well. But hey, .15 vccsa offset and I got 114 minutes. I usually do a screenshot on the half hour, but my spidey sense was tingling and I took one at 110







. I guess .16 is next and see how that fares.


----------



## vibraslap

470 Watts! Wow! I was nervous when I saw mine above 410...

Any particular reason why you didn't want to up VCCIN?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> 470 Watts! Wow! I was nervous when I saw mine above 410...
> 
> Any particular reason why you didn't want to up VCCIN?


`
The usual high-volt high-temp paranoia - not sure what the VRM temperament is like









And that wattage is with a lameass GPU


----------



## vibraslap

Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought that was your CPU TDP only!

And I ask about the VCCIN because I had to up mine to 1.95V to get stable after overclocking the cache as well. Admittedly, I haven't tried shaving that down much. No problems so far though, including temperatures.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought that was your CPU TDP only!
> 
> And I ask about the VCCIN because I had to up mine to 1.95V to get stable after overclocking the cache as well. Admittedly, I haven't tried shaving that down much. No problems so far though, including temperatures.


I had to do the same on my 6900k too, running a BIOS set 1.95v, Windows reads it as 1.96v, drops to 1.935v under heavy load.
Also got the cache overclocked.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought that was your CPU TDP only!
> 
> And I ask about the VCCIN because I had to up mine to 1.95V to get stable after overclocking the cache as well. Admittedly, I haven't tried shaving that down much. No problems so far though, including temperatures.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I had to do the same on my 6900k too, running a BIOS set 1.95v, Windows reads it as 1.96v, drops to 1.935v under heavy load.
> Also got the cache overclocked.


Vccin @ 1.98 in the BIOS Aida reads 2.0 -. In the BIOS a setting of 2.0 gets purple - I hate purple settings


----------



## djgar

RealBench 2.44 is out! Downloading ...









http://rog.asus.com/rog-pro/realbench-v2-leaderboard/


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> RealBench 2.44 is out! Downloading ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://rog.asus.com/rog-pro/realbench-v2-leaderboard/


Thanks!
Any chance for stress test mode compatibility issue fix with nVIDIA SLI ??


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> RealBench 2.44 is out! Downloading ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://rog.asus.com/rog-pro/realbench-v2-leaderboard/


Is there a changelog somewhere, or am i being blind?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> RealBench 2.44 is out! Downloading ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://rog.asus.com/rog-pro/realbench-v2-leaderboard/


Thanks


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Thanks!
> Any chance for stress test mode compatibility issue fix with nVIDIA SLI ??


Not likey, unless NVIDIA have fixed it at the driver


----------



## Deceiver777

Hello Guys - Is it normal for stock
CPU - this score ?


----------



## Martin778

Yep, looks good to me.


----------



## djgar

OK! A little vccsa can go a long way. From .15 offset for almost 2 hrs. RealBench the next breakthrough came at .20 offset for almost 4 hrs. It froze at 230 mins. but I got a screenshot at 210


----------



## Raess

Anyone manage to get Trident Z 3200 going at XMP without too much hastle?

Can't seem to get mine (f4-3200c16q-32gtzsw) stable at XMP and I believe the VCCSA is pretty high for an auto setting.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raess*
> 
> Anyone manage to get Trident Z 3200 going at XMP without too much hastle?
> 
> Can't seem to get mine (f4-3200c16q-32gtzsw) stable at XMP and I believe the VCCSA is pretty high for an auto setting.


Yeah that's crazy high. VCCSA at least on HW-E is a voltage that requires careful tuning, sometimes less is more on that voltage.

Back er down to 1.05 and see what happens.

I have some 32GB and 64GB 3200 TZ C14Q coming in for 2 new builds. One is 4x8GB, the other is 4x16GB. I'll let you know how they go.


----------



## Raess

Now to figure out how to drop the VCCSA on my board. Haven't had to meddle with offset voltage settings before.

1.1v a good target for the VCCSA?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raess*
> 
> Now to figure out how to drop the VCCSA on my board. Haven't had to meddle with offset voltage settings before.
> 
> 1.1v a good target for the VCCSA?


It depends on your CPU and memory. But 1.1V ~ 1.5V is a good target for VCCSA and VCCIO.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raess*
> 
> Now to figure out how to drop the VCCSA on my board. Haven't had to meddle with offset voltage settings before.
> 
> 1.1v a good target for the VCCSA?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> It depends on your CPU and memory. But 1.1V ~ 1.5V is a good target for VCCSA and VCCIO.


Hello

Please do not use anywhere near 1.5V. Few processors need as much as 1.2V. High SA voltage requirements normally point to incorrect tuning of other settings.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Please do not use anywhere near 1.5V. Few processors need as much as 1.2V. High SA voltage requirements normally point to incorrect tuning of other settings.


Possibly from tuning with one of these.



At 3200, I'm having no issues with stability with 1v on VCCSA


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Possibly from tuning with one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> At 3200, I'm having no issues with stability with 1v on VCCSA


Balls?


----------



## Raess

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Please do not use anywhere near 1.5V. Few processors need as much as 1.2V. High SA voltage requirements normally point to incorrect tuning of other settings.


Yeah I figured it was way too high seeing as I have seen it mentioned in here multiple times at around 1.1v and 1.2v.
Changed the offset from auto to +0.152 and its about 1.12v at the moment.

Still cannot get the 3200mhz XMP profile to run, however it does run at the same timings on 3000mhz.

Anyway I haven't had the chance to play with it a whole lot seeing as the first batch of RAM I purchased decided to die.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> It depends on your CPU and memory. But 1.1V ~ 1.5V is a good target for VCCSA and VCCIO.


Oops. I meant 1.15V
1.1V ~ 1.15V


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Please do not use anywhere near 1.5V. Few processors need as much as 1.2V. High SA voltage requirements normally point to incorrect tuning of other settings.


Thank you for the correction.


----------



## PowerK

Guys, what's the best stress test for cache(uncore) oc stability test?
Please don't tell me it's HCI MemTest...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Guys, what's the best stress test for cache(uncore) oc stability test?
> Please don't tell me it's HCI MemTest...


lol - HCI is pretty good. A couple of hours of AID64 cache test also. Other than that thre is not much else AFAIK.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Guys, what's the best stress test for cache(uncore) oc stability test?
> Please don't tell me it's HCI MemTest...


As above, HCI is best for testing cache at memory interaction. AIDA cache test is great at isolating cache instability otherwise.


----------



## Raess

Whats the highest you'd push the DDR4 Voltage on a kit of Trident Z 3200 16-18-18 32GB for 24/7 ?
I tried 1.38v and it lasted longer in Aida before failing at XMP.

EDIT: Dropped VCCSA to 1.0v as per someone above and aida clears the memory on its own, but reports hardware failure when testing both memory and cache. Cache was previously tested stable with stock DDR4 speeds. So is the memory causing the test to fail or the cache ?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Guys, what's the best stress test for cache(uncore) oc stability test?
> Please don't tell me it's HCI MemTest...


I use HCI Memtest for RAM and Cache+RAM interaction and Aida64 cache test for cache stability.
8 hours each is my "Green light" for RAM and Cache.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raess*
> 
> Whats the highest you'd push the DDR4 Voltage on a kit of Trident Z 3200 16-18-18 32GB for 24/7 ?
> I tried 1.38v and it lasted longer in Aida before failing at XMP.
> 
> EDIT: Dropped VCCSA to 1.0v as per someone above and aida clears the memory on its own, but reports hardware failure when testing both memory and cache. Cache was previously tested stable with stock DDR4 speeds. So is the memory causing the test to fail or the cache ?


If your cache was overclocked at stock speeds, having higher DRAM frequencies or coreclocks may require you to bump the cache voltage just a hint.

Otherwise it could still be some memory instability. Best way to Iron that out is with GSAT, or revert your cache back to stock. When overclocking memory, I always like to fall back to "failsafe" parameters when isolating the RAM. eg, using the same voltages/offsets, nudge the core/cache multis back 1-2x.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - HCI is pretty good. A couple of hours of AID64 cache test also. Other than that thre is not much else AFAIK.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> As above, HCI is best for testing cache at memory interaction. AIDA cache test is great at isolating cache instability otherwise.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I use HCI Memtest for RAM and Cache+RAM interaction and Aida64 cache test for cache stability.
> 8 hours each is my "Green light" for RAM and Cache.


Ok. Thanks folks for the advice on cache oc & stability test.
Just passed 1000% coverage on HCI MemTest. VCCSA &VCCIO at 1.10V
I suspected cache for constant MemTest failure. So I put cache back to stock @ 3GHz.

Now, core at 4.4, Memory at 2400 10-12-12-31-1T.

I can't believe I have to go through another HCI MemTest to find cache stability. 
I'm not going to rely on AIDA64's cache stress test. Because ADIA64 cache only stress test passed for 6 hours at 3.8GHz.
HCI threw errors at 3.8 and 3.7... I thought it was memory but defaulting cache back to 3GHz and passing HCI 1000% coverage.. Now I know that it was the cache and AIDA64's steess test isn't reliable.


----------



## xarot

Anyone seen this? I have seen it on 6900K, 6950X, RVE and RVE10.

When I use manual voltage, like 1.38 V for VCore, all good. Then I switch to any offset, sometimes VCore is shown as the previous manual voltage I had set it to. Bug?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Anyone seen this? I have seen it on 6900K, 6950X, RVE and RVE10.
> 
> When I use manual voltage, like 1.38 V for VCore, all good. Then I switch to any offset, sometimes VCore is shown as the previous manual voltage I had set it to. Bug?


That happened to me, but setting the voltage back to Auto then do a full system shutdown, powering on then set the offset fixed it.
Could be just a BIOS bug.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> That happened to me, but setting the voltage back to Auto then do a full system shutdown, powering on then set the offset fixed it.
> Could be just a BIOS bug.


Yeah, could be a full shutdown fixes it. But it's still a bug I guess...when OCing and changing voltages, shutting down the system after major changes is a really good idea but it's really painstaking...sometimes stress tests simply fail if I haven't shut the system down in between and after a shutdown all is good. I think I first saw this behaviour on X79 boards.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Yeah, could be a full shutdown fixes it. But it's still a bug I guess...when OCing and changing voltages, shutting down the system after major changes is a really good idea but it's really painstaking...sometimes stress tests simply fail if I haven't shut the system down in between and after a shutdown all is good. I think I first saw this behaviour on X79 boards.


My MSI x99a Gaming 7 board did that to with my 5820k, there was a BIOS that actually did a full shutdown when making any voltage changes, but it was buggy in other area's.

It's annoying, but I'm sure they'll fix it.

JP pointed me to the ASUS X99 Motherboard Series - Official Support Thread
http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only

Might be worth both us posting it over there too..


----------



## Raess

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> If your cache was overclocked at stock speeds, having higher DRAM frequencies or coreclocks may require you to bump the cache voltage just a hint.
> 
> Otherwise it could still be some memory instability. Best way to Iron that out is with GSAT, or revert your cache back to stock. When overclocking memory, I always like to fall back to "failsafe" parameters when isolating the RAM. eg, using the same voltages/offsets, nudge the core/cache multis back 1-2x.


Managed to drop back the clocks on the core and cache which resulted in a 350% HCI pass without any issues.
Dialed everything back up bit by bit and it did end up being a cache instability, had to push that to 1.19v to get it stable after adding RAM XMP.

So thank you for that, helped a tonne!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Anyone seen this? I have seen it on 6900K, 6950X, RVE and RVE10.
> 
> When I use manual voltage, like 1.38 V for VCore, all good. Then I switch to any offset, sometimes VCore is shown as the previous manual voltage I had set it to. Bug?


In offset mode what I found is the vcore actually supplied is higher than expected or shown in the BIOS. Adaptive is pretty much exact.


----------



## MissHaswellE

Edit nevermind.


----------



## hardcorePC

btw. im way behind in this thread

what would be max voltage on 6800K?
So far for benchmarks i get 4.5 at around 1.38v temps are hitting around 60C in cpu test fire strike - so i dont think im temp limited

It can boot 4.6 1.38v and wont get stable even at 1.42v , im thinking about going higher

tomorrow will be doing test with titan xp

time spy cpu score 7373
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/183478?


----------



## cookiesowns

Ok. I've officially joined the club. I didn't feel like going for the 6950X but I saw the box and went YOLO.

Kingpins went back on air as I'm waiting for the Titan XPS to come. Then my full set of rads will be in. It's kind of nice having an open chassis.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Ok. I've officially joined the club. I didn't feel like going for the 6950X but I saw the box and went YOLO.
> 
> Kingpins went back on air as I'm waiting for the Titan XPS to come. Then my full set of rads will be in. It's kind of nice having an open chassis.


Yeah I YOLO'd an Opteron 180 back when they were the shizz. $600 CPU when I was 18.

Delidded it too, hehe.

Feels good. Enjoy it man.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Yeah I YOLO'd an Opteron 180 back when they were the shizz. $600 CPU when I was 18.
> 
> Delidded it too, hehe.
> 
> Feels good. Enjoy it man.


Haha feels good, until the bill comes







Thanks dude, will definitely enjoy it. Runs 2800 @ 100 strap on my 2666 corsairs yay!

Anyone know some good values to aim for on a 6950X? Seem to be psuedo stable at 4.3 @ 1.215V adaptive ( VID w/ HWINFO is about 1.24-1.28V ) max CPU temps 60C so far.

EDIT: So it seems that the lowest VID I can get is 1.245V on this chip at 4.3Ghz. if I set 1.200V, VID's are still 1.245V-1.287V.

However I was running real bench at 4.4Ghz @ 1.315V so.... I'm not sure what to say, just an average chip?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Haha feels good, until the bill comes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks dude, will definitely enjoy it. Runs 2800 @ 100 strap on my 2666 corsairs yay!
> 
> Anyone know some good values to aim for on a 6950X? Seem to be psuedo stable at 4.3 @ 1.215V adaptive ( VID w/ HWINFO is about 1.24-1.28V ) max CPU temps 60C so far.
> 
> EDIT: So it seems that the lowest VID I can get is 1.245V on this chip at 4.3Ghz. if I set 1.200V, VID's are still 1.245V-1.287V.
> 
> However I was running real bench at 4.4Ghz @ 1.315V so.... I'm not sure what to say, just an average chip?


You can't run lower than 1.245 because you can't run lower than the top of the VID stack. 44 at 1.315v is pretty good by my estimations.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> You can't run lower than 1.245 because you can't run lower than the top of the VID stack. 44 at 1.315v is pretty good by my estimations.


Odd that my chip has such a high baseline VID, but seems to run okay... Vid's for cache and VCCSA is high as well.

0.025+ offset on VCCSA = 1.032V.....

That said, there is a bug on the Rampage V Edition 10.... Nuked my processor with 1.2V+ on VCCIO 1.05V CPU rail for who knows how long. Hopefully CPU didn't suffer. So far after manually setting it back to 1.05V package temps reduced 2-5C.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Ok. I've officially joined the club. I didn't feel like going for the 6950X but I saw the box and *went YOLO*.


Basically that happens to me each time a new X processor is released.


----------



## Raess

Damn, managed to get it all stable at 3200 16-18-18-38 XMP profile and today it starts crashing.
Managed to get the following BSODs (Bad_pool_header and System_service_exception).
Memtest revealed errors after Test 5 so I clocked the ram back down to default and the errors went away.

Any ideas why that would all of a sudden happen after no problems yesterday whilst testing?
RAM voltage or VCCSA maybe ?

EDIT: wrong timings


----------



## PowerK

There doesn't seem to be much talk about ASUS Thermal Control Tool. Do you guys not use it ??


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Haha feels good, until the bill comes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks dude, will definitely enjoy it. Runs 2800 @ 100 strap on my 2666 corsairs yay!
> 
> Anyone know some good values to aim for on a 6950X? Seem to be psuedo stable at 4.3 @ 1.215V adaptive ( VID w/ HWINFO is about 1.24-1.28V ) max CPU temps 60C so far.
> 
> EDIT: So it seems that the lowest VID I can get is 1.245V on this chip at 4.3Ghz. if I set 1.200V, VID's are still 1.245V-1.287V.
> 
> However I was running real bench at 4.4Ghz @ 1.315V so.... I'm not sure what to say, just an average chip?


[email protected] 1.315V is a well above average chip.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> There doesn't seem to be much talk about ASUS Thermal Control Tool. Do you guys not use it ??


I do. Mostly discussed in the ASUS x99 thread.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> [email protected] 1.315V is a well above average chip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. Mostly discussed in the ASUS x99 thread.


I actually need around 1.335-1.35V







so I settled on my lowest VID for 4.3 which is 1.287V. 4.2AVX2


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> That said, there is a bug on the Rampage V Edition 10.... Nuked my processor with 1.2V+ on VCCIO 1.05V CPU rail for who knows how long. Hopefully CPU didn't suffer. So far after manually setting it back to 1.05V package temps reduced 2-5C.


Hello

No bug. If one does not want voltages to scale as designed when overclocking don't use the auto settings.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> No bug. If one does not want voltages to scale as designed when overclocking don't use the auto settings.


Ah. Could have sworn someone mentioned this behavior as being a bug somewhere.

That said, got it. Should have known better. Loving this board and 6950 so far. My old 2666 kit can now do 3000









Also Praz, should one still use rampage tweak 1 on BWE? I've noticed I wasn't able to adjust seconds or thirds, but setting to auto gave me much more headroom to go tighter. Even tighter than default auto subs on mode 1. Is this normal?

Can you explain the different modes on the E10?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> I actually need around 1.335-1.35V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so I settled on my lowest VID for 4.3 which is 1.287V. 4.2AVX2


yah - that's looks alot like my 6950X. 1.280 for 4.3avx4.1, 1.36V for 4.4/4.2. 1.435V for 4.5/4.3


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yah - that's looks alot like my 6950X. 1.280 for 4.3avx4.1, 1.36V for 4.4/4.2. 1.435V for 4.5/4.3


So ~ not golden, but not horrible at all?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> So ~ not golden, but not horrible at all?


My cpu? good... not golden


----------



## Silent Scone

Always believe in your soul, you've got the power to know...


----------



## kingofsorrow

You know what? I'll just leave it here:
https://hardforum.com/threads/msi-x99a-xpower-gaming-titanium-lga2011-v3-review-h.1906302/


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> You know what? I'll just leave it here:
> https://hardforum.com/threads/msi-x99a-xpower-gaming-titanium-lga2011-v3-review-h.1906302/


Why? Says the review has been removed to be evaluated. Thanks for the dead link.


----------



## kingofsorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Why? Says the review has been removed to be evaluated. Thanks for the dead link.


Scroll down, man, the 6950Xs deteriorate like nothing.


----------



## djgar

After several days on adaptive / 4.6 I started checking offset seriously, and it looks for me a bit better how the cpu / cache / dimm clocks relate with some bclk scrutiny. For a somewhat lower vcore (1.395 vs. 1.405)I can get somewhat better dimm & uncore clocks at about same cpu clock, no problem on GSAT but need to check out RealBench some more.

So far I've left AVX on auto, but I guess I should lower it a bit (-1 or -2) and see how it affects RB ... I'm guessing less stress on that area - where is AVX used in practical terms? They seem to be mostly FP oriented. Any enlightenment on my ignorance of impact of reducing AVX clock appreciated


----------



## vibraslap

The Asus Broadwell-E guide recommends leaving AVX offset alone and using the Asus thermal control utility instead. I'd look into that.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> Scroll down, man, the 6950Xs deteriorate like nothing.


if there's a specific post you want to point out right click on the post nukmber in the thread and post that link. like: https://hardforum.com/threads/msi-x99a-xpower-gaming-titanium-lga2011-v3-review-h.1906302/#post-1042447704
lol- buy the tuning plan. And I see this same post every HEDT generation. This generation... I'd bet each of these guys is not controlling vdroop in VCCIN.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> After several days on adaptive / 4.6 I started checking offset seriously, and it looks for me a bit better how the cpu / cache / dimm clocks relate with some bclk scrutiny. For a somewhat lower vcore (1.395 vs. 1.405)I can get somewhat better dimm & uncore clocks at about same cpu clock, no problem on GSAT but need to check out RealBench some more.
> 
> So far I've left AVX on auto, but I guess I should lower it a bit (-1 or -2) and see how it affects RB ... I'm guessing less stress on that area - where is AVX used in practical terms? They seem to be mostly FP oriented. Any enlightenment on my ignorance of impact of reducing AVX clock appreciated


When not using ATCT, My bios is set to lower frequency with AVX. 44-> 42, 43->41 etc. At least with my sample, -2 usual;ly has enough volts to cover AVX as long as the temps don't skyrocket.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol- buy the tuning plan. And I see this same post every HEDT generation. This generation... I'd bet each of these guys is not controlling vdroop in VCCIN.


Can you explain further? I'd like to not suffer the same fate in my ignorance...


----------



## kingofsorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if there's a specific post you want to point out right click on the post nukmber in the thread and post that link. like: https://hardforum.com/threads/msi-x99a-xpower-gaming-titanium-lga2011-v3-review-h.1906302/#post-1042447704
> lol- buy the tuning plan. And I see this same post every HEDT generation. This generation... I'd bet each of these guys is not controlling vdroop in VCCIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When not using ATCT, My bios is set to lower frequency with AVX. 44-> 42, 43->41 etc. At least with my sample, -2 usual;ly has enough volts to cover AVX as long as the temps don't skyrocket.


Use your mouse. Intel cpus never degraded like that, I don't know what you see every HEDT generation.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> Use your mouse. Intel cpus never degraded like that, I don't know what you see every HEDT generation.


My 6950X has had no degradation. I haven't seen a single claim is degradation is this entire thread either. I'd point to user error of some sort for the above link, or terribly bad luck with a defective CPU.


----------



## kingofsorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> My 6950X has had no degradation. I haven't seen a single claim is degradation is this entire thread either. I'd point to user error of some sort for the above link, or terribly bad luck with a defective CPU.


Two CPUs with two different reviewers albeit working on the same site. Also a retailer has confirmed the degradation issue.
It is very good that your is OK







Congrats.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if there's a specific post you want to point out right click on the post nukmber in the thread and post that link. like: https://hardforum.com/threads/msi-x99a-xpower-gaming-titanium-lga2011-v3-review-h.1906302/#post-1042447704
> lol- buy the tuning plan. And I see this same post every HEDT generation. This generation... I'd bet each of these guys is not controlling vdroop in VCCIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When not using ATCT, My bios is set to lower frequency with AVX. 44-> 42, 43->41 etc. At least with my sample, -2 usual;ly has enough volts to cover AVX as long as the temps don't skyrocket.


I can imagine there could be some misadventure with Prime95 and AVX offset. If a given CPU needs 1.35V for 4.3Ghz, and that's set via an Adaptive or manual Vcore, 1.35V will be applied to the AVX offset ratio also, and that's too high for Prime95. That type of stuff will degrade a CPU because the current consumed by the processor does not change by enough with a 200~300MHz frequency reduction - voltage needs to be decreased for a significant change in current.

Intel do not use the AVX offset just to drop the multiplier ratio, they use it to drop Vcore and the mechanism works in conjunction with the offset VID stack. That's how the feature is designed to be used. If one overclocks the system, then AVX offset with an adaptive or manual voltage of 1.35V is only suitable for loads similar or less aggressive than Handbrake, which is far more moderate than Prime.


----------



## kingofsorrow

Hi Raja


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> Use your mouse ffs. Intel cpus never degraded like that, I don't know what you see every HEDT generation.


No you're right, they haven't. So not sure why you are so quick to take what is being said in that thread as gospel









I've asked Dan in the thread what voltage modes were being used whilst stressing (It's already obvious he's using either adaptive or manual).


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> Use your mouse. Intel cpus never degraded like that, I don't know what you see every HEDT generation.


lol - to chase a post by you? For what reason do you post such gibberish? And for comparison sake, I know of a dozen guys who have fried IBEs and HWEs... Oh.. wait, sorry to bother you with facts.
And frankly, who cares if someone degraded cpu - lol, don't ;t need to look to any other site to find that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> I can imagine there could be some misadventure with Prime95 and AVX offset. If a given CPU needs 1.35V for 4.3Ghz, and that's set via an Adaptive or manual Vcore, 1.35V will be applied to the AVX offset ratio also, and that's too high for Prime95. That type of stuff will degrade a CPU because the current consumed by the processor does not change by enough with a 200~300MHz frequency reduction - voltage needs to be decreased for a significant change in current.
> Intel do not use the AVX offset just to drop the multiplier ratio, they use it to drop Vcore and the mechanism works in conjunction with the offset VID stack. That's how the feature is designed to be used. If one overclocks the system, then AVX offset with an adaptive or manual voltage of 1.35V is only suitable for loads similar or less aggressive than Handbrake, which is far more moderate than Prime.


Lol - you don't have to imagine anything.. folks here are doing it too often. IMO, The key here is whether one brutalizes their CPU with stress tests outta the cretaceous period. So, if I'm not running the ATCT (mostly when benching) my selection of the AVX offset incorporates whether or not the down clock will allow for stability and reasonable temperatures for the short period of time needed.
But no doubt, hammering a 10 core with p95, OCCT or Linux for hours and hours, or even RB for that matter, at high clocks and voltage... well, just leads to more stability testing in a self inflicted injury loop.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No you're right, they haven't. So not sure why you are so quick to take what is being said in that thread as gospel


Unfortunately, too many folks believe everything they read on the internet. wait.. wut?


----------



## [email protected]

Oddly enough, voltages over 1.30V on HW-E with Prime95 caused degradation, also.


----------



## kingofsorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - to chase a post by a troll such as you? For what reason do you post such gibberish? And for comparison sake, I know of a dozen guys who have fried IBEs and HWEs... Oh.. wait, sorry to bother you with facts.
> And frankly, whofkn cares if someone degraded cpu - lol, don't ;t need to look to any other site to find that.
> Lol - you don't have to imagine anything.. folks here are doing it too often. IMO, The key here is whether one brutalizes their CPU with stress tests outta the cretaceous period. So, if I'm not running the ATCT (mostly when benching) my selection of the AVX offset incorporates whether or not the down clock will allow for stability and reasonable temperatures for the short period of time needed.
> But no doubt, hammering a 10 core with p95, OCCT or Linux for hours and hours, or even RB for that matter, at high clocks and voltage... well, just leads to more stability testing in a self inflicted injury loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many folks believe everything they read on the internet. wait.. wut?


Sorry if my posted offended you in anyway I didn't mean to offend you or cause pain. Do you think I should delete it?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> Sorry if my posted offended you in anyway I didn't mean to offend you or cause pain. Do you think I should delete it?


no offense taken. Just replying "in-kind".


----------



## xarot

I cannot get GSAT to run anymore with RVE10 latest BIOS and 6950X. Once it resumes from the "power spike" phase, it just stays there. OS is still running normally...just doing nothing.

It worked fine on 6900K+R5E. Can't tell if I ran it with 6900K+RVE10 and older BIOS.

Similar like this: http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/900#post_24967377

It also does it at bare stock...I have tried to install the OS too and install chipset driver (sorry I can't recall now what that was called in Linux).

This is where I am currently, I guess this result falls in line with others?


----------



## cookiesowns

Hrm.

Anyone know what 01A bsod code relates to on BW-E? 4.3 @ 1.287V is stable, but 1.305-1.33V is 01A restart, No Bsod page, but it logs via BluescreenViewer.

Memory is GSAT stable, have not tested using HCI. I've tried backing down cache using same voltage, and still 01A.

Probably just vCore.., how do you guys keep a 6950X cool at above 1.32V? Quad with EK Supremacy EVO single loop with 32C water temps, chip runs HAWTT. Well above 72C package temps.

VCCIO or VCCSA needs a smidgen of a bump?


----------



## Profiled

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Oddly enough, voltages over 1.30V on HW-E with Prime95 caused degradation, also.


----------



## djgar

I ended up with a
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Profiled*


I thought Luke was the one who said that ...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I ended up with a
> I thought Luke was the one who said that ...


You could be forgiven for not watching the prequels.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> You could be forgiven for not watching the prequels.


I did! They just didn't stick to the memory that well







I' also read a bunch of the expanded universe stuff, like when Luke says YES!


----------



## djgar

Here are my 6900K offset vcore settings after a fair amount of checking. Adaptive lets my idle vcore run quite lower, but offset gives me better turbo speed at slightly lower vcore (1.400 vs. 1.405, Aida readings). As always, YMMV ...

Hopefully I won't cook with these for 24/7









4604 cpu, 3836 cache, strap 125, 127.9 bclk, 36x cpu, 30x cache, ddr4-3410 14-15-14-19cr1

vcore: .320 offset, 1.400 Aida at 100%, 1.1 idle
vcache: .390 offset, 1.356 Aida at 100%, 1.2 idle
vccsa: .210 offset, 1.21 Aida
vccin: 1.980, 2.00 Aida
vccio: 1.150, 1.144 Aida
vdimm: 1.39 eventual, 1.38 Aida
vttdr: .7500


----------



## Fidelity21

That looks awesome! Congrats!

I thought I was stable and happy at 4.3ghz with my 6850k running a Vcore of 1.298v. Unfortunately my computer just turned off in the middle of an underground mission and after restarting, I couldn't even find an error core in the System logs. So now I'm back up to 1.310v Vcore and as I'm typing this, my keyboard seems to be lagging behind??? I think I'm starting to get gremlins after a nice period of "all things working"

I wish there was a "normal voltage range" for 4.3ghz for all 6850k CPU's


----------



## djgar

Thanks! Unfortunately it's a bit of a guessing game - part science, part art, and lots of luck!


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Ah.. missed it skimming the manual... try this and gradually lower VCCIO:


So using that plus a small bump in VCCIO/Cache voltages allowed me to reach the 1hr mark on realbench @ 4.4Ghz @ 1.330V adaptive. 3.5 cache at 1.15V

Thanks JPM! I would get hardlock/crashes within 15 minutes at these voltage. Now running strong with those small changes. It's probably still not stable yet, but it's a good starting point now.

VCCIN 1.92 @ LLC 5

Yay!



Update: dropping down to 1.32 results in 01A memory management crash. So it looks like I have more work to do. Or 1.33 is borderline stable.


----------



## Exolaris

Is there a definitive guide to overclocking on Broadwell-E out there? I just got my 6850k and I'm sitting at 4.4GHz all cores at 1.345 vcore. I don't really know where to go from here in terms of tightening it up. Stable in cinebench but not sure if that's a good enough indicator of overall stability.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exolaris*
> 
> Is there a definitive guide to overclocking on Broadwell-E out there? I just got my 6850k and I'm sitting at 4.4GHz all cores at 1.345 vcore. I don't really know where to go from here in terms of tightening it up. Stable in cinebench but not sure if that's a good enough indicator of overall stability.


Here are two good reads released by [email protected]

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/05/31/get-best-performance-broadwell-e-processors-asus-thermal-control-tool/

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> So using that plus a small bump in VCCIO/Cache voltages allowed me to reach the 1hr mark on realbench @ 4.4Ghz @ 1.330V adaptive. 3.5 cache at 1.15V
> 
> Thanks JPM! I would get hardlock/crashes within 15 minutes at these voltage. Now running strong with those small changes. It's probably still not stable yet, but it's a good starting point now.
> 
> VCCIN 1.92 @ LLC 5
> 
> Yay!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update: dropping down to 1.32 results in 01A memory management crash. So it looks like I have more work to do. Or 1.33 is borderline stable.


NP bro, glad it helped.
01A? that may be cache...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> So using that plus a small bump in VCCIO/Cache voltages allowed me to reach the 1hr mark on realbench @ 4.4Ghz @ 1.330V adaptive. 3.5 cache at 1.15V
> 
> Thanks JPM! I would get hardlock/crashes within 15 minutes at these voltage. Now running strong with those small changes. It's probably still not stable yet, but it's a good starting point now.
> 
> VCCIN 1.92 @ LLC 5
> 
> Yay!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update: dropping down to 1.32 results in 01A memory management crash. So it looks like I have more work to do. Or 1.33 is borderline stable.


Nice to see another RB screenshot







Which reminds me I never did post mine









Edited my post to include it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> NP bro, glad it helped.
> 01A? that may be cache...


I solved a Memory Management bsod with a bump in vdimm, but who knows


----------



## kingofsorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> That looks awesome! Congrats!
> 
> I thought I was stable and happy at 4.3ghz with my 6850k running a Vcore of 1.298v. Unfortunately my computer just turned off in the middle of an underground mission and after restarting, I couldn't even find an error core in the System logs. So now I'm back up to 1.310v Vcore and as I'm typing this, my keyboard seems to be lagging behind??? I think I'm starting to get gremlins after a nice period of "all things working"
> 
> I wish there was a "normal voltage range" for 4.3ghz for all 6850k CPU's


It could have degraded as well. Or probably just bad overclock. In any case not going past 1.3v is the safest bet.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> It could have degraded as well. Or probably just bad overclock. In any case not going past 1.3v is the safest bet.


The computer system was restarting 2-3 times a day when the voltage was as 1.298v. Sometimes while using it, but according the system logs, it was rebooting itself while I was away from the computer as well. Some WHEA errors and some other errors. So I take that to mean that 1.298v just wasn't enough to keep it happy.

Now I'm at 1.310v and everything is running great. Played about 6 hours of The Division and most of the cores stayed below 65C. I'm running a custom water cooled system (EK X360 kit with extra radiator) so temperatures are staying very low under real world conditions. I also have Asus Thermal Control Tool installed so if anything goes over 78C then the system drops the core voltage and frequency ratio back to 3.6ghz and 1.200v.

I'm still not 100% sure on what degradation is or specifically how to prevent it, but I can't imagine voltage alone could cause it to fail prematurely. Expecially at such low temperatures and voltages. Going over 1.35v would be hard to keep cool with my system, but anything south of 1.325 or even up to 1.340v seems to be doable. The 1080 video card never goes over 55C under the most demanding programs and at it's max overclock of 2000mhz...but apparently that's because video cards are easier to keep cool vs. CPU's.


----------



## kingofsorrow

You need to test your system for stability with special programs like Prime95







Not play guessing games.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> You need to test your system for stability with special programs like Prime95
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not play guessing games.


You say that like I haven't already tried...check the thread for all of my posts.

Prime95 runs fine for 2 hours, Asus RealBench runs fine for 2 hours. The system runs fine for hours as well but like I said before, it resulted in system failures that seemed random. At first, I thought it was a windows 10 issue because the system was stable with benchmarks and testing software (like you pointed out). To your point, maybe 2 hours wasnt enough. But in my defense, I couldn't imagine a settings prior to this that would be fine after 120 minutes of heavy testing but NOT fine just sitting idle for a few days. Expecially something like Vcore that's only suppose to have an impact when the system is running at full tilt...not idle'd down at low voltage. It would explain the game crashes, but not the crashing at idle.

Anyway, 6 hours of gaming/netfllix watching/Prime 95/Realbench...everything seems solid as a rock now that I've gone to 1.310v so I'm not touching anything for a while.


----------



## kingofsorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> You say that like I haven't already tried...check the thread for all of my posts.
> 
> Prime95 runs fine for 2 hours, Asus RealBench runs fine for 2 hours. The system runs fine for hours as well but like I said before, it resulted in system failures that seemed random. At first, I thought it was a windows 10 issue because the system was stable with benchmarks and testing software (like you pointed out). To your point, maybe 2 hours wasnt enough. But in my defense, I couldn't imagine a settings prior to this that would be fine after 120 minutes of heavy testing but NOT fine just sitting idle for a few days. Expecially something like Vcore that's only suppose to have an impact when the system is running at full tilt...not idle'd down at low voltage. It would explain the game crashes, but not the crashing at idle.
> 
> Anyway, 6 hours of gaming/netfllix watching/Prime 95/Realbench...everything seems solid as a rock now that I've gone to 1.310v so I'm not touching anything for a while.


Careful with going above 1.3v with these CPUs. I would stabilize the overclock on exactly that voltage.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingofsorrow*
> 
> Careful with going above 1.3v with these CPUs. I would stabilize the overclock on exactly that voltage.


So I should be cooked by now with the 1.4 vcore (and 1.356 vcache) I've been stress testing with for several days







. Of course that's max turbo vcore, most of the normal usage time it's fairly lower. But I do have quite a few hours of stressing at 1.4, no problems (yet







).


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> So I should be cooked by now with the 1.4 vcore (and 1.356 vcache) I've been stress testing with for several days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Of course that's max turbo vcore, most of the normal usage time it's fairly lower. But I do have quite a few hours of stressing at 1.4, no problems (yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


yeah - I've been over 1.3V since launch.. with "excursions" to 1.435V.


----------



## xarot

I am currently testing cache at 3.6 GHz 1.16 V. Cache is stable for 90 mins in AIDA. However, Realbench crashes in a way where either blender.exe or whole realbench.exe stops working. I am guessing it's still cache related? Upping Vcore does nothing.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I am currently testing cache at 3.6 GHz 1.16 V. Cache is stable for 90 mins in AIDA. However, Realbench crashes in a way where either blender.exe or whole realbench.exe stops working. I am guessing it's still cache related? Upping Vcore does nothing.


No need to guess, drop cache multiplier to 35x and try again.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No need to guess, drop cache multiplier to 35x and try again.


Well, that is true. Cache instability on my 5960X always resulted in a hard freeze...maybe things have changed.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Well, that is true. Cache instability on my 5960X always resulted in a hard freeze...maybe things have changed.


Depends on the level of stability also. Cache instability can manifest in a lot of ways depend on the point of failure. Not excluding fatal exceptions


----------



## StullenAndi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Depends on the level of stability also. Cache instability can manifest in a lot of ways depend on the point of failure. Not excluding fatal exceptions


On Broadwell-E I saw, for me, a real new behavior. The cache is XTU stable up to 3.7G with 1.185V but started gaming all the games had have microstuttering. Didn´t know why and first thought the IMC causes the problem cause of 3200MHz ram.

But all I needed to do was to drop the cache multiplier or adding some voltage. And after picking up some BDW-E I found a good one capable of 4.4G for 24/7 use.

http://abload.de/image.php?img=1864xtuwwuwc.png


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Depends on the level of stability also. Cache instability can manifest in a lot of ways depend on the point of failure. Not excluding fatal exceptions


Yep, literally anything - bad data in a CPU is bad. _usually_ if you are "close" you will see corruption in stressapp without any catastrophic failure, but its really a roulette wheel of which bits gets corrupt when...

My current frustration is that some instability I thought might be my OC on the 6950x turns out to be a problem in the ext4 file system and/or the kernel. I moved my code over to my dual xeon system and I'm seeing the same symptom with very large data movement. Move enough data and the ext4 journal deadlocks and stack dumps on the timeout. That explains why I could find no other symptom of OC instability and the failure came at relatively light load (multi-TB copy/rsync).... it wasn't the OC.... bum, bum, bah!









EDIT: ayup - and it seems no one has any intention of fixing it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773377
NEAT!
(disclaimer: not NEAT!)

Sorry, I don't have specific numbers at this point, but some surprising results comparing a dual 2690v4 BW to the 6950x for heavy, multi-threaded computes. Cinebench and other synthetics put a single 2690v4 roughly on par with an OC'd 6950x in many regards, but I'm seeing even limiting tasks to 8-10 cores there are some curious similarities between the much slower (3.2GHz all core turbo 2690v4 vs 4.4GHz 6950x).

Given the slower memory (DDR4 2400 CAS 17 ECC, registered and the hilarity that QPI/dual core introduces there) and slower clock, I really expected the 2690v4 to struggle to impress vs the 6950x for "low" thread count tasks (< 10). Even more so that uncore on the 26xx is VERY slow... <2Ghz - though asus allows override of this, it comes at the expense of the TDP envelope, so something else pays the price (gets TDP throttled).


----------



## Rammler

Can someone give me a good overview about what overclocking results i can expect? Like in every other hardwareforum near 99% of all people here have a "golden" chip..... So many people are just lying or benchstable means a 10 sec test with AIDA.

A friend of mine is frustrated with his 6800k. He can only get 4.3 Ghz with 1.33 vcore. Otherwise the PC will constantly reboot with whea logger "Cachehieraryerror" event id 18 or kernel power event id 41. Someone knows what that means?
He just wants to know if he has a good chip or a poor one.

When he looks in this thread he thinks he has the badest chip on earth


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rammler*
> 
> Can someone give me a good overview about what overclocking results i can expect? Like in every other hardwareforum near 99% of all people here have a "golden" chip..... So many people are just lying or benchstable means a 10 sec test with AIDA.
> 
> A friend of mine is frustrated with his 6800k. He can only get 4.3 Ghz with 1.33 vcore. Otherwise the PC will constantly reboot with whea logger "Cachehieraryerror" event id 18 or kernel power event id 41. Someone knows what that means?
> He just wants to know if he has a good chip or a poor one.
> 
> When he looks in this thread he thinks he has the badest chip on earth


Chuckle... Don't have a complete run-down for you, but the short version is [email protected] is entirely normal for BWE at this point. His chip is fine.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rammler*
> 
> Can someone give me a good overview about what overclocking results i can expect? Like in every other hardwareforum near 99% of all people here have a "golden" chip..... So many people are just lying or benchstable means a 10 sec test with AIDA.
> 
> A friend of mine is frustrated with his 6800k. He can only get 4.3 Ghz with 1.33 vcore. Otherwise the PC will constantly reboot with whea logger "Cachehieraryerror" event id 18 or kernel power event id 41. Someone knows what that means?
> He just wants to know if he has a good chip or a poor one.
> 
> When he looks in this thread he thinks he has the badest chip on earth


Stop playing messenger boy and tell him to get in here.


----------



## VinnieM

I have a 6850K running at ~4.4GHz and having a weird problem. During longer gaming sessions (more than half an hour of Witcher 3 for example), the system agent voltage drops by as much as 0.1V and the system either reboots, BSODs or the game crashes. Normally I'm using a voltage of about 0.94V for the system agent (offset of -0.050) and everything is stable, but when it drops by 0.1 to ~0.84 you can guess it, it's not very stable anymore. Anyone come across this problem before?


----------



## BRK11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VinnieM*
> 
> I have a 6850K running at ~4.4GHz and having a weird problem. During longer gaming sessions (more than half an hour of Witcher 3 for example), the system agent voltage drops by as much as 0.1V and the system either reboots, BSODs or the game crashes. Normally I'm using a voltage of about 0.94V for the system agent (offset of -0.050) and everything is stable, but when it drops by 0.1 to ~0.84 you can guess it, it's not very stable anymore. Anyone come across this problem before?


How did you manage 4.4GHz on your 6850K? I'm running 4.3GHz on 1.22V , but 4.4GHz always crashes ( I can get few stable minutes at 1.30V)


----------



## sabishiihito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BRK11*
> 
> How did you manage 4.4GHz on your 6850K? I'm running 4.3GHz on 1.22V , but 4.4GHz always crashes ( I can get few stable minutes at 1.30V)


4.4 is almost guaranteed to require values north of 1.3v.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I'm curious is it worth installing the Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology Driver if you're not setting individual core clocks?
I understand what it does thanks to raja's guides.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rammler*
> 
> Can someone give me a good overview about what overclocking results i can expect? Like in every other hardwareforum near 99% of all people here have a "golden" chip..... So many people are just lying or benchstable means a 10 sec test with AIDA.
> 
> A friend of mine is frustrated with his 6800k. He can only get 4.3 Ghz with 1.33 vcore. Otherwise the PC will constantly reboot with whea logger "Cachehieraryerror" event id 18 or kernel power event id 41. Someone knows what that means?
> He just wants to know if he has a good chip or a poor one.
> 
> When he looks in this thread he thinks he has the badest chip on earth


4.3 core with 1.33V looks perfectly normal for Broadwell-E.


----------



## BRK11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sabishiihito*
> 
> 4.4 is almost guaranteed to require values north of 1.3v.


I don't want to venture past 1.30V. If I can get stable 4.3Ghz at 1.22V I thought 1.30V will be more than enough for extra 100Mhz...
I would like to use adaptive mode but somehow voltage goes to 1.56V in this mode, even when the max is set at 1.30V - I didn't figure this one yet.
Manual mode seems to keep everything in check.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BRK11*
> 
> I don't want to venture past 1.30V. If I can get stable 4.3Ghz at 1.22V I thought 1.30V will be more than enough for extra 100Mhz...
> I would like to use adaptive mode but somehow voltage goes to 1.56V in this mode, even when the max is set at 1.30V - I didn't figure this one yet.
> Manual mode seems to keep everything in check.


If you have adaptive offset to Auto then the max will be what you set in turbo. At least it does for my 6900K.

Edit: You do have strap set to 100, right?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BRK11*
> 
> I don't want to venture past 1.30V. If I can get stable 4.3Ghz at 1.22V I thought 1.30V will be more than enough for extra 100Mhz...
> I would like to use adaptive mode but somehow voltage goes to 1.56V in this mode, even when the max is set at 1.30V - I didn't figure this one yet.
> Manual mode seems to keep everything in check.


what mobo?


----------



## BRK11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what mobo?


Deluxe II


----------



## vibraslap

Make sure you don't leave any voltages like VCCIO, VCCSA or VCCIN on auto, as I found it would usually set them much higher than needed.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Make sure you don't leave any voltages like VCCIO, VCCSA or VCCIN on auto, as I found it would usually set them much higher than needed.


Yeah I found the same, my VCCIO was set to Auto which set it to 1.298v, dropped it closer to the "recommended" 1.05v (1.100).


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Depends on the level of stability also. Cache instability can manifest in a lot of ways depend on the point of failure. Not excluding fatal exceptions


It was the cache afterall. 4 hours RB is stable at 3.5 GHz using same voltage.

I am a bit hesitant to OC my 6950X beyond 4.2 GHz which seems to be stable at around 1.25~1.26V. Too much money to lose there.







I'm going to get the ITP later on, but still.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> It was the cache afterall. 4 hours RB is stable at 3.5 GHz using same voltage.
> 
> I am a bit hesitant to OC my 6950X beyond 4.2 GHz which seems to be stable at around 1.25~1.26V. Too much money to lose there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to get the ITP later on, but still.


Things can get tricky beyond 3.5 if not supplying enough voltage or if cooling is inadequate. No real need to push this far anyway.


----------



## VinnieM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BRK11*
> 
> How did you manage 4.4GHz on your 6850K? I'm running 4.3GHz on 1.22V , but 4.4GHz always crashes ( I can get few stable minutes at 1.30V)


I'm not running 4.4 on ALL cores. In fact, I have my best core running on 4.5 at 1.355V, while the rest of the cores either run at 4.4 or 4.3GHz. And when using adaptive (or offset) voltages, cores running at a lower multiplier run at a lower voltage (VID).
After I couldn't manage 4.4 on all cores and found out one core needs more than 1.36 to stabilize it, I started experimenting with different multipliers on different cores. So my best core (5) needs a lower voltage for 4.5 than the worst core for 4.4! Somehow it looks like the cores with a higher default VID are the best overclockers.
One advantage with the latest Windows 10 feature update (1607) is that single threaded tasks are now automatically assigned to the best core, so they are running at 4.5GHz.


----------



## sununis

Hi, I have read this forum a while and now i have registered user







(sorry my english is not so good)

My problem is this:

I have 6800k and asus strix x99. I have exactly same settings than video below but processor 4,2 Ghz




My problem is that i can hit 4,1 ghz with no less than 1.275v. and 4,2 ghz no less than 1.35 v. I have test it with RealBench 2.43 (one hour Duration) if i put less voltage, it goes BSOD. My cooler is arctic liquid freezer 240. Temperature with 4,2ghz and 1.35v. are between 60 - 70 C with RealBench one hour stress tess. Is it safe to use 1.35v 24/7 ? *Is there something to do with this or do i just have very poor processor?*







﻿

Here is picture when im testing RealBench stresstest



Is my VCCIO too high?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BRK11*
> 
> Deluxe II


clear cmos, enter bios, set the multiplier and turbo voltage to the total volage needed. Set LLC to 5 and VCCIN to 1.92V. Leave SVID on Auto. Set VRM Fault to disabled, and Efficiency to high performance. Leave everything else on Defaults... still behaving as before?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> Hi, I have read this forum a while and now i have registered user
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sorry my english is not so good)
> 
> My problem is this:
> 
> I have 6800k and asus strix x99. I have exactly same settings than video below but processor 4,2 Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is that i can hit 4,1 ghz with no less than 1.275v. and 4,2 ghz no less than 1.35 v. I have test it with RealBench 2.43 (one hour Duration) if i put less voltage, it goes BSOD. My cooler is arctic liquid freezer 240. Temperature with 4,2ghz and 1.35v. are between 60 - 70 C with RealBench one hour stress tess. Is it safe to use 1.35v 24/7 ? *Is there something to do with this or do i just have very poor processor?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ﻿
> 
> Here is picture when im testing RealBench stresstest
> 
> 
> 
> Is my VCCIO too high?


I think so. Set this to 1.05 or 1.08 in bios.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> If you have adaptive offset to Auto then the max will be what you set in turbo. At least it does for my 6900K.
> 
> Edit: You do have strap set to 100, right?


This is not entirely true as you cannot override the VID. Mine goes to 1.298v regardless of what u set turbo to until I realized that I was fighting against my VID setting that's hidden and locked by Intel. In the end it was a good thing because my system was not stable as I had originally thought after several hours of benchmark testing and stress testing. I'm now at 1.310v and very stable with 4.3ghz. I wanted to leave things alone but now I'm reading that the VCCIO value should not be left at auto as mine is 1.256 V&#8230; Seems I need to keep doing more research. Temps are fine and things are stable, so what harm can come from leaving VCCIO to auto and letting it run 1.256v?

Also, just for clarification, there is a VCCIO CPU (auto is 1.256v) setting and a VCCIO PCH (auto is 1.050v) sitting in the bios.

Right now, I'm:
VCCIO: 1.256v
VCCSA:.1.248v
PCH Core: 1.050v
CPU Cache: 1.153v
CPU Core: 1.311v (1.310v in BIOS)


----------



## vibraslap

Bring VCCIO down to 1.05 and VCCSA down to 1.0 and see if you are still stable.

If this causes instability(doubtful) I would adjust VCCSA within a range of 0.95-1.1 and VCCIO between 1.05 and 1.1 and see what works. Those seem to be pretty standard ranges for these voltages across the overclock's I've seen on here and from my own experience on these chips.

The other voltages you listed all seem fine. The other I would look at to make sure it is not on auto is VCCIN. I think for most people 1.92 has been sufficient but It can range from 1.9-1.95 depending on your overclock.

As always, make one change at a time and ensure stability along each step of the way to make the source of any problems that may arise more apparent.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> Hi, I have read this forum a while and now i have registered user
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sorry my english is not so good)
> 
> My problem is this:
> 
> I have 6800k and asus strix x99. I have exactly same settings than video below but processor 4,2 Ghz
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is that i can hit 4,1 ghz with no less than 1.275v. and 4,2 ghz no less than 1.35 v. I have test it with RealBench 2.43 (one hour Duration) if i put less voltage, it goes BSOD. My cooler is arctic liquid freezer 240. Temperature with 4,2ghz and 1.35v. are between 60 - 70 C with RealBench one hour stress tess. Is it safe to use 1.35v 24/7 ? *Is there something to do with this or do i just have very poor processor?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ﻿
> 
> Here is picture when im testing RealBench stresstest
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is my VCCIO too high?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I think so. Set this to 1.05 or 1.08 in bios.


Also, his vccin (VRM in Aida) is 1.77 - looks way too low, no?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> This is not entirely true as you cannot override the VID. Mine goes to 1.298v regardless of what u set turbo to until I realized that I was fighting against my VID setting that's hidden and locked by Intel. In the end it was a good thing because my system was not stable as I had originally thought after several hours of benchmark testing and stress testing. I'm now at 1.310v and very stable with 4.3ghz. I wanted to leave things alone but now I'm reading that the VCCIO value should not be left at auto as mine is 1.256 V&#8230; Seems I need to keep doing more research. Temps are fine and things are stable, so what harm can come from leaving VCCIO to auto and letting it run 1.256v?
> 
> Also, just for clarification, there is a VCCIO CPU (auto is 1.256v) setting and a VCCIO PCH (auto is 1.050v) sitting in the bios.
> 
> Right now, I'm:
> VCCIO: 1.256v
> VCCSA:.1.248v
> PCH Core: 1.050v
> CPU Cache: 1.153v
> CPU Core: 1.311v (1.310v in BIOS)


I can only attest to my system's behavior. In adaptive mode with offset on Auto and Turbo = 1.4 my idle vcore is 0.79 and ramps up to 1.4 steady at 100% with vid fluctuating slightly around 1.4. And yes, vccio @ 1.256 is way high. Try 1.05 and move up if unstable. At my voltages close to the edge of disaster I'm using 1.15

But I'm using offset mode @ strap 125 now due to bclk / cache / dimm frequency frequency alignments.


----------



## sununis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> clear cmos, enter bios, set the multiplier and turbo voltage to the total volage needed. Set LLC to 5 and VCCIN to 1.92V. Leave SVID on Auto. Set VRM Fault to disabled, and Efficiency to high performance. Leave everything else on Defaults... still behaving as before?
> I think so. Set this to 1.05 or 1.08 in bios.


Im not sure if i can clear cmos. Im not expert :/ I restored settings (f5) and, put 4,2 ghz and 1.3v., LLC 5 and VCCIN to 1.92 When i start Realbench, in one minute BSOD

After this i load my earlier settings and i lowered VCCIO. Im not sure what to do now? Maybe i have real poor processor!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> Im not sure if i can clear cmos. Im not expert :/ I restored settings (f5) and, put 4,2 ghz and 1.3v., LLC 5 and VCCIN to 1.92 When i start Realbench, in one minute BSOD
> 
> After this i load my earlier settings and i lowered VCCIO. Im not sure what to do now? Maybe i have real poor processor!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


What's your cache speed and voltage? You should fill out a system description.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> Im not sure if i can clear cmos. Im not expert :/ I restored settings (f5) and, put 4,2 ghz and 1.3v., LLC 5 and VCCIN to 1.92 When i start Realbench, in one minute BSOD
> 
> After this i load my earlier settings and i lowered VCCIO. Im not sure what to do now? Maybe i have real poor processor!


okay, Every mobo has a way to clrcmos, but I have to guess what it is







- please fill out rigbuilder and add your rig to your signature block (how to link inmine).


----------



## sununis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> What's your cache speed and voltage? You should fill out a system description.


I have done just like the video what i posted earlier.

Cache is 3400 and voltage 1.15

I have fill system description.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> I have done just like the video what i posted earlier.
> 
> Cache is 3400 and voltage 1.15
> 
> I have fill system description.


You have my same board







. If you look in the manual you will see there's a jumper at the bottom end (away from cpu/dimms) labeled CLRTC. Check out page 1-13 of the manual - it tells you what to do to clear the CMOS, very easy.

clrtc.png 109k .png file


----------



## sununis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You have my same board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . If you look in the manual you will see there's a jumper at the bottom end (away from cpu/dimms) labeled CLRTC. Check out page 1-13 of the manual - it tells you what to do to clear the CMOS, very easy.
> 
> clrtc.png 109k .png file


Is it this?



I dont understand what this helps.. This computer is only 5 day old









Im not sure what settings after that i put. Im afreid that i broke something...


----------



## sununis

I move it one step to the right. Keep it 5 second and move it back?


----------



## djgar

Yes, this is what @Jpmboy was referring to. Thus will completely reset your BIOS to factory spec, if you're not sure of your settings and think something may be off. I recommend using a 2-pin jumper with needle nose pliers to do the short-circuit.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> I move it one step to the right. Keep it 5 second and move it back?


Wait, no, that's not it. It is the left two pins just above the panel connector pins. Let me show in your pic - one minute please







.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> I move it one step to the right. Keep it 5 second and move it back?


The one you showed is the overvoltage jumper - don't change that







. Here is the CLRTC pins but they have no jumper - you should get one to do the short-circuit between them. In yellow:


----------



## sununis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Wait, no, that's not it. It is the left two pins just above the panel connector pins. Let me show in your pic - one minute please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Oh. I did it twice... hope that i did not broke anything... :/


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> Is it this?
> 
> 
> 
> I dont understand what this helps.. This computer is only 5 day old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure what settings after that i put. Im afreid that i broke something...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> I move it one step to the right. Keep it 5 second and move it back?


I think that's the cpu overvoltage jumper... not that one.

see page 1-13 in your manual o fpr instructions on how to clr cmos (and the real time clock (RTC)


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I think that's the cpu overvoltage jumper... not that one.
> 
> see page 1-13 in your manual o fpr instructions on how to clr cmos (and the real time clock (RTC)


You got it right, Bro


----------



## sununis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> The one you showed is the overvoltage jumper - don't change that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Here is the CLRTC pins but they have no jumper - you should get one to do the short-circuit between them. In yellow:


I don't have jumper.. Can i use example something metal?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> I don't have jumper.. Can i use example something metal?


----------



## sununis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> I don't have jumper.. Can i use example something metal?


Or can i borrow that over voltage jumper?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> Or can i borrow that over voltage jumper?


use a paperclip or metal tweezers.

AND READ THE MANUAL !!!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> AND READ THE MANUAL !!!


Killjoy...

Just give it more power Scotty!


----------



## sununis

I have done it. (using metal tweezers and i have also check the manual =D)

Do you have pic what settings i change here? Thanks =)


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> okay, Every mobo has a way to clrcmos, but I have to guess what it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - please fill out rigbuilder and add your rig to your signature block (how to link inmine).


Or you could pull the 24pin / battery.


----------



## vibraslap

Will selecting "Load optimized defaults" selection in the last section of the bios not also accomplish the same thing? I thought that basically reset everything to factory settings?


----------



## vibraslap

Also, if you are using the Deluxe II, there is a newer bios available(0801) for download on the Asus support page. I'd recommend updating. Installing this will also restore the defaults and you should probably do it anyway.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Or you could pull the 24pin / battery.


that works on any board for sure!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Will selecting "Load optimized defaults" selection in the last section of the bios not also accomplish the same thing? I thought that basically reset everything to factory settings?


It should, but it is not quite the same thing as a clrcmos. Opt Defaults will fix most user input errors tho, but some just need a clean and flush.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> I have done it. (using metal tweezers and i have also check the manual =D)
> 
> Do you have pic what settings i change here? Thanks =)


I suggest you run at stock a bnit, then read up on how to overclock an x99 MB. It is the most complex architecture to OC.








Check the links in any of Raja's posts.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only/13140_20
see post#1







.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I suggest you run at stock a bnit, then read up on how to overclock an x99 MB. It is the most complex architecture to OC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check the links in any of Raja's posts.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only/13140_20
> see post#1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Stock bints are hard to come by these days. Most have been ragged a good few times.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Stock bints are hard to come by these days. Most have been ragged a good few times.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


That's pretty disrespectful.


----------



## sununis

Clr CMOS did not delete my overclocking profiles...

After that i only change these:

LLC5
Sync all cores 41
CPU input voltage 1.92
VCCIO PCH 1.05
VCCIO CPU 1.05
CPU CORE VOLTAGE -> MANUAL
VOLTAGE OVERRIDE 1.25

This was just fine!

When i add cores 42 it didn't work lower than 1.35v!!!!


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> That's pretty disrespectful.


Haha, I didn't mean to imply the queen is a bint... More like she appreciates your joke. It's the best way I could think of to approximate 'British laughter' with my primitive American sense of humor.









Funny how things can get lost in translation!

Back on topic...

Sunuis, in my experience(and hopefully others can verify) core stability is not solely dependent on core voltage, though that is a major factor. Try bumping VCCIN up a little(0.01) and see if that is helpful with stability at lower core voltages.

Also, if you are using 1.26V to get 41X, 1.35 might not be too far off for 42x. Sounds like your chip could just be on the more average end of the silicon spectrum. I'm on 1.346 for 44x, but I specifically bought a high binned chip from SiliconLottery. Don't be disappointed if you cant get your chip to run the numbers others are posting. Every chip is different.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Stock bints are hard to come by these days. Most have been ragged a good few times.


a new financial instrument?

lol- I meant "run at stock for a bit". Just can't type on a phone.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sununis*
> 
> Clr CMOS did not delete my overclocking profiles...
> 
> After that i only change these:
> 
> LLC5
> Sync all cores 41
> CPU input voltage 1.92
> VCCIO PCH 1.05
> VCCIO CPU 1.05
> CPU CORE VOLTAGE -> MANUAL
> VOLTAGE OVERRIDE 1.25
> 
> This was just fine!
> 
> When i add cores 42 it didn't work lower than 1.35v!!!!


increase VCCIN to 1.95V and try 1.35V again. if it fails... buy the ITP and fry that dog.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I did a clean install of Windows 10 Anniversary Update lastnight, before install any software I thought I'd run a few benches.
Surprising how high your scores are with a clean system, things feel apart when I installed Photoshop and Premier though, good old Adobe with crap running in the background..lol..


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I suggest you run at stock a bnit, then read up on how to overclock an x99 MB. It is the most complex architecture to OC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check the links in any of Raja's posts.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only/13140_20
> see post#1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Stock bints are hard to come by these days. Most have been ragged a good few times.


He must be one of the Knights Who Say Bnit!


----------



## BRK11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> clear cmos, enter bios, set the multiplier and turbo voltage to the total volage needed. Set LLC to 5 and VCCIN to 1.92V. Leave SVID on Auto. Set VRM Fault to disabled, and Efficiency to high performance. Leave everything else on Defaults... still behaving as before?
> I think so. Set this to 1.05 or 1.08 in bios.


You're the man!
Thanks!


----------



## Sazexa

Some stock-clock 6950X benchmarks with two GTX 1080's. Pretty fast machine. I'll have to redo these tests once I set up my loop, because there was some throttling.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Alright so I bought a 4.4Ghz binned 6800k from silicon lottery. So far I have it running at 4.4Ghz using 1.34v. CPU cache at 3.5Ghz and G.Skill memory at 3200Mhz CAS 16 which is stock. Not sure if 100 percent stable yet. Quick n dirty OC. Can anyone point me to the best OC settings for 4.4Ghz and highest CPU cache possible using my Asus Rampage mobo? There's A LOT of pages to go through. My mobo is the Asus Rampage V Edition 10.

Here are my settings so far. Haven't messed with any other setting.

My core ratio limit is set to 44
AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset = 3
Min CPU Cache Ratio = 35
Max CPU Cache Ratio = 35
CPU Core Voltage = 1.34v
CPU Input Voltage = 1.9v
CPU Cache Voltage = 1.15v
DRAM Voltage = 1.35v
CPU Load-Line Calibration = Level 6
CPU Power Thermal Control = 115
Long/Short Duration Package Power limit = 409


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Alright so I bought a 4.4Ghz binned 6800k from silicon lottery. So far I have it running at 4.4Ghz using 1.34v. CPU cache at 3.5Ghz and memory at 3200Mhz CAS 16 which is stock. Not sure if 100 percent stable yet. Quick n dirty OC. Can anyone point me to the best OC settings for 4.4Ghz and highest CPU cache possible using my Asus Rampage mobo? There's A LOT of pages to go through....


Not really - it will depend on your chip of course...

Look for 3.7/3.8 as a cache wall. BW-E cache is a hateful beast to OC to compared to HW-E

1.3-1.35v seems to be what's required to get a good chip to 4.4 and a really good one to 4.5
1.3v is likely required to get to 3.8 cache.
1.95 Vin seems to be typical, but my 6950x hates that... It wants to be lower or it will refuse to be stable at 4.4/3.7
SA depends on your ram and other system needs
LLC5 is a good place to start
other than that, I'd keep it simple to start for now.... If you are at 4.4/1.34, then you've likely found the wall already.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Not really - it will depend on your chip of course...
> 
> Look for 3.7/3.8 as a cache wall. BW-E cache is a hateful beast to OC to compared to HW-E
> 
> 1.3-1.35v seems to be what's required to get a good chip to 4.4 and a really good one to 4.5
> 1.3v is likely required to get to 3.8 cache.
> 1.95 Vin seems to be typical, but my 6950x hates that... It wants to be lower or it will refuse to be stable at 4.4/3.7
> SA depends on your ram and other system needs
> LLC5 is a good place to start
> other than that, I'd keep it simple to start for now.... If you are at 4.4/1.34, then you've likely found the wall already.


Found the wall? You don't mean that!


----------



## vibraslap

You could probably push your cache up to at least 3.6 and try and push your ram, but 4.4 is a pretty firm wall on core without a God chip or extreme voltages.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Found the wall? You don't mean that!


that depends... are you ready for SS or LN2 cooling?









This chip just doesn't have the headroom of the prior generation over stock.... 4.2-4.4 is pretty normal.

You'll have to try, but if once you've played with it and read enough summaries of other people's OC experience you'll likely find you have to dump a lot of volts into it to get above a 4.4/1.35 setup and deal with the corresponding heat and risk.

As for the cache - see prior. It just won't be told what to do... 3.7/3.8 = WALL.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> that depends... are you ready for SS or LN2 cooling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This chip just doesn't have the headroom of the prior generation over stock.... 4.2-4.4 is pretty normal.
> 
> You'll have to try, but if once you've played with it and read enough summaries of other people's OC experience you'll likely find you have to dump a lot of volts into it to get above a 4.4/1.35 setup and deal with the corresponding heat and risk.
> 
> As for the cache - see prior. It just won't be told what to do... 3.7/3.8 = WALL.


I'm fine with 4.4Ghz. I'd like to hit 3.8Ghz cache though. Not going LN2 anytime soon I'm afraid.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm fine with 4.4Ghz. I'd like to hit 3.8Ghz cache though. Not going LN2 anytime soon I'm afraid.


Start at 3.5 and work your way up. Running 3.5 with "Auto" gave me a pretty good idea where to start. You have to assume auto is going to give it more than it needs but @ 3.5 it shouldn't be terrible.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Start at 3.5 and work your way up. Running 3.5 with "Auto" gave me a pretty good idea where to start. You have to assume auto is going to give it more than it needs but @ 3.5 it shouldn't be terrible.


What voltage would you recommend for cpu cache at 3.8Ghz cache?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> What voltage would you recommend for cpu cache at 3.8Ghz cache?


See above, I wouldn't start there...

As a reference, my 6950x is only 24/7 stable at 4.4/3.7 with cache at 1.29v 3.8GHz on this chip requires something more than 1.38v I wasn't terribly interested in finding 24/7 stable once I saw that jump. 3.7 is entirely reasonable heat-wise and it runs everything I throw at it.

Your numbers may be different though. Using Auto gives you some insight into the VID tables, so that's what the BIOS thinks the CPU believes it needs for any given frequency. Auto is a scary things these days seems lots of people (me included) have seen very bad behavior on various voltages, so I start low and use that to guide my hunt and peck range.

plugin in 3.5 + auto and see what aida says happened. Start there and go to 3.6 (assuming it didn't go nuts).


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> See above, I wouldn't start there...
> 
> As a reference, my 6950x is only 24/7 stable at 4.4/3.7 with cache at 1.29v 3.8GHz on this chip requires something more than 1.38v I wasn't terribly interested in finding 24/7 stable once I saw that jump. 3.7 is entirely reasonable heat-wise and it runs everything I throw at it.
> 
> Your numbers may be different though. Using Auto gives you some insight into the VID tables, so that's what the BIOS thinks the CPU believes it needs for any given frequency. Auto is a scary things these days seems lots of people (me included) have seen very bad behavior on various voltages, so I start low and use that to guide my hunt and peck range.


I'm pretty sure that I'm near my top stable OC. Just need to find the sweet spot for the cache. What's the max safe cache voltage?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm pretty sure that I'm near my top stable OC. Just need to find the sweet spot for the cache. What's the max safe cache voltage?


I've been running 3836 @ ~1.36v (.395 offset) for several days - no smoke yet


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm pretty sure that I'm near my top stable OC. Just need to find the sweet spot for the cache. What's the max safe cache voltage?


Chuckle, whatever it takes to fry your chip - 1mV









Honestly, no one really knows at this point what is "safe" for longer term usage outside Intel. The MB manufacturers have a pretty good broad sample, so I use their info when they provide it as a guide.

Thanks to Raja for this info:
http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/

The short answer is that temperature will very likely be your limiting factor not voltage... So, attack from below, not above.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I've been running 3836 @ ~1.36v (.395 offset) for several days - no smoke yet


[email protected] to the wall. I like it! I'll try between 1.25v-1.3v cache.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I've been running 3836 @ ~1.36v (.395 offset) for several days - no smoke yet


Who hoo! smoke free computing is the best...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> [email protected] to the wall. I like it! I'll try between 1.25v-1.3v cache.


I just hope the wall doesn't push back


----------



## DADDYDC650

Booted into Win 10 @4.5Ghz using 1.35v. CPU cache @3.6Ghz using 1.25v.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I've been running 3836 @ ~1.36v (.395 offset) for several days - no smoke yet


It really depends on the workloads the CPU is subjected to. If a user has a penchant for Prime95, Uncore voltages upwards of 1.30V at 3.8GHz can pull a LOT of current. Of all the primary rails, the quickest way to degrade BW-E and HW-E is to brutalize the Uncore. Internally, we've run experiments and knocked a CPU into oblivion in under a day with such test regimes.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Booted into Win 10 @4.5Ghz using 1.35v. CPU cache @3.6Ghz using 1.25v.


and handbrake crashes in 5,4,3,2...









good stuff, at a minimum it means you have some headroom at 4.4 which is good.

FWIW, I can boot my 6950 @ 4.5/1.3, but handbrake in RealBench dies pretty much immediately... 4.5 hadn't stabilized by 1.38, so as with 3.8 cache, I wasn't interested as it bought me nothing but a benchmark.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> It really depends on the workloads the CPU is subjected to. If a user has a penchant for Prime95, Uncore voltages upwards of 1.30V at 3.8GHz can pull a LOT of current. Of all the primary rails, the quickest way to degrade BW-E and HW-E is to brutalize the Uncore. Internally, we've run experiments and knocked a CPU into oblivion in under a day with such test regimes.


In your test regimes... at what voltage were you killing and or degrading these BW-E and HW-E CPU's?

Interesting.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> In your test regimes... at what voltage were you killing and or degrading these BW-E and HW-E CPU's?
> 
> Interesting.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Raja isn't an OC Guru, he just works for Asus. That's not to say he doesn't know his stuff...
> 
> I'd still take Scones word over his.


I'll let you ask Scone


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Raja isn't an OC Guru, he just works for Asus. That's not to say he doesn't know his stuff...
> 
> I'd still take Scones word over his.


lols.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> It really depends on the workloads the CPU is subjected to. If a user has a penchant for Prime95, Uncore voltages upwards of 1.30V at 3.8GHz can pull a LOT of current. Of all the primary rails, the quickest way to degrade BW-E and HW-E is to brutalize the Uncore. Internally, we've run experiments and knocked a CPU into oblivion in under a day with such test regimes.


You guys ruined a CPU in one day? Now I know how to get an easy replacement chip from Intel. Thanks for the tip Raja!









Just kidding of course. Anyway, got my chip running stable @4.4Ghz using 1.32v. Cache at 3.6Ghz using 1.2v. So far so good.


----------



## Silent Scone

I'd take my word over any one of you Muppets









Raja trumps likely any number or in fact all active members you care to mention including myself (if that wasn't clear enough) in experience alone.

I'm talking about knitting, not sure what he's like with computers.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'd take my word over any one of you Muppets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raja trumps likely any number or in fact all active members you care to mention including myself (if that wasn't clear enough) in experience alone.
> 
> I'm talking about knitting, not sure what he's like with computers.


Overclocking is so last decade. Crochet is where the action is at..


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> You guys ruined a CPU in one day? Now I know how to get an easy replacement chip from Intel. Thanks for the tip Raja!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just kidding of course. Anyway, got my chip running stable @4.4Ghz using 1.32v. Cache at 3.6Ghz using 1.2v. So far so good.


Just as well you are kidding.









Intel has an electron microscope with which they can check causes of failure. It's not something they use all the time, but if the RMA rates become abnormal, it causes preventative measures to be taken in future architectures.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Just as well you are kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel has an electron microscope with which they can check causes of failure. It's not something they use all the time, but if the RMA rates become abnormal, it causes preventative measures to be taken in future architectures.


Your old Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. Chip is going to burn up when I get bored of it thanks to your tip.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Your old Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. Chip is going to burn up when I get bored of it thanks to your tip.


Jabba, I don't think they want their CPUs subjected to such slimy practices.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Jabba, I don't think they want their CPUs subjected to such slimy practices.


LoL. I kid, I kid. I have a perfectly good chip so no point in doing harm to it. Question, what's the max safe 24/7 CPU cache voltage?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> I'll let you ask Scone


Lol.

Sour are we?

I figured I'd get exactly that response. Predictable.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Sour are we?
> 
> I figured I'd get exactly that response. Predictable.


Strange, so did I.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> LoL. I kid, I kid. I have a perfectly good chip so no point in doing harm to it. Question, what's the max safe 24/7 CPU cache voltage?


Can't say for sure, but I tend to stay under 1.30V if I'm using the CPU for encoding.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Strange, so did I.


Guess we're both predictable then....


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Guess we're both predictable then....


Yup, I'm ever the realist. Gets me into trouble with the tinfoil types, heh.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Yup, I'm ever the realist. Gets me into trouble with the tinfoil types, heh.


Nothing wrong with that....the people who can't admit fault or take a joke probably shouldn't be here anyway.

I'm not even a stranger to saying the odd idiotic comment myself. You might know something about this.... lol.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Nothing wrong with that....the people who can't admit fault or take a joke probably shouldn't be here anyway.
> 
> I'm not even a stranger to saying the odd idiotic comment myself. You might know something about this.... lol.


Yeah, I've seen some lulus from ya







Can't say that's not expected on forums, it happens to a lot of people.


----------



## Fidelity21

I had to adjust a few things together because one seems to affect the other.

I changed VCCIO from Auto (1.256v) to 1.1
I changed VCCSA from Auto (1.248v) to 1.05v
I changed VCCIN from Auto to 1.950v
When I did the above 3 changes, VCCIN went to 1.985v in windows so I had to go into the BIOS and change LLC to 5 in order to get VCCIN back down to 1.950v

I know I'm not suppose to change more than one thing at a time, so I may need to go back to defaults and try again but I didn't like the high stock voltages. Now I'm getting a Driver IQ Not less than or Equal to Error BSOD. Ideas?

The windows log Bug Check was 0xd1

I have since changed VCCSA to 1.08v and I'm getting random error messages from different programs just sitting at idle. I know it's not the smarted thing to change 2-3 things at once, but the Auto settings seem very far off from what I've read in this thread. Which one would you guys start with?

Another Driver IRQ Not less than or equal to error within 15 minutes of RealBench. TIme to go back and make one change at at time I guess.

I'm back in Auto on all 3. VCCIO is 1.256v VCCSA is 1.240v and VCCIN is 1.936v. I know that seems...I'm dealing with a DPC Watch Dog Violation preventing me from updating windows 10 to the latest anniversary edition and I think the overclock may be a factor...or maybe not?

It seems odd to me that lowering VCCIO and VCCSA would raise VCCIN so significantly, but I'm still very much learning about how all of this works.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Overclocking my 6800k to 4.4Ghz was pretty fast and easy. Thanks to a quick 12 min video on YouTube and some helpful suggestions from some good folks at OCN.


----------



## Fidelity21

Basic overclocking is fast and easy. But once you start digging into all the different settings it gets complicated and time consuming. If I just leave most of the settings on Auto, my system is happy as can be at 4.3ghz with a Vcore of 1.310. Unfortunately that would mean ignoring the extremely high values set by AUTO for VCCIO and VCCSA

Also, is anyone else getting a DPC WatchDog Violation error when attempting to do the Windows 10 anniversary update?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> It really depends on the workloads the CPU is subjected to. *If a user has a penchant for Prime95, Uncore voltages upwards of 1.30V at 3.8GHz can pull a LOT of current. Of all the primary rails, the quickest way to degrade BW-E and HW-E is to brutalize the Uncore*. Internally, we've run experiments and knocked a CPU into oblivion in under a day with such test regimes.


^^ This

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> LoL. I kid, I kid. I have a perfectly good chip so no point in doing harm to it. Question, what's the max safe 24/7 CPU cache voltage?


try Safevoltage.net









nah, in all seriousness, if you are 99% gaming, stay (very) close to 1.3V, ideally under 1.3.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Overclocking my 6800k to 4.4Ghz was pretty fast and easy. Thanks to a quick 12 min video on YouTube and some helpful suggestions from some good folks at OCN.


post up your settings.. would like to see. Also, IMO, with BWE there is a lot of performance to be gained from A tight ram OC.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Basic overclocking is fast and easy. But once you start digging into all the different settings it gets complicated and time consuming. If I just leave most of the settings on Auto, my system is happy as can be at 4.3ghz with a Vcore of 1.310. Unfortunately that would mean ignoring the extremely high values set by AUTO for VCCIO and VCCSA
> 
> Also, is anyone else getting a DPC WatchDog Violation error when attempting to do the Windows 10 anniversary update?


right now, if the 10th ann update fails - be thankful. Otherwise, avoid this for a few weeks at least.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This
> try Safevoltage.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nah, in all seriousness, if you are 99% gaming, stay (very) close to 1.3V, ideally under 1.3.
> post up your settings.. would like to see. Also, IMO, with BWE there is a lot of performance to be gained from A tight ram OC.


My core ratio limit is set to 44
AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset = 2
Min CPU Cache Ratio = 36
Max CPU Cache Ratio = 36
CPU Core Voltage = 1.34v
CPU Input Voltage = 1.9v
CPU Cache Voltage = 1.2v
DRAM Voltage = 1.35v
CPU Load-Line Calibration = Level 5
CPU Power Thermal Control = 115
Long/Short Duration Package Power limit = 409

Seems game stable so far. Will be gaming and some encoding all week just to make sure it's stable. 6800k SHOULD be stable or very near stable. No point in running stress tests and burning up the chip. Besides, I don't play stress tests.

BTW, I plan on buying either some G.Skill 4 x 8GB 3200 CAS 14 kit or Corsair Platinum 4 x 8GB 3600Mhz CAS 16. Which would be best?


----------



## vibraslap

Playing around last night, looks like I can't 'get my uncore past 35x without voltages north of 1.32V. I was going to play around with it more tonight, but after reading Raja's comment about cooking chips, i think I'm just gonna be satisfied with what I can manage at under 1.3...

I know this isn't savevoltage.net.. but it's also not silliconsadists.net









Gonna finally try and trim my memory timings properly instead. Seems like a better risk/reward for my usage.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> My core ratio limit is set to 44
> AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset = 2
> Min CPU Cache Ratio = 36
> Max CPU Cache Ratio = 36
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.34v
> CPU Input Voltage = 1.9v
> CPU Cache Voltage = 1.2v
> DRAM Voltage = 1.35v
> CPU Load-Line Calibration = Level 5
> CPU Power Thermal Control = 115
> Long/Short Duration Package Power limit = 409
> 
> Seems game stable so far. Will be gaming and some encoding all week just to make sure it's stable. 6800k SHOULD be stable or very near stable. No point in running stress tests and burning up the chip. Besides, I don't play stress tests.
> 
> BTW, I plan on buying either some G.Skill 4 x 8GB 3200 CAS 14 kit or Corsair Platinum 4 x 8GB 3600Mhz CAS 16. Which would be best?


lol - no one plays stress tests... but many want to demo stability before extended gaming. Just make an OS image and you can always restore a corrupted OS install. enjoy!

I think the Corsair kit is z170? If yes, the GS 4x8GB 3200c14 kit has performed very well for a lot of users.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Playing around last night, looks like I can't 'get my uncore past 35x without voltages north of 1.32V. I was going to play around with it more tonight, but after reading Raja's comment about cooking chips, i think I'm just gonna be satisfied with what I can manage at under 1.3...
> 
> I know this isn't savevoltage.net.. but it's also not silliconsadists.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna finally try and trim my memory timings properly instead. Seems like a better risk/reward for my usage.


In this case, it's the current that matters, so de-rate voltage according to the type of loads you run on the system. Games aren't as stressful for the CPU as an encode or the dreaded Prime95 AVX small FFT loads are.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> It really depends on the workloads the CPU is subjected to. If a user has a penchant for Prime95, Uncore voltages upwards of 1.30V at 3.8GHz can pull a LOT of current. Of all the primary rails, the quickest way to degrade BW-E and HW-E is to brutalize the Uncore. Internally, we've run experiments and knocked a CPU into oblivion in under a day with such test regimes.


My biggest occasional loads are Nero Video (this might hurt a bit) and Adobe Lightroom. Looking to lower my 1.36 turbo speed uncore








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> right now, if the 10th ann update fails - be thankful. Otherwise, avoid this for a few weeks at least.


I've been lucky with this one - no problems and they just put out the second update


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Playing around last night, looks like I can't 'get my uncore past 35x without voltages north of 1.32V. I was going to play around with it more tonight, but after reading Raja's comment about cooking chips, i think I'm just gonna be satisfied with what I can manage at under 1.3...
> 
> I know this isn't savevoltage.net.. *but it's also not silliconsadists.net*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna finally try and trim my memory timings properly instead. Seems like a better risk/reward for my usage.


sometimes I do wonder tho.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> My biggest occasional loads are Nero Video (this might hurt a bit) and Adobe Lightroom. Looking to lower my 1.36 turbo speed uncore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been lucky with this one - no problems and they just put out the second update


Oh I know, the update rollout has been a roll of the dice. Some systems just puke with it, others are working very well.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> sometimes I do wonder tho.


"2nd is the just the first loser" -Ricky Bobby


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Playing around last night, looks like I can't 'get my uncore past 35x without voltages north of 1.32V. I was going to play around with it more tonight, but after reading Raja's comment about cooking chips, i think I'm just gonna be satisfied with what I can manage at under 1.3...
> 
> I know this isn't *savevoltage.net*.. but it's also not *silliconsadists.net*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna finally try and trim my memory timings properly instead. Seems like a better risk/reward for my usage.


I'm still trying to figure out which one I'm in ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> "2nd is the just the first loser" -Ricky Bobby


nobody likes to be number 2... well except 4th place at the olympics. They got the same medal I did.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Just as well you are kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel has an electron microscope with which they can check causes of failure. It's not something they use all the time, but if the RMA rates become abnormal, it causes preventative measures to be taken in future architectures.


Interesting... My last cpu got damaged somehow from overclocking and only dual channel worked. So i called intel for a RMA and told them what was wrong, the guy told me if we find out it was overclocked we will send it back.. I kinda laughed under my breath and said ok let's do it..

anyway i guess they didn't use the electron microscope because i got a new cpu.









I know shame on me.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Interesting... My last cpu got damaged somehow from overclocking and only dual channel worked. So i called intel for a RMA and told them what was wrong, the guy told me if we find out it was overclocked we will send it back.. I kinda laughed under my breath and said ok let's do it..
> 
> anyway i guess they didn't use the electron microscope because i got a new cpu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know shame on me.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


RMA or the ITP? With the ITP it's "no questions asked" I thought.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> RMA or the ITP? With the ITP it's "no questions asked" I thought.


Advanced RMA. But they never asked if it was overclocked, just said if it has been overclocked they will send it back.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - no one plays stress tests... but many want to demo stability before extended gaming. Just make an OS image and you can always restore a corrupted OS install. enjoy!
> 
> I think the Corsair kit is z170? If yes, the GS 4x8GB 3200c14 kit has performed very well for a lot of users.


I usually run a custom p95 test for 20 mins and then use my rig like normal.

The Corsair kit is supposedly for z170 but I'm currently running a g.skill kit for z170 and it runs perfectly. Tempted by that Corsair based off looks and performance but if I can't hit 3600Mhz then there's no point. The G.Skill is also only available in steel/white color. Might not be the best match for my board color wise.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I usually run a custom p95 test for 20 mins and then use my rig like normal.
> 
> The Corsair kit is supposedly for z170 but I'm currently running a g.skill kit for z170 and it runs perfectly. Tempted by that Corsair based off looks and performance but if I can't hit 3600Mhz then there's no point. The G.Skill is also only available in steel/white color. Might not be the best match for my board color wise.


you'd be lucky to get any kit stable at 3600 on x99 with useful timings.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you'd be lucky to get any kit stable at 3600 on x99 with useful timings.


Well my board runs 3200 CAS 14 without issue so what's so hard about 3600 CAS 16?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Well my board runs 3200 CAS 14 without issue so what's so hard about 3600 CAS 16?


Hello

400MHz and the needed input from the user for tuning.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Well my board runs 3200 CAS 14 without issue so what's so hard about 3600 CAS 16?


As Praz said, it's not gonna be an XMP thing.
yeah - I've been running 3400c13 on 64GB for quite a while now... post up when you get it stable. Post and boot at 3600 should work.


----------



## JLMS2010

What are you guys getting for OC on the 6800k?
Set XMP 2800MHz C14, vcore to 1.30v and 44x multiplier and passed Realbench 1hour. It also passed Realbench 30 minutes with vcore 1.321 and 45x multiplier. This is my first dealing with broadwell-e. Everything else is on auto. I'm picking up another 6800k tomorrow for a buddy and was going to see how that one did. What results are you all getting?


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> As Praz said, it's not gonna be an XMP thing.
> yeah - I've been running 3400c13 on 64GB for quite a while now... post up when you get it stable. Post and boot at 3600 should work.


I noticed that most x99 boards need memory tuning. XMP doesn't always work perfectly. I'll let you know how the Corsair ram goes. Thanks fellas.


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> What are you guys getting for OC on the 6800k?
> Set XMP 2800MHz C14, vcore to 1.30v and 44x multiplier and passed Realbench 1hour. It also passed Realbench 30 minutes with vcore 1.321 and 45x multiplier. This is my first dealing with broadwell-e. Everything else is on auto. I'm picking up another 6800k tomorrow for a buddy and was going to see how that one did. What results are you all getting?


just got 6900k today, was waiting for skylake E...but patience failure...mine so far
44 with 1.34v prime 27.9 avx for 1 hour, 1.32v erred fairly quickly.
44 with 1.36v prime 28.5 avx/fma3 for 30 mins (so far), 1.35v erred on 1 core after 13 mins.
havent messed with RAM yet, uncore is 35 with 1.17v

24/7 will be 44 with ~1.36v, after a run hour prime run, then done with stress tests
realbench stable should be closer to prime 27.9 volts, havent run it yet, may out of curiosity.

45 with 1.38 is 3Dmark stable (ones tried so far)
46 will boot with 1.41, but wont run 3dmark with up to 1.46 so far.
be nice to get 46 to bench, but not flying so far.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opt33*
> 
> just got 6900k today, was waiting for skylake E...but patience failure...mine so far
> 44 with 1.34v prime 27.9 avx for 1 hour, 1.32v erred fairly quickly.
> 44 with 1.36v prime 28.5 avx/fma3 for 30 mins (so far), 1.35v erred on 1 core after 13 mins.
> havent messed with RAM yet, uncore is 35 with 1.17v
> 
> 24/7 will be 44 with ~1.36v, after a run hour prime run, then done with stress tests
> realbench stable should be closer to prime 27.9 volts, havent run it yet, may out of curiosity.
> 
> 45 with 1.38 is 3Dmark stable (ones tried so far)
> 46 will boot with 1.41, but wont run 3dmark with up to 1.46 so far.
> be nice to get 46 to bench, but not flying so far.


hey bro - be careful running that kind of current thru your BWE... try something like x264 or handbrke before taking out the whip.


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hey bro - be careful running that kind of current thru your BWE... try something like x264 or handbrke before taking out the whip.


yeah, im done with prime...ran it 50 mins so good enough..now trying to get 4.6 3d stable, not going to well so far

then have to get mem to xmp setting 3200 ..I regret buying this annoying msi mobo last year, my first and last... with skylake will be going back to either asus or gb.


----------



## Vellinious

I've been messing with this CPU for the last week. The 6950X. So far, I've been able to get 4.3 4 hour AIDA64 stability test stable at 1.295v. 4.4 is pretty stable at 1.355v, but the temps are creeping up into the 80s on a couple of cores and package temp...peak temps. Seems they usually sit around 68-75c. That seems pretty solid to me.

What I'm wondering...what kind of voltages are any of you with the 10 core monster, seeing for 4.5? 4.6? I don't really want to do any stability testing with those clocks...I'm not running a chiller, so....I'm sure temps would get out of control.

I've also considered using the ASUS Thermal Control Tool. What are everyone's experiences with it? Good? Bad? Indifferent?

Anyway...this is what I'm seeing after an hour and a half on AIDA64. Does that seem about right? Temps seem kinda high to me....



Admittedly, I'm not very adept at this yet...I'm still learning.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I've been messing with this CPU for the last week. The 6950X. So far, I've been able to get 4.3 4 hour AIDA64 stability test stable at 1.295v. 4.4 is pretty stable at 1.355v, but the temps are creeping up into the 80s on a couple of cores and package temp...peak temps. Seems they usually sit around 68-75c. That seems pretty solid to me.
> 
> What I'm wondering...what kind of voltages are any of you with the 10 core monster, seeing for 4.5? 4.6? I don't really want to do any stability testing with those clocks...I'm not running a chiller, so....I'm sure temps would get out of control.
> 
> I've also considered using the ASUS Thermal Control Tool. What are everyone's experiences with it? Good? Bad? Indifferent?
> 
> Anyway...this is what I'm seeing after an hour and a half on AIDA64. Does that seem about right? Temps seem kinda high to me....
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly, I'm not very adept at this yet...I'm still learning.


IF you set an adaptive voltage and use the ATCT, you can probably get away with 9x44/1x45 or 9x45/1x46 (fav core).
Read *this* is you have not already.
I run 9x45/1x46 quite a bit with the ATCT using 1.45V in bios (adaptive) set the ATCT to downclock to 4.3 @ 1.281V when the package temp > 65C. Use Asus RB to test: you can loop the image editing as a low current high clock stress test, and you already know how to test the high current/temperatuire clock.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Just as well you are kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel has an electron microscope with which they can check causes of failure. It's not something they use all the time, but if the RMA rates become abnormal, it causes preventative measures to be taken in future architectures.


Good info, glad intel doesn't use that electron microscope to deny RMAs


----------



## djgar

Well, here's my WC-OC (Wimpy Cache - 3710 @ 1.29v). I did a slightly unconventional DRAM timing, but it got through 80 mins of GSAT. Sigh - I miss that 3836, don't miss 1.36v


----------



## zipeldiablo

Anybody found a differential benchmark between 6850k and 5930k?
Currently wondering which one to get for 4k gaming in sli...
Some bench state 5930k overclock higher but it seems 6850k has better perf for less clock.
It seems that the all bottleneck idea that prevents me from going for skylake is full bs but broadwell-e seems more future proof


----------



## GreedyMuffin

Some say HWE 5.1/5.2 equals BWE at 4.4.

Not sure if I believe that.

I get 1810 with my HWE 5960X @4500/4000 + crappy mem in CB R15.

What do you guys get with your BWE 6900K on CB R15 OCed?









I believe the difference is minor. Biggest thing is that you might/will get a better IMC.

The added IPC goes away when HWE can clock a little further. I think at least.

EDIT: One guy at my local forum got 1753 in R15 with 6900K @4300/stock cache + 3200mhz 16-16-16-32 2T.


----------



## Nizzen

It depends on the program


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GreedyMuffin*
> 
> Some say HWE 5.1/5.2 equals BWE at 4.4.
> 
> Not sure if I believe that.
> 
> I get 1810 with my HWE 5960X @4500/4000 + crappy mem in CB R15.
> 
> What do you guys get with your BWE 6900K on CB R15 OCed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the difference is minor. Biggest thing is that you might/will get a better IMC.
> 
> The added IPC goes away when HWE can clock a little further. I think at least.
> 
> EDIT: One guy at my local forum got 1753 in R15 with 6900K @4300/stock cache + 3200mhz 16-16-16-32 2T.


Well here's my 6900k's highest to lowest, 4.2Ghz Core, 3.4Ghz cache, 2800Mhz 14-16-16-36 2T.
(Top score I got with a completely fresh Windows 10 install..)


----------



## aerotracks

25C water gets me another 100Mhz over 30C water:

http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160811-03581796s3s.png


----------



## JLMS2010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opt33*
> 
> yeah, im done with prime...ran it 50 mins so good enough..now trying to get 4.6 3d stable, not going to well so far
> 
> then have to get mem to xmp setting 3200 ..I regret buying this annoying msi mobo last year, my first and last... with skylake will be going back to either asus or gb.


Sorry to hear you mention about that about the MSI board. I've had several MSI X99 boards and all fantastic. lol


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aerotracks*
> 
> 25C water gets me another 100Mhz over 30C water:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://abload.de/image.php?img=20160811-03581796s3s.png


yeah - it seems that even in the ambient range, these BWEs are pretty "responsive" to temperature.


----------



## Deceiver777

Hello 2 all - Someone can tell me why my processor is boost to 4ghz if i only use XMP profile for the RAM, my RAM is 2400 mhz - BLK does not change . Proc. is 6950x mobo Asus Deluxe II.

If i use Bios defoult - boost it right to 3.5ghz.

With boost to 4ghz it took 1.2Vcore. I think too much for D15 Noctua.

Sorry for bad English ))


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GreedyMuffin*
> 
> Some say HWE 5.1/5.2 equals BWE at 4.4.
> 
> Not sure if I believe that.
> 
> I get 1810 with my HWE 5960X @4500/4000 + crappy mem in CB R15.
> 
> What do you guys get with your BWE 6900K on CB R15 OCed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the difference is minor. Biggest thing is that you might/will get a better IMC.
> 
> The added IPC goes away when HWE can clock a little further. I think at least.
> 
> EDIT: One guy at my local forum got 1753 in R15 with 6900K @4300/stock cache + 3200mhz 16-16-16-32 2T.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> It depends on the program


Exactly.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GreedyMuffin*
> 
> Some say HWE 5.1/5.2 equals BWE at 4.4.
> 
> Not sure if I believe that.
> 
> I get 1810 with my HWE 5960X @4500/4000 + crappy mem in CB R15.
> 
> What do you guys get with your BWE 6900K on CB R15 OCed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the difference is minor. Biggest thing is that you might/will get a better IMC.
> 
> The added IPC goes away when HWE can clock a little further. I think at least.
> 
> EDIT: One guy at my local forum got 1753 in R15 with 6900K @4300/stock cache + 3200mhz 16-16-16-32 2T.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - it seems that even in the ambient range, these BWEs are pretty "responsive" to temperature.


I noticed that as well. Mine seems to start to get unstable when coolant temps go above 28c or so...when I'm pushing it. I've seriously considered putting it on it's own loop.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I noticed that as well. Mine seems to start to get unstable when coolant temps go above 28c or so...when I'm pushing it. I've seriously considered putting it on it's own loop.


My coolant can reach around 33c when the system is fully loaded, or if it's a particularly warm day. If you're seeing a disparity when the water is becoming warm then the overclock probably needs to be dialed back a bit anyway.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> My coolant can reach around 33c when the system is fully loaded, or if it's a particularly warm day. If you're seeing a disparity when the water is becoming warm then the overclock probably needs to be dialed back a bit anyway.


I'm not talkin about daily clocks. On the daily clock of 4.2 I have set, my delta never goes above 5c, with ambient at 19 or 20c.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I'm not talkin about daily clocks. On the daily clock of 4.2 I have set, my delta never goes above 5c, with ambient at 19 or 20c.


Ah, ok. Doesn't seem worth putting it on it's own loop in that case then


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Ah, ok. Doesn't seem worth putting it on it's own loop in that case then


For benchmarking it would...that's the only reason I was thinking about doing it. I can add a 360 or 480 to handle the GPUs, and keep the MORA 3 420 on the CPU.


----------



## marc0053

Not sure if this will be helpful or not but a single phobya 1080 radiator seems to max out the cooling capacity of my i7 6950x even when benching at 4.5ghz with 1.48V meaning any additional radiators don't help the maximum temperatures. This is where the cooling capacity of the liquid is not the limiting factor anymore whereas the cpu block seems to be the limit. On the other hand the GPU idle temps will remain the same in my loop with 1 big rad or 1 phobya + 1x mo-ra 3 PRO 360 and 1x mo-ra 3 PRO 420 but the temps at load for the gpu does drop from 1 to 3 big rads. on a GTX 980 Ti, 1 big rad (phobya 1080) was about 42C on the gpu with 1.4V+ on the gpu (for benching). Adding a 2nd rad (mo-ra 3 pro360) drop load gpu temps to about 35-36C and finally adding the 3rd big rad (mo-ra 3 pro 420) brought gpu load temps down near 30C. A good thermal paste such as grizzly kryonaut helps a lot. I stay away from liquid ultra or similar on the gpu or cpu as it removed the intel cpu die markings in the past and never used it since.

I've never seen a benefit of a dedicated loop for cpu and for gpu once you have 1 mo-ra 3 or more of rad space. Maybe on small rads it's different.

Conclusion: more rad space seems more beneficial on GPU than on CPU once you get to a big 9x120mm rad.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deceiver777*
> 
> Hello 2 all - Someone can tell me why my processor is boost to 4ghz if i only use XMP profile for the RAM, my RAM is 2400 mhz - BLK does not change . Proc. is 6950x mobo Asus Deluxe II.
> 
> If i use Bios defoult - boost it right to 3.5ghz.
> 
> With boost to 4ghz it took 1.2Vcore. I think too much for D15 Noctua.
> 
> Sorry for bad English ))


Are you seriously using a 6950x with a tower heatsink?

Lol. More money than sense or????


----------



## aerotracks

Nice setup marc, I'm down to 2x360 and an open window


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Not sure if this will be helpful or not but a single phobya 1080 radiator seems to max out the cooling capacity of my i7 6950x even when benching at 4.5ghz with 1.48V meaning any additional radiators don't help the maximum temperatures. This is where the cooling capacity of the liquid is not the limiting factor anymore whereas the cpu block seems to be the limit. On the other hand the GPU idle temps will remain the same in my loop with 1 big rad or 1 phobya + 1x mo-ra 3 PRO 360 and 1x mo-ra 3 PRO 420 but the temps at load for the gpu does drop from 1 to 3 big rads. on a GTX 980 Ti, 1 big rad (phobya 1080) was about 42C on the gpu with 1.4V+ on the gpu (for benching). Adding a 2nd rad (mo-ra 3 pro360) drop load gpu temps to about 35-36C and finally adding the 3rd big rad (mo-ra 3 pro 420) brought gpu load temps down near 30C. A good thermal paste such as grizzly kryonaut helps a lot. I stay away from liquid ultra or similar on the gpu or cpu as it removed the intel cpu die markings in the past and never used it since.
> 
> I've never seen a benefit of a dedicated loop for cpu and for gpu once you have 1 mo-ra 3 or more of rad space. Maybe on small rads it's different.
> 
> Conclusion: more rad space seems more beneficial on GPU than on CPU once you get to a big 9x120mm rad.


Yes, see similar here. I have the 1080 Phob and a 480. When I had my 900D, this had an additional 2x 240 radiators, and an another 480 slimline. I saw around 30 degrees across three cards which was exceptional. For multi GPU systems it does pay off.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Not sure if this will be helpful or not but a single phobya 1080 radiator seems to max out the cooling capacity of my i7 6950x even when benching at 4.5ghz with 1.48V meaning any additional radiators don't help the maximum temperatures. This is where the cooling capacity of the liquid is not the limiting factor anymore whereas the cpu block seems to be the limit. On the other hand the GPU idle temps will remain the same in my loop with 1 big rad or 1 phobya + 1x mo-ra 3 PRO 360 and 1x mo-ra 3 PRO 420 but the temps at load for the gpu does drop from 1 to 3 big rads. on a GTX 980 Ti, 1 big rad (phobya 1080) was about 42C on the gpu with 1.4V+ on the gpu (for benching). Adding a 2nd rad (mo-ra 3 pro360) drop load gpu temps to about 35-36C and finally adding the 3rd big rad (mo-ra 3 pro 420) brought gpu load temps down near 30C. A good thermal paste such as grizzly kryonaut helps a lot. I stay away from liquid ultra or similar on the gpu or cpu as it removed the intel cpu die markings in the past and never used it since.
> 
> I've never seen a benefit of a dedicated loop for cpu and for gpu once you have 1 mo-ra 3 or more of rad space. Maybe on small rads it's different.
> 
> Conclusion: more rad space seems more beneficial on GPU than on CPU once you get to a big 9x120mm rad.


For daily use, I'd agree with that. But for extreme use, such as when benchmarking at 4.5 or 4.6 on the 6950X, I've watched the coolant temps climb well above where I'm used to seeing them. Coming from a 5820k, where I couldn't make my coolant temp go above 9c delta no matter how hard I tortured the system. With temps on the loop reaching 13c+ above ambient with the new CPU and 2 GPUs during benchmarking runs, having a dedicated loop for the CPU makes sense, but only in those cases. For normal daily use and gaming, a single loop will operate just fine with no ill effects.

It's something I'm going to try, because I want to see if I can get my deltas back under 8c...it'll help the GPUs a tad too, or a little anyway, because the coolant temps aren't getting up into their thermal layer in the mid 30c range where they drop. I started putting the plans together a few minutes ago, I'll do my initial order this afternoon, so...should have some numbers in a couple weeks.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> For daily use, I'd agree with that. But for extreme use, such as when benchmarking at 4.5 or 4.6 on the 6950X, I've watched the coolant temps climb well above where I'm used to seeing them. Coming from a 5820k, where I couldn't make my coolant temp go above 9c delta no matter how hard I tortured the system. With temps on the loop reaching 13c+ above ambient with the new CPU and 2 GPUs during benchmarking runs, having a dedicated loop for the CPU makes sense, but only in those cases. For normal daily use and gaming, a single loop will operate just fine with no ill effects.
> 
> It's something I'm going to try, because I want to see if I can get my deltas back under 8c...it'll help the GPUs a tad too, or a little anyway, because the coolant temps aren't getting up into their thermal layer in the mid 30c range where they drop. I started putting the plans together a few minutes ago, I'll do my initial order this afternoon, so...should have some numbers in a couple weeks.


Marc'sadvice is solid. But if you are actually seeing the water temp (measured on the "cold side of the loop)" increase above well above ambient, the what ever rad config you have is obviously not able to shed the heat faster than you can generate it. More serial rad space can then drop the temp a bit further until the new equilibrium is established. Only ways to do better is to get cold air on the rads (either a winter window or AC) or lower the coolant temp with a chiller of some kind. LOL - I think we've all seen guys sink a rad in Ice water or use a wort chiller in the loop.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Marc'sadvice is solid. But if you are actually seeing the water temp (measured on the "cold side of the loop)" increase above well above ambient, the what ever rad config you have is obviously not able to shed the heat faster than you can generate it. More serial rad space can then drop the temp a bit further until the new equilibrium is established. Only ways to do better is to get cold air on the rads (either a winter window or AC) or lower the coolant temp with a chiller of some kind. LOL - I think we've all seen guys sink a rad in Ice water or use a wort chiller in the loop.


I know where the advantages / disadvantages for dual vs single loops are. It'll work. = )


----------



## Jpmboy

wort chiller.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> wort chiller.


I bet that works pretty damn good. I've seen guys use coolers full of ice too.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I bet that works pretty damn good. I've seen guys use coolers full of ice too.


only used it once years ago - too much of a PIA to drag it into the home office - not appreciated by the wife at all,


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> only used it once years ago - too much of a PIA to drag it into the home office - not appreciated by the wife at all,


Hehe.. Now with finally having QDC's on my rig, I could use a chiller. I'm still on the fence if I want to spend the time to re-adjust the TIM on both CPU & 1st GPU as I feel application could use some work, what a waste of T Grizzly.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deceiver777*
> 
> Hello 2 all - Someone can tell me why my processor is boost to 4ghz if i only use XMP profile for the RAM, my RAM is 2400 mhz - BLK does not change . Proc. is 6950x mobo Asus Deluxe II.
> 
> If i use Bios defoult - boost it right to 3.5ghz.
> 
> With boost to 4ghz it took 1.2Vcore. I think too much for D15 Noctua.
> 
> Sorry for bad English ))


That's because XMP profile will use "Sync All Cores" option in BIOS instead of "Per Core" in "CPU Core Ratio". There is another setting, something like "per core usage" but I don't remember what it's called exactly. So to overcome this "issue" you'll need to select another option than Sync All Cores.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> wort chiller.


Brewing wort chiller, adapted to 1/2 tubing & placed in a bucket? Can it really be that easy?

Super interested.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Brewing wort chiller, adapted to 1/2 tubing & placed in a bucket? Can it really be that easy?
> 
> Super interested.


Fill it with Dry ice and run 50/50 mix of distiled water and glycol through the loop .


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Fill it with Dry ice and run 50/50 mix of distiled water and glycol through the loop .


I'm assuming glycol lowers the freezing point?

Cool. Seems like a sweet project. I'm in.

Thanks for the reply man.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Brewing wort chiller, adapted to 1/2 tubing & placed in a bucket? Can it really be that easy?
> 
> Super interested.


lol - yes, really that simple. and then there's:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Fill it with Dry ice and run 50/50 mix of distiled water and glycol through the loop .


^^ This if you wanna get serious, but be sure to insulate the rig, lot's of condensation once you get below 10C.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I'm assuming glycol lowers the freezing point?
> Cool. Seems like a sweet project. I'm in.
> Thanks for the reply man.


heck - if you were nearby, you could have mine.


----------



## mbze430

I am planning to upgrade my Broadwell-E system to Anniversary Edition this weekend. Do we need to remove the Turbo 3.0 software? Or the upgrade will kill it and use the Turbo 3.0 automatically here on out?


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I am planning to upgrade my Broadwell-E system to Anniversary Edition this weekend. Do we need to remove the Turbo 3.0 software? Or the upgrade will kill it and use the Turbo 3.0 automatically here on out?


No one here uses Turbo 3.0 software....

This is OCN..... Hehe. Intel CPU's don't need software to turbo fully anymore.

Useless software. Get rid of it and set Turbo in the BIOS.


----------



## mbze430

you sure, I am under the impression prior to Windows 10 Anniversary the Turbo Boost 3.0 software helps dictate which apps is manually send to the
"best core" for single threaded process.

With the new Windows 10 Anniversary update, Windows is now able to automatically send software to the best core without manually using the intel's turbo boost 3.0 software.

"Now available on the Intel® Core™ i7 processor Extreme Edition and Intel® Core™ i7-69xx/68xx processor family, Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 is a *combination of software and hardware* that delivers more than 15% better single-threaded performance.2 3"

So yes, you do set the max best core speed in the BIOS. But prior to Windows 10 Anniversary you need the software to manually tell which app to send to the best core.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> you sure, I am under the impression prior to Windows 10 Anniversary the Turbo Boost 3.0 software helps dictate which apps is manually send to the
> "best core" for single threaded process.
> 
> With the new Windows 10 Anniversary update, Windows is now able to automatically send software to the best core without manually using the intel's turbo boost 3.0 software.
> 
> "Now available on the Intel® Core™ i7 processor Extreme Edition and Intel® Core™ i7-69xx/68xx processor family, Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 is a *combination of software and hardware* that delivers more than 15% better single-threaded performance.2 3"
> 
> So yes, you do set the max best core speed in the BIOS. But prior to Windows 10 Anniversary you need the software to manually tell which app to send to the best core.


I've never used it. I always overclock.

That being said when my CPU is at stock it turbos fine. As does my 4710MQ in my laptop.

No software on either.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

On first run when I did a clean install of Windows 10 AU it installed Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 driver from Windows Update, I didn't have a choice.
I remember seeing it on the list of updates.

So I'm guessing it's actually including the Intel driver secretively when Windows 10 does its first updates.

Still undecided with Windows 10 AU, how many others took the plunge?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> you sure, I am under the impression prior to Windows 10 Anniversary the Turbo Boost 3.0 software helps dictate which apps is manually send to the
> "best core" for single threaded process.


Hello

This is correct. Obviously nexxusty is responding to you without a clue to what the software does.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> you sure, I am under the impression prior to Windows 10 Anniversary the Turbo Boost 3.0 software helps dictate which apps is manually send to the
> "best core" for single threaded process.
> 
> With the new Windows 10 Anniversary update, Windows is now able to automatically send software to the best core without manually using the intel's turbo boost 3.0 software.
> 
> "Now available on the Intel® Core™ i7 processor Extreme Edition and Intel® Core™ i7-69xx/68xx processor family, Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 is a *combination of software and hardware* that delivers more than 15% better single-threaded performance.2 3"
> 
> So yes, you do set the max best core speed in the BIOS. But prior to Windows 10 Anniversary you need the software to manually tell which app to send to the best core.


oh man - I've been holding off on this update as it seems to affect general performance... anyone do this yet with an M.2 NVMe bot drive???


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> oh man - I've been holding off on this update as it seems to affect general performance... anyone do this yet with an M.2 NVMe bot drive???


Hello

5 systems at the house with 950 Pro, RD400 or Intel 750. No benchmarks done but I haven't noticed any difference with day-to-day use


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> 5 systems at the house with 950 Pro, RD400 or Intel 750. No benchmarks done but I haven't noticed any difference with day-to-day use


thanks Praz, that gives confidence to one issue.


----------



## mrkambo

OK, so we have issues, where do i start to deduce what is wrong??


----------



## mrkambo

Sorted, just bumped the VCCIO to 1.025 and it sang through, wondering if i can get it down to C14 now???


----------



## djgar

I see that in the Device Drivers / System Devices there's an Intel(R) Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 Driver entry. Does Windows through this strictly manage the single core behavior or could it be downgrading / throttling cores in general thus affecting cpu benchmarks?

From a normal use perspective it's a good thing I would think, but not so good for benchmarking







.


----------



## mbze430

I went ahead and just remove the the drivers and the software I had with 1511 and see what happens.

Once I was at 1607, windows DIDN'T install the Turbo Boost 3.0 and leaving me with a "Unkown Device". Ending up installing the latest version of drivers/software from Intel. Everything seems to be the same as it was in 1511.

And yes I have a NVME 950 as boot, so everything upgraded fine.


----------



## djgar

^^^ You just need the ITBM driver, not the software unless you're going to use it.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> oh man - I've been holding off on this update as it seems to affect general performance... anyone do this yet with an M.2 NVMe bot drive???


Same a Praz here, haven't noticed any performance differences with the Samsung 950 Pro, there is some software quirks I'm coming across.
All benchmark software is working fine, still yielding the same results.

But like I said before Windows Update does actually install the Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 driver on first update.
I never manually installed it.



From INF
[IntelDevice.NTamd64]

[IntelDevice.NTamd64.Services]

;

; NT install sections:
;

[IntelTurboBoostMax]
CopyFiles = IntelTurboBoostMax.CopyDriver

[IntelTurboBoostMax.CopyDriver]
IntelNit.sys,,,2


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I went ahead and just remove the the drivers and the software I had with 1511 and see what happens.
> 
> Once I was at 1607, windows DIDN'T install the Turbo Boost 3.0 and leaving me with a "Unkown Device". Ending up installing the latest version of drivers/software from Intel. Everything seems to be the same as it was in 1511.
> 
> And yes I have a NVME 950 as boot, so everything upgraded fine.


Same here for what it's worth. Turbo Boost 3.0 was not installed by windows. But the only way I was able to get the newest windows version to load properly was to do a fresh install using the latest windows 10 ISO image. Doing the windows update method always failed for me at 32%...just locked up. Now that I'm on the latest windows version, everything seems to be working fine.

I just ran a 2 hour Asus RealBench test and it passed. My VCCIO was manually set to 1.100v and VCCSA was set to 1.120v. Any lower on either one and my system becomes unstable pretty quickly. The only issue to note right now is the CPU Package temperature is jumping to 78C but the highest core is reaching 72c...best core never gets over 52C. Larger margin there but I don't recall the CPU Package temperature being that high before I changed from AUTO voltage on the VCCIO and VCCSA.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Same a Praz here, haven't noticed any performance differences with the Samsung 950 Pro, there is some software quirks I'm coming across.
> All benchmark software is working fine, still yielding the same results.
> 
> But like I said before Windows Update does actually install the Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 driver on first update.
> I never manually installed it.
> 
> 
> 
> From INF
> [IntelDevice.NTamd64]
> 
> [IntelDevice.NTamd64.Services]
> 
> ;
> 
> ; NT install sections:
> ;
> 
> [IntelTurboBoostMax]
> CopyFiles = IntelTurboBoostMax.CopyDriver
> 
> [IntelTurboBoostMax.CopyDriver]
> IntelNit.sys,,,2


yeah - I may wait a bit before jumping to 1607... did you fresh install or upgrade in place?


----------



## Hdusu64346

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> My core ratio limit is set to 44
> AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset = 2
> Min CPU Cache Ratio = 36
> Max CPU Cache Ratio = 36
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.34v
> CPU Input Voltage = 1.9v
> CPU Cache Voltage = 1.2v
> DRAM Voltage = 1.35v
> CPU Load-Line Calibration = Level 5
> CPU Power Thermal Control = 115
> Long/Short Duration Package Power limit = 409
> 
> Seems game stable so far. Will be gaming and some encoding all week just to make sure it's stable. 6800k SHOULD be stable or very near stable. No point in running stress tests and burning up the chip. Besides, I don't play stress tests.
> 
> BTW, I plan on buying either some G.Skill 4 x 8GB 3200 CAS 14 kit or Corsair Platinum 4 x 8GB 3600Mhz CAS 16. Which would be best?


Yes!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - I may wait a bit before jumping to 1607... did you fresh install or upgrade in place?


FWIW, I did an upgrade in place with the Anniv upgrade tool in my Strix and an upgrade in place with the ISO in my notebook, both went fine no problems. I would have preferred the ISO way on the Strix but couldn't find the image at the time.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - I may wait a bit before jumping to 1607... did you fresh install or upgrade in place?


It was a fresh install.
I didn't get an option not to install the Turbo Boost driver, it just did it on the first involuntary windows update









I'm really considering rolling back to 1511, a lot of little programs aren't working, x265 will drop 1 instance every time for me and I haven't changed a single OC setting from the prior 1511 when I was getting perfect runs.

Update:
I just rolled back to 1511 x265 finished perfectly with a score of 8.15 (64, 4k, Pmode, 4x Overkill), it wouldn't finish at all under the Anniversary Update.


----------



## CerN

Has anyone done any testing with the 0901 BIOS for RV10E?

All it says is "increased system stability".

Care to give any insight as to what it actually changes from 0801 Raja?
I am on Corsair DDR4 3333mhz 4x8gb kit, and cannot run it higher than 3000mhz, so was hoping for some improvements, but cannot be bothered to flash, and re-input all my settings if it isn't relevant to either RAM or CPU overclocking.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Has anyone done any testing with the 0901 BIOS for RV10E?
> 
> All it says is "increased system stability".
> 
> Care to give any insight as to what it actually changes from 0801 Raja?
> I am on Corsair DDR4 3333mhz 4x8gb kit, and cannot run it higher than 3000mhz, so was hoping for some improvements, but cannot be bothered to flash, and re-input all my settings if it isn't relevant to either RAM or CPU overclocking.


I'm interested in more info about this also. I wish Asus would put a little more info than increased system stability unless it was something that is out of our control then it wouldn't matter. What would help is if there was a short description of which portion was added to this version like if it was in the RAM/CPU/PCIE area. This would make it a hell of a lot easier for over clockers like if it was in the RAM area then we could input our CPU/ETC settings and then just try different settings on RAM only to yield a better performing motherboard.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm interested in more info about this also. I wish Asus would put a little more info than increased system stability unless it was something that is out of our control then it wouldn't matter. What would help is if there was a short description of which portion was added to this version like if it was in the RAM/CPU/PCIE area. This would make it a hell of a lot easier for over clockers like if it was in the RAM area then we could input our CPU/ETC settings and then just try different settings on RAM only to yield a better performing motherboard.


I'm running 0901 on the R5E10... haven't noticed any overt differences vs 0801... but I can't say that i have every kind of peripheral attached.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I'm running 0901 on the R5E10... haven't noticed any overt differences vs 0801... but I can't say that i have every kind of peripheral attached.


Good to know! When my first cpu fried I was using 0801 so I'm staying away from that one







Any changes you had to do to bring your OC back?







If you could post your BIOS settings to steal ideas from that would be cool


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Good to know! When my first cpu fried I was using 0801 so I'm staying away from that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any changes you had to do to bring your OC back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could post your BIOS settings to steal ideas from that would be cool


Hello

Whatever the cause it was not the 0801 version.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Whatever the cause it was not the 0801 version.


It must have been the voltage overload from leaving too many things on auto from using XMP or I just got unlucky with that chip. The only other chip I have ever fried was over 20 years ago when I was using physical jumpers to overclock an AMD CPU. The chip actually exploded and a piece of it flew out somewhere, good thing it didn't hit me on the eye.

Edit: 3 volt? Yes I sure gave it some volts and then some IIRC... This was one with no heat sink required. It looked like this.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Good to know! When my first cpu fried I was using 0801 so I'm staying away from that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any changes you had to do to bring your OC back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could post your BIOS settings to steal ideas from that would be cool


nothing different in gettng my base OC running. 4.3a4.2c3.7m3400c13 1.28V/1.28V/1.45V

160816161406.zip 2242k .zip file


160816161529.zip 1950k .zip file


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nothing different in gettng my base OC running. 4.3a4.2c3.7m3400c13 1.28V/1.28V/1.45V
> 
> 160816161406.zip 2242k .zip file
> 
> 
> 160816161529.zip 1950k .zip file


That's actually very helpful.....


----------



## PowerK

Hi folks.
Been on a summer vacation. 

A question. Everyone here installs "Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 Technology" software/driver, right?
I ask because unless this software is installed, there's a unkown device in device manager. (Windows 10 Pro with the latest updates)


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi folks.
> Been on a summer vacation.
> 
> A question. Everyone here installs "Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 Technology" software/driver, right?
> I ask because unless this software is installed, there's a unkown device in device manager. (Windows 10 Pro with the latest updates)


I just install the driver, not the software app.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi folks.
> Been on a summer vacation.
> 
> A question. Everyone here installs "Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 Technology" software/driver, right?
> I ask because unless this software is installed, there's a unkown device in device manager. (Windows 10 Pro with the latest updates)


yes, Win10 10th anniver update will work with the preferred core on BWE and schedule this core preferentially AFAIK, so TB3 is required.


----------



## vibraslap

So I seem to have created a problem for myself. I had previously had a stable overclock at 4.4Ghz 1.345V, but I messed with my overclock and now I cant seem to get it stable at that voltage again. So I started over pretty much from scratch and found stable 4.3 settings with cache on auto. One thing I have going for me I guess is that I never touched any of my memory timings so I at least know my memory is solid.

Here's my attempts so far. Highlights indicate changes.


Any other settings I should be looking at? I've been getting the following bluescreens


----------



## [email protected]

Just pretend you didn't hear it from me - perhaps a perforated tinfoil hat will help.









The driver is of use for locking apps to the fav core and also for prioritizing apps to given cores. Without it, you'd have to lock apps by using affinity. If all cores are clocked to the same freq then I wouldn't bother with the driver. If using "by specific core" clocking - where stronger cores are capable of running at higher frequencies than others - the driver is worthwhile. For overclocking, this feature is designed to be used in tandem with per core voltage control (which is possible with BW-E).


----------



## Jpmboy

So this is now "in play" with windows 10th A update?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> So I seem to have created a problem for myself. I had previously had a stable overclock at 4.4Ghz 1.345V, but I messed with my overclock and now I cant seem to get it stable at that voltage again. So I started over pretty much from scratch and found stable 4.3 settings with cache on auto. One thing I have going for me I guess is that I never touched any of my memory timings so I at least know my memory is solid.
> 
> Here's my attempts so far. Highlights indicate changes.
> 
> 
> Any other settings I should be looking at? I've been getting the following bluescreens


What happens with VCCIN to auto? I've had a great deal of trouble improving on "auto" so far with BW-E. Mine doesn't seem to want "more".


----------



## Fidelity21

I had better luck setting VCCIO and VCCSA to auto until I had a stable system. My CPU voltage is 1.310v with all cores at 4.3ghz. VCCIN is auto and holding at 1.88v. After running realbench for 2 hours to show stability, I started dropping VCCIO and VCCSA slowly but never got to your levels. My VCCIO is 1.100v and VCCSA is around that (I'll update this when I know the exact value). Anything lower and my system crashes within 30 minutes of a stress test. Anyway, I'm no expert here but I've learned to do one thing at a time and auto works well for VCCIO and VCCSA until you have everything else worked out.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> So this is now "in play" with windows 10th A update?


I haven't checked. It was the plan to add the functionality at some point.


----------



## Zero-Cold

Hey guys,
I'll be swapping my Asrock x99 Extreme 4 (that one, no OC socket) with an ASUS x99-a II. Is this a good substitution?


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> What happens with VCCIN to auto? I've had a great deal of trouble improving on "auto" so far with BW-E. Mine doesn't seem to want "more".


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I had better luck setting VCCIO and VCCSA to auto until I had a stable system. My CPU voltage is 1.310v with all cores at 4.3ghz. VCCIN is auto and holding at 1.88v. After running realbench for 2 hours to show stability, I started dropping VCCIO and VCCSA slowly but never got to your levels. My VCCIO is 1.100v and VCCSA is around that (I'll update this when I know the exact value). Anything lower and my system crashes within 30 minutes of a stress test. Anyway, I'm no expert here but I've learned to do one thing at a time and auto works well for VCCIO and VCCSA until you have everything else worked out.


Unfortunately none of these worked







Here's my attempts



Setting VCCIO and VCCSA to auto on my board makes them go to stupid voltages that IMO are way too high for what I should need, 1.34 for SA and 1.24 for IO. When I was previously stable I never had either of them higher than 1.1.

Setting VCCIN on auto seems reasonable though, reads at 1.92 in bios. I think I'm going to leave it set to that while I increment SA 0.01 intervals up to 1.12ish and see what happens.

Any other suggestions?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Unfortunately none of these worked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my attempts
> 
> 
> 
> Setting VCCIO and VCCSA to auto on my board makes them go to stupid voltages that IMO are way too high for what I should need, 1.34 for SA and 1.24 for IO. When I was previously stable I never had either of them higher than 1.1.
> 
> Setting VCCIN on auto seems reasonable though, reads at 1.92 in bios. I think I'm going to leave it set to that while I increment SA 0.01 intervals up to 1.12ish and see what happens.
> 
> Any other suggestions?


Did your iterations include 1.35v as well?


----------



## vibraslap

On core? No, I was trying to avoid upping core voltage as I know this chip can (or was at least previously able to) do 4.4 at 1.345. I had it stable at that at one point, and that's what it was binned at by SiliconLottery. Trying to recreate the magic...


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> On core? No, I was trying to avoid upping core voltage as I know this chip can (or was at least previously able to) do 4.4 at 1.345. I had it stable at that at one point, and that's what it was binned at by SiliconLottery. Trying to recreate the magic...


Take a look at Jpmboy's suggestions to me on post#9961 if your motherboard has those settings. Also I have read a few times that vccsa voltage can actually get unstable if it's too much, I'm currently running mine at .95v. I'm at 1.26v core @4.4GHz, 3.5GHz cache @ 1.3v 3.2GHz memory @1.35v.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1510001/asus-rampage-v-extreme-owners-thread/9900_100#post_25427608


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> On core? No, I was trying to avoid upping core voltage as I know this chip can (or was at least previously able to) do 4.4 at 1.345. I had it stable at that at one point, and that's what it was binned at by SiliconLottery. Trying to recreate the magic...


ahh, forgot that you started with a binned chip.

FWIW, I had a stable system - ran for about 45 days under pretty heavy average load during the week at 4.4/1.325v (adaptive) I moved that system to an area (different state) that had a higher ambient temp and like you, could not re-create the magic until I bumped core voltage - ultimately to adaptive 1.35v to pass everything I could throw at it, including some beyond what I typically do.

Moved it back and forth 2x now and this scenario A/B checks reliably. Very temp sensitive...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Take a look at Jpmboy's suggestions to me on post#9961 if your motherboard has those settings. Also I have read a few times that vccsa voltage can actually get unstable if it's too much, I'm currently running mine at .95v. I'm at 1.26v core @4.4GHz, 3.5GHz cache @ 1.3v 3.2GHz memory @1.35v.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510001/asus-rampage-v-extreme-owners-thread/9900_100#post_25427608


My ram won't seem to allow me to drop SA like that... I'd love to... but 8x16G dimms is hungry for the current and thus voltage it seems...


----------



## Fidelity21

I agree that auto voltages for VCCIO and VCCSA are very high but in my limited experience it doesn't hurt anything for the short period of time required to configure everything else. So far, I've learned to leave memory timings alone at values assigned by XMP. I then tune the CPU with voltages I'm comfortable with. For me, I never wanted to venture north of 1.325v because my custom water cooled loop had trouble pulling heat away fast enough. So I went to 4.3ghz with 1.310v and left it at that. I then set cache voltage to 1.15v and it seemed stable up to 36x so I left that alone as I'm happy with that value. Once I was able to maintain stability, I started dropping VCCIO and VCCSA until I found their low point. Seems interesting to me that you can achieve much lower VCCIO and VCCSA voltages while needing a higher CPU voltage but I guess that's the beauty of this hobby as no two chips are alike.









If you have most of those settings on auto, it wouldn't hurt to raise voltage on the CPU until you find stability. That way, you can exclude other variables and just focus on what voltage is needed for your desired frequency level. Once you have that value, you can decide if the voltage required is worth the frequency gain as compared to the next level down...4.3ghz in your case.

Like others above have posted, increasing the voltage slightly may provide useful information.

CEKIM: I am having the same issue you are regarding those voltages being much higher than 0.95v. VCCIO and VCCSA have to be north of 1.100v for me and I'm only running 4x8gb 3200mhz cas 14 ripjaw 5


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> If you have most of those settings on auto, it wouldn't hurt to raise voltage on the CPU until you find stability. That way, you can exclude other variables and just focus on what voltage is needed for your desired frequency level. Once you have that value, you can decide if the voltage required is worth the frequency gain as compared to the next level down...4.3ghz in your case.
> 
> Like others above have posted, increasing the voltage slightly may provide useful information.


One thing I'm definitely confident in is my memory settings/timings. I have everything stable on 4.3 no problem(and tbh I've never really tried to find the lowest voltage my cpu can run 4.3 at). I double checked my memory settings at 4.3 with an hour of GSAT too. I started my attempts at 4.4 with the SA voltage that gave me stable memory settings at 4.3 as I've read in a few different places SA voltage mainly effects memory stability.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> ahh, forgot that you started with a binned chip.
> 
> FWIW, I had a stable system - ran for about 45 days under pretty heavy average load during the week at 4.4/1.325v (adaptive) I moved that system to an area (different state) that had a higher ambient temp and like you, could not re-create the magic until I bumped core voltage - ultimately to adaptive 1.35v to pass everything I could throw at it, including some beyond what I typically do.
> 
> Moved it back and forth 2x now and this scenario A/B checks reliably. Very temp sensitive...


Curious that an increase in ambient temperature would cause you to need to increase voltage, which should in turn also increase temperature... Interesting.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Take a look at Jpmboy's suggestions to me on post#9961 if your motherboard has those settings. Also I have read a few times that vccsa voltage can actually get unstable if it's too much, I'm currently running mine at .95v. I'm at 1.26v core @4.4GHz, 3.5GHz cache @ 1.3v 3.2GHz memory @1.35v.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510001/asus-rampage-v-extreme-owners-thread/9900_100#post_25427608


Thanks, this is very helpful as I was wondering what all these should be set at. Ill try this out and if it along with my SA tweaking is unsuccessful I'm going to bite the bullet and bump my core voltage and see what happens...


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I agree that auto voltages for VCCIO and VCCSA are very high but in my limited experience it doesn't hurt anything for the short period of time required to configure everything else. So far, I've learned to leave memory timings alone at values assigned by XMP. I then tune the CPU with voltages I'm comfortable with. For me, I never wanted to venture north of 1.325v because my custom water cooled loop had trouble pulling heat away fast enough. So I went to 4.3ghz with 1.310v and left it at that. I then set cache voltage to 1.15v and it seemed stable up to 36x so I left that alone as I'm happy with that value. Once I was able to maintain stability, I started dropping VCCIO and VCCSA until I found their low point. Seems interesting to me that you can achieve much lower VCCIO and VCCSA voltages while needing a higher CPU voltage but I guess that's the beauty of this hobby as no two chips are alike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have most of those settings on auto, it wouldn't hurt to raise voltage on the CPU until you find stability. That way, you can exclude other variables and just focus on what voltage is needed for your desired frequency level. Once you have that value, you can decide if the voltage required is worth the frequency gain as compared to the next level down...4.3ghz in your case.
> 
> Like others above have posted, increasing the voltage slightly may provide useful information.
> 
> CEKIM: I am having the same issue you are regarding those voltages being much higher than 0.95v. VCCIO and VCCSA have to be north of 1.100v for me and I'm only running 4x8gb 3200mhz cas 14 ripjaw 5


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> My ram won't seem to allow me to drop SA like that... I'd love to... but 8x16G dimms is hungry for the current and thus voltage it seems...


what boards are you guys using?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> what boards are you guys using?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> what boards are you guys using?


RVE here


----------



## Fidelity21

Asus Deluxe X99 II here


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> RVE here


I would try the ram at 125%
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> RVE here


I would try these suggestion settings from Jpmboy. You might be able to drop some of that vccsa. Not sure if those exact settings exist on the original RVE, there were for R5E10.

suggestions:
min cache to Auto
TPU? this should be "keep Current"
SYSTEM AGENT - WAY TOO HIGH. set this offset to yield 0.95-1.1V if this fails, go as high as 1.2V
VCCIO CPU to 1.08V
Load LIne to 5
VRM SS - disable
CPU power pahse - OPT
Dram Current 120-14-%

Also:

Vrm fault to Disabled
VRM to High performance.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I would try the ram at 125%
> I would try these suggestion settings from Jpmboy. You might be able to drop some of that vccsa. Not sure if those exact settings exist on the original RVE, there were for R5E10.
> 
> suggestions:
> min cache to Auto
> TPU? this should be "keep Current"
> SYSTEM AGENT - WAY TOO HIGH. set this offset to yield 0.95-1.1V if this fails, go as high as 1.2V
> VCCIO CPU to 1.08V
> Load LIne to 5
> VRM SS - disable
> CPU power pahse - OPT
> Dram Current 120-14-%
> 
> Also:
> 
> Vrm fault to Disabled
> VRM to High performance.


I'm at SA=1.2 BTW


----------



## vibraslap

All these settings exist for the Deluxe II as well FYI, testing now.

BTW what does "Dram Current 120-14-%" mean? I set mine to 120%, but whats that 14 mean? or is that a typo of 120-140%?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I'm at SA=1.2 BTW


Right, that might be adding to the instability but I'm not sure.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> All these settings exist for the Deluxe II as well FYI, testing now.
> 
> BTW what does "Dram Current 120-14-%" mean? I set mine to 120%, but whats that 14 mean? or is that a typo of 120-140%?


I don't remember seeing that when I set mine, maybe typo just for the deluxe II? I wouldn't set it to 140% in fear of being able to cook eggs on top of my memory.

Edit: I guess you're referring to the post, yes that's a typo


----------



## vibraslap

I was taking that text right from JPMBoys post, guessing it was just a typo on his part.

Also, adjusting all those settings and leaving SA where it was(+0.042) seems to be doing the trick, still running realbench for testing, but it hasn't crashed yet, which gives me hope as it was crashing in less than 5 min before.

Edit: Lol almost as soon as I posted this it crashed. Gonna bump SA.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Right, that might be adding to the instability but I'm not sure.


I spent most of my time there between 1.10 and 1.2, I didn't try < 1.0 though.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> All these settings exist for the Deluxe II as well FYI, testing now.
> 
> BTW what does "Dram Current 120-14-%" mean? I set mine to 120%, but whats that 14 mean? or is that a typo of 120-140%?


That's a typo, and all this setting does is set the current trip threshold for the VRM that supplies DRAM voltage. Think of it as a fuse (resettable). In most cases, a setting of Auto should suffice.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> That's a typo, and all this setting does is set the current trip threshold for the VRM that supplies DRAM voltage. Think of it as a fuse (resettable). In most cases, a setting of Auto should suffice.


Raja, is there a way to find out if we're tripping this fuse or what symptom would we have?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I was taking that text right from JPMBoys post, guessing it was just a typo on his part.
> 
> Also, adjusting all those settings and leaving SA where it was(+0.042) seems to be doing the trick, still running realbench for testing, but it hasn't crashed yet, which gives me hope as it was crashing in less than 5 min before.
> 
> Edit: Lol almost as soon as I posted this it crashed. Gonna bump SA.


what happens when you have it set to .95-.98?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> what happens when you have it set to .95-.98?


He has a BW-E whereas you have a HW-E cpu, totally different animal.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> He has a BW-E whereas you have a HW-E cpu, totally different animal.


I have a 6950x and 6850k both on R5E10 motherboards. Same animal I think.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I have a 6950x and 6850k both on R5E10 motherboards. Same animal I think.


Then you need to update your systems


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> All these settings exist for the Deluxe II as well FYI, testing now.
> 
> BTW what does "Dram Current 120-14-%" mean? I set mine to 120%, but whats that 14 mean? or is that a typo of 120-140%?


typo. 140%

this post might be helpful: http://www.overclock.net/t/1601679/broadwell-e-thread/2400_20#post_25442562
After reading the Broadwell OC "primers".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> That's a typo, and all this setting does is set the current trip threshold for the VRM that supplies DRAM voltage. Think of it as a fuse (resettable). In most cases, a setting of Auto should suffice.


^^ This. It's unlikely any of use are going to exceed the Auto setting for Dram current.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Raja, is there a way to find out if we're tripping this fuse or what symptom would we have?


You're not. Dram Phase at optimized?

and as note to all BWE owners - I've been running the ATCT for weeks, thru two bioses - works very well to allow for a high light-load clock and temperature-triggered down clock and down volt.


----------



## djgar

Pardon my ignorance - what is ATCT?


----------



## Silent Scone

ASUS Thermal Control Tool.

Or as I'm feeling creative, A total **** tease.


----------



## djgar




----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> ASUS Thermal Control Tool.
> 
> Or as I'm feeling creative, A total **** tease.


that's definitely one of your better **** posts.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Then you need to update your systems


I know it's way outdated, I updated most of the main rig







OMG clearly spent over 10k on the main rig only sigh. This all started because the power supply on my i2500 cpu simple computer was making noise and wanted to replace it so I started googling stuff and ran into this website with a vast amount of information. Sometimes too much information hurts the wallet.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> As the Intel driver/software has nothing to do with the bolded parts of your statement above it is obvious you have no clue. You are not helping anyone when you respond to a question with made up nonsense or info based on what you think may be correct instead of the actual facts. If this makes me an ass for calling out stupid sh** than so be it.


Enough Praz... seriously. You aren't as intelligent as you think you are.

Raja JUST said the driver allows you to lock cores without having to set affinity.

I said the cores Turbo without any software. I said NOTHING about affinity. The guy who asked the question asked if the cores will Turbo properly without the software. They will.

I'm not getting into a battle of semantics with you....

You're an ass for the way you responded, trying to belittle me. You failed.


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Just pretend you didn't hear it from me - perhaps a perforated tinfoil hat will help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The driver is of use for locking apps to the fav core and also for prioritizing apps to given cores. Without it, you'd have to lock apps by using affinity. If all cores are clocked to the same freq then I wouldn't bother with the driver. If using "by specific core" clocking - where stronger cores are capable of running at higher frequencies than others - the driver is worthwhile. For overclocking, this feature is designed to be used in tandem with per core voltage control (which is possible with BW-E).


Right, I have found out that there is a little bit of benefit from using "by specific core" at least in synthetic benchmark as of now.

What I have have been doing is find the highest ALL core clockable. Once I know that value, I then increase the "good/favorite" core higher.

My OC methodology is different from your guide when it comes to the BW-E


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Right, I have found out that there is a little bit of benefit from using "by specific core" at least in synthetic benchmark as of now.
> 
> What I have have been doing is find the highest ALL core clockable. Once I know that value, I then increase the "good/favorite" core higher.
> 
> My OC methodology is different from your guide when it comes to the BW-E


and how are you testing the stability of the light load, single core frequency?


----------



## mbze430

AIDA64 without the FPU as well as manually setting it to the favorite core within AIDA and using the Intel software to send it to my favorite core

My methodology is completely different from Raj's. I have found out that using By Specific Core, the Adaptive voltage setting works as follows.

CPU Voltage Offset controls the voltage when there isnt AVX (light load).
Additional Turbo CPU Core Voltage controls voltage when it detects AVX (heavy/high load).

I find the highest I can go at "light load" Multiplier and vcore, then find my highest stable "high load" by adding additional voltage to the Turbo Core Setting. Usually it exceed TDP, that is when I use the AVX Offset to lower the multiplier to lower temp.

After all that then I increase the "favorite core" to higher multiplier and vcore.

I chose this method because I don't care about AVX load. I just want the highest frequency available to me. Essentially it's pretty much the same effect that Raj's blog by using the ASUS temp software to lower the multiplier when temp hits its target.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> AIDA64 without the FPU as well as manually setting it to the favorite core within AIDA and using the Intel software to send it to my favorite core
> 
> My methodology is completely different from Raj's. I have found out that using By Specific Core, the Adaptive voltage setting works as follows.
> 
> *CPU Voltage Offset controls the voltage when there isnt AVX (light load).*
> Additional Turbo CPU Core Voltage controls voltage when it detects AVX (heavy/high load).
> 
> I find the highest I can go at "light load" Multiplier and vcore, then find my highest stable "high load" by adding additional voltage to the Turbo Core Setting. Usually it exceed TDP, that is when I use the AVX Offset to lower the multiplier to lower temp.
> 
> After all that then I increase the "favorite core" to higher multiplier and vcore.
> 
> I chose this method because I don't care about AVX load. I just want the highest frequency available to me. Essentially it's pretty much the same effect that Raj's blog by using the ASUS temp software to lower the multiplier when temp hits its target.


I'm not quite sure it's working the way you think... if the light load is a turbo multiplier, then the turbo voltage is applied to the single core. I also run "by specific core" but with straight adaptive (and the ATCT except for bench clocks)
besides... AID64 w/o FPU is still an AVX load.


----------



## mbze430

I just doubled checked. when I run AIDA64 w/o FPU and moved my CPU Voltage setting subtracted .30mv from my initial .110, HWINFO64 reports a subtracted .30mv difference.

Then when I use Prime95 it added the +.05mv, which is what I have in my Turbo CPU Voltage setting. (although it crashed in 10mins)


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I just doubled checked. when I run AIDA64 w/o FPU and moved my CPU Voltage setting subtracted .30mv from my initial .110, HWINFO64 reports a subtracted .30mv difference.
> 
> Then when I use Prime95 it added the +.05mv, which is what I have in my Turbo CPU Voltage setting. (although it crashed in 10mins)


Examples of how much voltage is applied in various scenarios (Turbo voltage set to 1.30V):





The issue with the Adaptive portion of the stack is it becomes active whenever the cores enter Turbo state and are faced with load, so gets applied to the AVX and non-AVX ratios where both are Turbo ratios. There is a slight 30mv disparity with high current AVX loads, but this isn't sufficient to prevent throttling under heavy AVX loads.If we use an offset to try and reduce the VID for the AVX ratio, then that offset also gets applied to the light load ratio, which prevents us from fine tuning the voltages. And then there's the caveats of using large offsets and what that does when the CPU comes out of idle.

The Additional Turbo Voltage setting is supposed to be used to define the max VID and it's supposed to be entered as whole value. Ideally, we need two distinct values, one for light loads, and one for the AVX ratio.

That's why we developed the Thermal Control Tool. The current control mechanism offered by Intel doesn't allow the fine tuning some of us desire. Of course, you don't have to use it, and it is in no way necessary to do so. The article was written for people that care about using the "correct" level of voltage for each scenario.

HTH


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ Nice!


----------



## djgar

^^^ Indeed very nice explanation!


----------



## kingofsorrow

Nice to see Raja rocking this business and shedding the rays of light onto the dim domain of motherboard hardware and central processor unit complications


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> The Additional Turbo Voltage setting is supposed to be used to define the max VID and it's supposed to be entered as whole value. Ideally, we need two distinct values, one for light loads, and one for the AVX ratio.
> 
> HTH


Can you elaborate on this? entered as a whole value, meaning? I always thought that the Additional Turbo Voltage Value was whatever the VID Value + Offset Value + Turbo Voltage

so if VID is 1.23 and the Offset is +.01 and Turbo Voltage +.05, you get a max Vcore usage of 1.29v.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Can you elaborate on this? entered as a whole value, meaning? I always thought that the Additional Turbo Voltage Value was whatever the VID Value + Offset Value + Turbo Voltage
> 
> so if VID is 1.23 and the Offset is +.01 and Turbo Voltage +.05, you get a max Vcore usage of 1.29v.


Hello

0.05V is not valid for the additional turbo field. The value entered needs to be the actual voltage value desired when at max multiplier.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> 0.05V is not valid for the additional turbo field. The value entered needs to be the actual voltage value desired when at max multiplier.


What he said.


----------



## babycharm00

Hey everyone,
I've been reading the thread every since I got my 6850k and I've been having the same bsod screen when overclocking or rending in 4k. But one solution that actually worked for me is updating the Windows 10 to the Anniversary edition update. That smoothed out every thing from no more bsod to overclocking to no more random reboots.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> What he said.


The wording needs to be changed because I was confused about that at first too. I thought I was the only one until now and I don't usually ride the short bus. That should be changed to "Actual Max Turbo Voltage" or something like that. Additional is misleading and sounds like you would add it as opposed to the max voltage that you will get when setting it. It needs to be clear that it's not like adaptive or offset. The way it sounds right now is you have VID+Turbo Voltage Setting+A little more incase you need it while traversing through the different multipliers.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Can you elaborate on this? entered as a whole value, meaning? I always thought that the Additional Turbo Voltage Value was whatever the VID Value + Offset Value + Turbo Voltage
> 
> so if VID is 1.23 and the Offset is +.01 and Turbo Voltage +.05, you get a max Vcore usage of 1.29v.


I believe you're mistaken in what cpu vid is. To my knowledge it's the voltage the cpu is requesting, what it gets is the vcore, and in adaptive it's represented by offset + turbo. If offset is auto, then at full turbo the offset is 0 and vcore should be the turbo entry. I may be wrong ...


----------



## babycharm00

This screenshot is after windows 10 update stable at 4.4ghz, with Asus mb doing the auto tune on voltage,but before I could only do 4.3ghz and still reboot sometimes. I know my temps are high,im trying to find a solution for that right now.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> The wording needs to be changed because I was confused about that at first too. I thought I was the only one until now and I don't usually ride the short bus. That should be changed to "Actual Max Turbo Voltage" or something like that. Additional is misleading and sounds like you would add it as opposed to the max voltage that you will get when setting it. It needs to be clear that it's not like adaptive or offset. The way it sounds right now is you have VID+Turbo Voltage Setting+A little more incase you need it while traversing through the different multipliers.


I would agree if the offset didn't add to it. When I sat back and thought about it, I decided to let it be and live with it.


----------



## Silent Scone




----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babycharm00*
> 
> 
> This screenshot is after windows 10 update stable at 4.4ghz, with Asus mb doing the auto tune on voltage,but before I could only do 4.3ghz and still reboot sometimes. I know my temps are high,im trying to find a solution for that right now.


WHAT are you doing?
1.618v?

Enjoy your degraded 6850k....


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> I would agree if the offset didn't add to it. When I sat back and thought about it, I decided to let it be and live with it.


you have the power to change it, you know there is confusion there







it could be worded better, maybe in the description?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> you have the power to change it, you know there is confusion there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it could be worded better, maybe in the description?


As we've just witnessed, the confusion comes mainly from not understanding what the field does in the first place. In my opinion, if the wording were to change then it wouldn't make matters any better.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> you have the power to change it, you know there is confusion there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it could be worded better, maybe in the description?


Bios does say.. Total Adaptive Vcore...



But yeah, "Additional" could create some confusion I guess.


----------



## babycharm00

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> WHAT are you doing?
> 1.618v?
> 
> Enjoy your degraded 6850k....


I like said in the post, thats the mb doing the tuning, obviously that's not final tune.ill bring it down to 1.3 -1.4.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babycharm00*
> 
> I like said in the post, thats the mb doing the tuning, obviously that's not final tune.ill bring it down to 1.3 -1.4.


Don't even let mobos do the tuning for you... always, always manually overclock.


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> The wording needs to be changed because I was confused about that at first too. I thought I was the only one until now and I don't usually ride the short bus. That should be changed to "Actual Max Turbo Voltage" or something like that. Additional is misleading and sounds like you would add it as opposed to the max voltage that you will get when setting it. It needs to be clear that it's not like adaptive or offset. The way it sounds right now is you have VID+Turbo Voltage Setting+A little more incase you need it while traversing through the different multipliers.


I agree, from the wording, it sounds like an "addition" voltage for Turbo load. If It was worded "Actual" then there is no question


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Don't even let mobos do the tuning for you... always, always manually overclock.


I actually let the motherboard overclock for me initially to get a possible max oc but I limit the cpu core voltage to be safe.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babycharm00*
> 
> I like said in the post, thats the mb doing the tuning, obviously that's not final tune.ill bring it down to 1.3 -1.4.


That's getting into dangerous LN2 neighborhood levels, I would drop that oc/voltage quickly unless you have PTPP


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babycharm00*
> 
> 
> This screenshot is after windows 10 update stable at 4.4ghz, with Asus mb doing the auto tune on voltage,but before I could only do 4.3ghz and still reboot sometimes. I know my temps are high,im trying to find a solution for that right now.


Yeah...I dunno what could possibly cause high temps.

Hint: It's the 1.6v......


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Yeah...I dunno what could possibly cause high temps.
> 
> Hint: It's the 1.6v......


I'd be embarrassed too.


----------



## vibraslap

Man, forget his voltage, just seeing that many items in the taskbar causes me physical pain.


----------



## JLMS2010

Curious as to what voltages you all are running for 24/7 overclocks?


----------



## babycharm00

Really I would of never guessed,geee thanks


----------



## babycharm00

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I'd be embarrassed too.


Embarrassed for what? This is my first time on a Asus mb, usually I'm on a EVGA Classfied,so I let asus do its thing, then fine tune from there. Lots of ppl do it .


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> Curious as to what voltages you all are running for 24/7 overclocks?


I seem to be good at the sweet spot of 1.328V @ 4.4 on a 6950X.

Otherwise for 4.3 I need to back down to my chips lowest ViD which is 1.287, but since BWE offers per core vcore overclocking, I was stable at 1.25V ( only a few votes are locked at 1.287 )


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babycharm00*
> 
> Really I would of never guessed,geee thanks


I mean, to be fair, you just did the OCN equivalent of walking into an emergency room with an arrow through your head, complaining of an ear ache, and then getting sarcastic when the doctors tell you that you may have massive brain damage.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> I seem to be good at the sweet spot of 1.328V @ 4.4 on a 6950X.
> 
> Otherwise for 4.3 I need to back down to my chips lowest ViD which is 1.287, but since BWE offers per core vcore overclocking, I was stable at 1.25V ( only a few votes are locked at 1.287 )


FYI from what I've read here this seems to be an exceptionally good chip, and these voltages/clock speeds are not the norm across broadwell-e.

Rajas broadwell-e guide is a good read for those staring out and the first page has a section on voltage/core speed expectations. Check that out

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I mean, you just did the OCN equivalent of walking into an emergency room with an arrow through your head, complaining of an ear ache, and then getting sarcastic when the doctors tell you that you may have massive brain damage.


it his defense that's why we have these forums to help each other out. sometimes people miss the obvious for no apparent reason, it happens to all of us weather we openly admit it or not.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> FYI from what I've read here this seems to be an exceptionally good chip, and these voltages/clock speeds are not the norm across broadwell-e.
> 
> Rajas broadwell-e guide is a good read for those staring out and the first page has a section on voltage/core speed expectations. Check that out
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


Yeah.. It would appear so, then again I always manage to find sweet spots on my CPUs where it takes about 5-10mv less than it otherwise would.

I'm just disappointed about the minimum VID for turbo, since on occasion I would trade the 100mhz deficit for much lower voltage.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> Curious as to what voltages you all are running for 24/7 overclocks?


I'm using 1.260v @4.4GHz 6950x 1.3v cache @3.5GHz


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> it his defense that's why we have these forums to help each other out. sometimes people miss the obvious for no apparent reason, it happens to all of us weather we openly admit it or not.


Very true. I think one of the reasons this site is so noob-unfriendly is the large volume of information seems inaccessible due to traditional forum structure. No one wants to go back and read nearly 2500 posts before posting, even though reading even a fraction of that would help most new users immensely. Not to mention the specific information or topic you are looking for might be spread across one of a half a dozen mega threads due to the topic overlap between many of them. (Boadwell-e thread/x99 support thread/24-7 memory stability thread/various mb specific threads)

The solution? Simple, we skip forums entirely and evolve into a collective consciousness hive-mind where we all have instantaneous subconscious access to Raja's Supreme Knowledge. Until then we'll just have to deal with noobs the old fashioned way...

One at a time.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Very true. I think one of the reasons this site is so noob-unfriendly is the large volume of information seems inaccessible due to traditional forum structure. No one wants to go back and read nearly 2500 posts before posting, even though reading even a fraction of that would help most new users immensely. Not to mention the specific information or topic you are looking for might be spread across one of a half a dozen mega threads due to the topic overlap between many of them. (Boadwell-e thread/x99 support thread/24-7 memory stability thread/various mb specific threads)
> 
> The solution? Simple, we skip forums entirely and evolve into a collective consciousness hive-mind where we all have instantaneous subconscious access to Raja's Supreme Knowledge. Until then we'll just have to deal with noobs the old fashioned way...
> 
> One at a time.


Raja is good but there is a ton on here that know their stuff, to name a few Jpmboy, Scone, Praz, B Negative, and so on.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> Curious as to what voltages you all are running for 24/7 overclocks?


1.385 turbo adaptive for my 6900K @ 4585GHz ...


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> 1.385 turbo adaptive for my 6900K @ 4585GHz ...


1.37V for 4.3GHz on the 6900K build I did last week. You're sitting on pure gold!


----------



## JLMS2010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm using 1.260v @4.4GHz 6950x 1.3v cache @3.5GHz


Sounds like a good chip! Man I guess I need to get rid of this 6800k and get with the cool kids (6950x). Lol


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> Sounds like a good chip! Man I guess I need to get rid of this 6800k and get with the cool kids (6950x). Lol


if I didn't convert/render video all the time I would definitely go with 6850x instead, much cheaper and good on games!


----------



## JLMS2010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> if I didn't convert/render video all the time I would definitely go with 6850x instead, much cheaper and good on games!


LOL yeah. I only run 1 GPU and don't need 8 or 10 cores for what I do, so it was kind of a none brainer for me.


----------



## vibraslap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Raja is good but there is a ton on here that know their stuff, to name a few Jpmboy, Scone, Praz, B Negative, and so on.


Of course! I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Just using hyperbole to try and make a point, however silly it was.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> LOL yeah. I only run 1 GPU and don't need 8 or 10 cores for what I do, so it was kind of a none brainer for me.


I'm hoping for skylake-e if there is going to be such a thing or cannon lake-e. Even with the 6950x it's taking me 45minutes to handbrake each one of my videos. 16 cores @5GHz would be nice


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm hoping for skylake-e if there is going to be such a thing or cannon lake-e. Even with the 6950x it's taking me 45minutes to handbrake each one of my videos. 16 cores @5GHz would be nice


http://ark.intel.com/products/93792/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8880-v4-55M-Cache-2_20-GHz

will run in your R5E-10.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> 1.37V for 4.3GHz on the 6900K build I did last week. You're sitting on pure gold!


Once in a Blue Moon Fate smiles








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JLMS2010*
> 
> Sounds like a good chip! Man I guess I need to get rid of this 6800k and get with the cool kids (6950x). Lol


Cool and rich (or really broke)









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm hoping for skylake-e if there is going to be such a thing or cannon lake-e. Even with the 6950x it's taking me 45minutes to handbrake each one of my videos. 16 cores @5GHz would be nice


Time to check out that 22 core Xeon


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/93792/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8880-v4-55M-Cache-2_20-GHz
> 
> will run in your R5E-10.


Great minds think alike!


----------



## JLMS2010

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Once in a Blue Moon Fate smiles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool and rich (or really broke)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time to check out that 22 core Xeon


LOL


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Great minds think alike!


I wouldn't want to degrade your standing with that statement.









day driver clocks:
Per core 9x44/1x45. ATCT 65C -> [email protected]


----------



## JLMS2010

Any of you using the MSI X99a Gaming Pro Carbon? Just put picked one up to give it a whirl. Nice board so far.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/93792/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8880-v4-55M-Cache-2_20-GHz
> 
> will run in your R5E-10.


The low clock speeds might kill my gaming so had to find a happy medium. I'm thinking about upgrading my work computer I might just go Xeon
Edit: yipes! $6,700 plus tax for that CPU. I'll wait the 45minues one video at a time...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I wouldn't want to degrade your standing with that statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In reality, based on what you contribute vs. what I do, it's definitely presumptuous on my part, but was counting on you being a gentleman


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> it his defense that's why we have these forums to help each other out. sometimes people miss the obvious for no apparent reason, it happens to all of us weather we openly admit it or not.


I overvolted a Celeron 700 and killed it when I was 16... that'd be about the only excuse IMO.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I overvolted a Celeron 700 and killed it when I was 16... that'd be about the only excuse IMO.


The humanity!!!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> The low clock speeds might kill my gaming so had to find a happy medium. I'm thinking about upgrading my work computer I might just go Xeon
> Edit: yipes! $6,700 plus tax for that CPU. I'll wait the 45minues one video at a time...


Nope...

For reasons that are too long, boring, confusing and personal to go into, I've been gaming on a dual 2690v4 with 2 1080s. It games just fine. I bet it would even play crysis...


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Nope...
> 
> For reasons that are too long, boring, confusing and personal to go into, I've been gaming on a dual 2690v4 with 2 1080s. It games just fine. I bet it would even play crysis...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


how is it on rendering/converting high res videos?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> how is it on rendering/converting high res videos?


I don't use it for that, but I did see a ~420,000 score in realbench H.264 if that helps answer your question. I think I've seen the 6950x doing 320K if memory serves, but realbench shows total cpu utilization in the 40-60% range while running that benchmark, so clearly there is more possible with this setup.

Those benchmarks really don't do it justice, but the software has to bring its A-game to make use of this many cores. If they can, it can all-core turbo to 3.2Ghz and small numbers of cores will do 3.5GHz.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> how is it on rendering/converting high res videos?


the 22 core cpu is ridiculous fast at compression, rendering, or any app that can use all *44* threads.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the 22 core cpu is ridiculous fast at compression, rendering, or any app that can use all *44* threads.


Indeed, not surprisingly, the 14,16,20,22 core chips scale pretty linearly on Cinebench for example.

With literally zero optimization/tweaking time in windows, the 2x2690v4 shows ~4000 cinebench

RealBench is not kind to this system - even my 5960x beats it. Overall of 205K owing largely to a ~140-150K image editing score that shows about 6-10% CPU utilzation...

That's the funny part about running benchmarks on this thing, its basically idle meaning the benchmark just doesn't even try to use it, but then that is true of many user scenarios as well.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the 22 core cpu is ridiculous fast at compression, rendering, or any app that can use all *44* threads.


22 threads. A properly written application doesn't have delays and threads use RAM to its fullest. Doubling number of threads will increase cache pollution and slow things down by needs of synchronization.


----------



## Zero-Cold

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the 22 core cpu is ridiculous fast at compression, rendering, or any app that can use all *44* threads.


Actually as far as I know compression doesn't benefit that much from multi-threading. It heavily depends on memory and that's why you get insanely good results with Quad-channel RAM. But yeah, they are monsters when it comes to rendering


----------



## Raghar

That depends on type of compression. PPM with 3GB work space must search through that, but when data keeps themselves into just few nodes, they tend to be in cache. LZW on the other hand might go quite far. And then there are full image transformations which requires to have images in RAM and being able to access upper image.
o

xx
xx

Basically each x needs information from o. With 250 MB image 1/4 is still too large to fit into the L3 cache.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> 22 threads. A properly written application doesn't have delays and threads use RAM to its fullest. Doubling number of threads will increase cache pollution and slow things down by needs of synchronization.


and of course in fitting with the "depends" theme here, that would depend on what you are doing... if all you are doing is transforming and searching information you already have, then yes, if new data is coming in, then the ability to stall one or more threads on slow or yet to arrive data, then the equation changes.

It really has gotten very difficult as a consumer to determine which processor will be best for your application if someone has not already run your exact scenario for you. Obviously there are some rules of thumb and Intel's pricing, clock and TDP scheme provide a lot of clues and decision makers for you, but "its complicated"...

With each generation, the "rules" by which clocks/voltages are controlled get more complex and flexible. I expect that to continue which will help the CPU better fit to the application. Right now the fit is fairly crude and lumpy.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> 22 threads. A properly written application doesn't have delays and threads use RAM to its fullest. Doubling number of threads will increase cache pollution and slow things down by needs of synchronization.


44 threads. 22 cores. And I've seen them running QM calcs and/or molecular dynamics. Depends on what apps you use and the OS I guess. Several folks here lnow more about this than I.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero-Cold*
> 
> Actually as far as I know compression doesn't benefit that much from multi-threading. It heavily depends on memory and that's why you get insanely good results with Quad-channel RAM. But yeah, they are monsters when it comes to rendering


Check HWBOT compression benchmarks like x265. or FP marks like y-cruncher. Yeah, I know they are benchmarks... but that is how one compares this stuff on a level playing field.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Nope...
> 
> For reasons that are too long, boring, confusing and personal to go into, I've been gaming on a dual 2690v4 with 2 1080s. It games just fine. I bet it would even play crysis...


Ouch. OEM/Retail or ES? Those must have cost a pretty penny haha.

Work just picked up a couple E5-2676 V3 ( yup, the rare Amazon chips, 12 cores @ 2.5ghz base, and 2.7 all core turbo







), and E5-2683 V3's, all OEM non ES, should fly in the cluster I'm building out.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Ouch. OEM/Retail or ES? Those must have cost a pretty penny haha.
> 
> Work just picked up a couple E5-2676 V3 ( yup, the rare Amazon chips, 12 cores @ 2.5ghz base, and 2.7 all core turbo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), and E5-2683 V3's, all OEM non ES, should fly in the cluster I'm building out.


Retail. They aren't free, that's for sure, but they'll pay for themselves soon enough.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Retail. They aren't free, that's for sure, but they'll pay for themselves soon enough.


Good stuff. Have you ran VMmark on it by any chance?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Good stuff. Have you ran VMmark on it by any chance?


I haven't, looks like its a little involved...


----------



## Zero-Cold

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Check HWBOT compression benchmarks like x265. or FP marks like y-cruncher. Yeah, I know they are benchmarks... but that is how one compares this stuff on a level playing field.


Ah, you meant video compression. I though you talk about using software like ZIP or Winrar.







That's where I meant that cores don't scale that well and it mainly depends on memory









I agree, video encoding scales pretty well.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero-Cold*
> 
> Ah, you meant video compression. I though you talk about using software like ZIP or Winrar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where I meant that cores don't scale that well and it mainly depends on memory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, video encoding scales pretty well.


7-zip and WinRAR scale pretty well with more cores, even 22+.


----------



## Zero-Cold

Guys,
2 days ago I swapped my Asrock X99 Extreme 4 board for an Asus X99-A II. The Asrock was lacking OC socket, looked quite cheap and required a lot of Vcore just to reach 4GHz in AVX Linpack. That's why I bought the Asus and so far it seems that it really needs less Vcore, but my temperatures are pretty surprising.

Here's the Asrock X99 Extreme 4 (no OC socket) at 1.236v:
62-60-73-66-72-67

And here's the Asus X99-A II at just 1.210v:
68-63-81-69-80-70

Why are my Asus temperatures higher? I'm using Noctua NH-D15 with 2 Noctua fans at 1600 rpm and I thought at first that I may have messed up with the cooler. But I disassembled the PC, removed the cooler, cleaned the old thermal compound and applied a brand new MX-4. Then I re-installed the heat-sink and I'm 100% sure that it fits perfectly. Installing CPU coolers is nothing new for me, I've done that 50 times already, but the temperatures just don't seem to be normal. Is there something in the UEFI that might be set to "Auto" and applying too much voltage?

Here's my UEFI setup:
01 - http://i.imgur.com/o8qz0WT.png
02 - http://i.imgur.com/2zSQkFb.png
03 - http://i.imgur.com/kNLzJzm.png
04 - http://i.imgur.com/RjdmWFu.png
05 - http://i.imgur.com/YLGwFXe.png
06 - http://i.imgur.com/fxVHbdT.png
07 - http://i.imgur.com/7gjtHSF.png
08 - http://i.imgur.com/HAjuZ4c.png
09 - http://i.imgur.com/mb2og5X.png
10 - http://i.imgur.com/KimuBzo.png

Is there something I can set to reduce the temperatures? With the Asrock board the CPU stays nearly 8 degrees cooler despite the higher Vcore. This just doesn't make sense. Btw the GFlops on the Asrock are a bit lower, but that's just because I was watching a youtube video. That shouldn't be the reason for lower temperatures, though...


----------



## StullenAndi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero-Cold*
> 
> ...Is there something I can set to reduce the temperatures? ...


Ignore the temperatures, the cpu will have the same temp regardless what software is showing you.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Ignore the temperatures, the cpu will have the same temp regardless what software is showing you.


The eff?

Zero... what you should ignore is this man's advice... only that.

Is your cache being over clocked? No real reason for your temps. Set everything on auto to manual voltages. See what happens.


----------



## Zero-Cold

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> The eff?
> 
> Zero... what you should ignore is this man's advice... only that.
> 
> Is your cache being over clocked? No real reason for your temps. Set everything on auto to manual voltages. See what happens.


No, my cache is stock on both boards. The clocks I applied are absolutely the same. The PC is in the same room, with the same ambient temperature. The only difference is that I used slightly less VCore on the Asus. I don't know why is this happening.

I'll do what you said tomorrow and I'll post back. A guy told me that probably Asus applied insanely huge voltage somewhere where it reads "Auto", but it's really weird. I doubt there are a lot of settings that can have such great impact on load temperatures.


----------



## VinnieM

I'm still having issues with the system agent voltage. Last night I had a BSOD while playing No Man's Land and after entering the UEFI I noticed that the system agent voltage dropped again. The base voltage was always around 1.0v, but now the base voltage is like 0.93v! Earlier a cold boot resolved that problem, but now the base voltage always stays around that value. Of course, using a higher offset is not a big issue, the real problem is that the best core isn't stable anymore at 4.5GHz (and it was before). What do you guys think is the cause of this strange problem? I'm leaning towards a PSU issue...


----------



## StullenAndi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> The eff?
> 
> Zero... what you should ignore is this man's advice... only that.
> 
> Is your cache being over clocked? No real reason for your temps. Set everything on auto to manual voltages. See what happens.


Sure not. There is no real temperature sensor on you cpu and it even depends on the bios configuration what you software can read. So if clock and voltage is the same, then the temperature is the same.


----------



## Zero-Cold

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Sure not. There is no real temperature sensor on you cpu and it even depends on the bios configuration what you software can read. So if clock and voltage is the same, then the temperature is the same.


Problem is, one cannot be sure that actual voltages are the same. Well, you could measure them with a multimer, but I don't have one nor I'm generally good with electricity.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Sure not. There is no real temperature sensor on you cpu and it even depends on the bios configuration what you software can read. So if clock and voltage is the same, then the temperature is the same.


That is totally correct. As long as the voltage and clock are the same, it matters not whether you have fans running, use water cooling or NO2 whatever is inventing the temperatures will figure it out and make up some likely temperatures for your cores, and add some random per core per chip type variable to make the fake temps look realistic ...


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> There is no real temperature sensor on you cpu and it even depends on the bios configuration what you software can read.


There is a temp sensor on the CPU, but it only measures/reports delta to TJmax, which is how comparisons should be made, unless one is certain the same TJmax assumption is being used by the board/software.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> So if clock and voltage is the same, then the temperature is the same.


If clocks, volts, load, and cooling are identical, the same sample should be the same temperature, irrespective of board, this is true.

However differences in load-line calibration, board VRM, reserved voltages set by the OC socket, cooler mounting, and so on, could easily result in a modest difference.


----------



## sblantipodi

hi all,
is there some videos that demonstrates the gaming difference between Haswell-E, Broadwell-E and Skylake while running at the same clock speed?

I would like to see some high end GPUs running at "decent" resolution, better if in SLI.


----------



## rioja

Wrong thread, sorry


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> I was wondered that there is no HDD front 5.25 cage for 140 mm, is it true? Why it is so?


wut?


----------



## djgar

I think he has confused his threads. He's certainly confused me ...


----------



## rioja

Del


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> Del


no worries - you just would have never got an answer in this thread.


----------



## vibraslap

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10582/gskill-shows-off-trident-z-kits

I..... Dont.... Need it.....


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10582/gskill-shows-off-trident-z-kits
> 
> I..... Dont.... Need it.....


Woah.....that's awesome.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10582/gskill-shows-off-trident-z-kits
> 
> I..... Dont.... Need it.....


you just had to post that.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10582/gskill-shows-off-trident-z-kits
> 
> I..... Dont.... Need it.....


Absolutely not ... it's just marketing ... totally useless ... the colors are all wrong ...


----------



## vibraslap

Gotta spread the diseas-... er, love.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you just had to post that.


Been doin that a lot lately....I ordered a Titan today. = P


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10582/gskill-shows-off-trident-z-kits
> 
> I..... Dont.... Need it.....


Is it equal to DDR3 at CL7 at 1600?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Is it equal to DDR3 at CL7 at 1600?


Some of cheapest DDR4 you can buy will best DDR3-1600 CL7 in bandwidth and latency on platforms that can support both (meaning Skylake). DDR4-3333 CL13 or 14 is way faster.


----------



## Blameless

Stullen's wording was confusing, but the jist of that statement was accurate.

The temperature differential was most likely explainable by a difference in TJmax assumption on the part of the board or software used.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Stullen's wording was confusing, but the jist of that statement was accurate.
> 
> The temperature differential was most likely explainable by a difference in TJmax assumption on the part of the board or software used.


I'm "attacking" the fact that he said the temperatures would be the same even though Zero clearly remounted the CPU in a different board.

That would be the logical place to start. Mounting issue.

TJMAX is CPU specific no? Not board specific.

I'm quite sure of that, I'm also quite sure TJMAX does that change from board to board. Could be wrong. It's happened before.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I'm "attacking" the fact that he said the temperatures would be the same even though Zero clearly remounted the CPU in a different board.


The same CPU sample, with identical voltages, clock speeds, cooling, and load will run at very near the same temperature, regardless of board.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> That would be the logical place to start. Mounting issue.


Which was addressed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> TJMAX is CPU specific no? Not board specific.


TJmax is CPU specific, but the motherboard has to make an assumption on TJmax in order to report a temperature.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I'm quite sure of that, I'm also quite sure TJMAX does that change from board to board. Could be wrong. It's happened before.


My Gigabyte LGA-2011v3 boards assume 92C for TJmax, while my ASRock boards assume 105C. With the same reported temperature delta (what the DTS reads) this board will report temperatures 13C apart, if actual CPU temp is identical in each.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Stullen's wording was confusing, but the jist of that statement was accurate.
> 
> The temperature differential was most likely explainable by a difference in TJmax assumption on the part of the board or software used.


I think the biggest problem is that he claims there's no temp sensor, which clearly there is. Quoting page 9 of the Intel PDF,

"Temperature sensors located throughout the die are implemented as analog-to-digital converters calibrated at the factory."


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I think the biggest problem is that he claims there's no temp sensor, which clearly there is. Quoting page 9 of the Intel PDF,
> 
> "Temperature sensors located throughout the die are implemented as analog-to-digital converters calibrated at the factory."


No "real" temperature sensor. The Intel DTS doesn't report absolute temperature, but a delta relative to tjmax. Anything that is reporting an absolute temperature has to be making assumptions as to what the tjmax rating of the part is, and not everything will make the same assumption.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> No "real" temperature sensor. The Intel DTS doesn't report absolute temperature, but a delta relative to tjmax. Anything that is reporting an absolute temperature has to be making assumptions as to what the tjmax rating of the part is, and not everything will make the same assumption.


Understood, the software needs to do the proper interpretation of the readings, but the readings are being done by "real" temperature sensors that convert temperatures to voltage as clearly stated in the document. Or do you suppose it's doing analog to digital conversion of software?


----------



## PowerK

Guys,
can someone explain how Windows 10 Anniversary Update works with Broadwell-E ?
As far as I know, Windows 10 Anniversary Update has a new feature for Broadwell-E recognizing(?) the fastest core and utilize it for single threaded applications ? How does it work? Is it automatic ?
What do we need to configure in UEFI BIOS and/or Windows 10 ?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Understood, the software needs to do the proper interpretation of the readings, but the readings are being done by "real" temperature sensors that convert temperatures to voltage as clearly stated in the document. Or do you suppose it's doing analog to digital conversion of software?


I just took StullenAndi's 'real' to mean 'absolute'; he wasn't saying the sensor wasn't there or was fake, but that the information it reported wasn't an actual temperature.

I have no reason to doubt that there is a DTS with a physical ADC in each core.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I just took StullenAndi's 'real' to mean 'absolute'; he wasn't saying the sensor wasn't there or was fake, but that the information it reported wasn't an actual temperature.
> 
> I have no reason to doubt that there is a DTS with a physical ADC in each core.


When somebody twice states "there's no real temperature sensor" I take them to mean to say there's no real temperature sensor. Nothing wrong with your viewpoint when you explain it that way, but I think you're being too kind.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> When somebody twice states "there's no real temperature sensor" I take them to mean to say there's no real temperature sensor. Nothing wrong with your viewpoint when you explain it that way, but I think you're being too kind.


Real-temperature sensor vs. real temperature-sensor.

Both valid phrases; I just assumed the one that made sense.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Real-temperature sensor vs. real temperature-sensor.
> 
> Both valid phrases; I just assumed the one that made sense.


Indeed they do. Just goes to show how relative language can be! Actual temperature?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Indeed they do. Just goes to show how relative language can be! Actual temperature?


lol - "Thermal" sensor vs "Temperature" sensor.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - "Thermal" sensor vs "Temperature" sensor.


The Intel PDF does use the name "temperature sensor" ...









But, I believe we now have clarified the whole thing - there are real / actual thermal sensors a.k.a temperature sensors that make die temperature readings that need to be appropriately interpreted by the monitoring software based on the TjMax and other aspects


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> My Gigabyte LGA-2011v3 boards assume 92C for TJmax, while my ASRock boards assume 105C. With the same reported temperature delta (what the DTS reads) this board will report temperatures 13C apart, if actual CPU temp is identical in each.


If your bios is up to date, and supports a given cpu, it should read tjmax directly from the model specific register of the cpu, and hence report the same core temperature. We are talking core temperatures, though not "CPU" temperatures which can mean different things on different platforms.

Both core temp and real temp on later cpus (after nehalem) are no longer guessing at tjmax, since tjmax is softer accessible on modern cpus. Granted, as you know, the accuracy is only within 5C at tjmax, and falls off substantially at lower temps (slope error), and each sensor may be calibrated slightly different resulting in different absolutes (in addition to other errors).

But motherboards for core temps should be reporting the same temp for core temps, unless it is not reading the correct register...unless your talking about "cpu" temp, which has had varying definitions.

I know that there is some individual calibration per cpu, hence actual number may be different, few C error, but unless Broadwell e is no longer software accessible with tjmax, should see same value.


----------



## djgar

For my 6900K Aida uses an Automatic setting by default for Tjmax, which I imagine is getting it from the CPU. Maybe we can get Fiery to clarify.


----------



## Blameless

I haven't seen any info from Intel on what TJmax values are in years and I'm pretty sure it's up to board makers to guess at values for each model, or extrapolate them from official TCASE ratings.

The newest firmware available for the two boards I've used most often report wildly different TJmax with the same CPUs.

It's for this, and other reasons, I try to avoid mention of absolute temperature and use the TJmax delta whenever possible.


----------



## opt33

With an MSR editor Tj is100 decimal (after converting from hex) on my 6900k. Tj is in the same model specific register on Broadwell E,ie MSR 0x1A2.

I get same value that coretemp, HWmonitor, and Realtemp all read. So Tj is still software accessible on Broadwell E.

And Intel has repeatedly stated, that TJ is absolute temp, ie 100C for 6900k, with +/- 5C error at 100C (plus sensor error, plus calibration error, ie each one +/- a few C calibration error per part. so could easily be 10C off at tjmax, and error will increase at lower temps, and below 50C can be very inaccurate.

But yes, the only thing you know for sure is delta temp from throttling, but same temps should be read regardless of which software is doing reading, unless that software is reading the wrong register.


----------



## djgar

From a post by Fiery back in 2011 on the Aida forums:

"AIDA64 follows Intel's public DTS specifications, hence it should measure the right values if you have the right TJMax value configured. Automatic value means AIDA64 will take the TJMax value published by Intel, hence it should be the right one to use."

I have a request for some more info, let's see if we get some.


----------



## cekim

Finally back in front of the 6950x for some experimentation with SA undervolting...

Previous, very stable starting point - weeks in this config under heavy usage without issue:
RVE
128G - 8x16G [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] (but it was reliably at 1.2 when left as such under load)

I had previously experimented with SA and while I could boot/run as low as 1.15, ultimately that failed to prove stable-stable (vs the Benchmark standard of seeing a win10 desktop ;-))

So far I've tried:
a. -0.200 (produced a 0.675v reading of VCCSA in aida64!! How does that even boot? but it does...)
b. -0.100
c. +0
d. +0.100
e. +0.200

All crashed. [email protected] remains stable aid64, handbrake,rb, linux, stresssapp, real-world load, etc... no issues. I am only exploring this to see if I can lower vcore and maintain the OC.

Here's the odd part, in terms of length of time to crash and severity of the crash - from most stable to least, it was a,b,c,d,e... "a" ran aida64 stress for about 10m without issue despite the absurd voltage reading. Then it spontaneously rebooted. Others got a fraction of that with d&e crashing pretty much immediately.


----------



## djgar

@cekim, I think you're going to miss sweet spots using .1 increments. I have found mine using .01, my best ones being .13 and .21 (my current) offsets. The diff between .2 and .21 was 45 minutes (.2) vs. almost 3 hours (.21).


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> @cekim, I think you're going to miss sweet spots using .1 increments. I have found mine using .01, my best ones being .13 and .21 (my current) offsets. The diff between .2 and .21 was 45 minutes (.2) vs. almost 3 hours (.21).


Oh, I know, it was a quickie, I was just very surprised it even ran down there...


----------



## Angry-Hermit

So I just ordered my classified and 6800k, moving up from Phenom II 955, I dont think ill regret it lol


----------



## cookiesowns

Wow. So I somehow killed my first CPU ever. 6800K, completely dead. Tried a fresh board, 00 post code. It was in a X99 strix when it shutdown twice. On the second shutdown all life was gone.... Overnighted a X99 deluxe, and same thing, thought it was the board at first...








Luckily silicon lottery has my back and will replace the CPU.

Has anyone here manage to kill a CPU yet? This was within reasonable voltages.

X99 Strix, 4x16GB TridentZ 3200.

<1.33Vcore @ 4.4ghz

1.88 VCCIN Level 5 LLC

1.15VCache @ 3.5Ghz

1.000 VCCSA

1.35Vdimm


----------



## mbze430

Nope, take some serious effort (aside from bashing it with a hammer) to kill a CPU. And I have been in this business since the 80286 days (building computers)


----------



## Coopiklaani

Goden chip? Or ITX X99 really rocks!

6800k OCed 4.5GHz(4.5GHz AVX/FMA) @1.325 volts on Asrock X99 itx
3.5uncore @ 1.25v
Vin: 1.90v with LLC 2 (1 to 5 with 5 being no LLC)
16Gx2 DDR4 @ 3200MHz 15-15-15-35 2T, 1.35v
SA: +0.350v
VCCIO: 1.05v

6hours of Prime95 28.9 without error
Good chip or dual channel DDR4 really helps push my core


----------



## Silicon Lottery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Wow. So I somehow killed my first CPU ever. 6800K, completely dead. Tried a fresh board, 00 post code. It was in a X99 strix when it shutdown twice. On the second shutdown all life was gone.... Overnighted a X99 deluxe, and same thing, thought it was the board at first...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily silicon lottery has my back and will replace the CPU.
> 
> Has anyone here manage to kill a CPU yet? This was within reasonable voltages.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> X99 Strix, 4x16GB TridentZ 3200.
> 
> <1.33Vcore @ 4.4ghz
> 
> 1.88 VCCIN Level 5 LLC
> 
> 1.15VCache @ 3.5Ghz
> 
> 1.000 VCCSA
> 
> 1.35Vdimm


Yeah, as I mentioned on the phone I don't think it has anything to do with your overclock. It was destined to die relatively quickly either way. Will be the first dead Broadwell-E chip we've had out of hundreds if it doesn't work over here either.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coopiklaani*
> 
> Goden chip? Or ITX X99 really rocks!
> 
> 6800k OCed 4.5GHz(4.5GHz AVX/FMA) @1.325 volts on Asrock X99 itx
> 3.5uncore @ 1.25v
> Vin: 1.90v with LLC 2 (1 to 5 with 5 being no LLC)
> 16Gx2 DDR4 @ 3200MHz 15-15-15-35 2T, 1.35v
> SA: +0.350v
> VCCIO: 1.05v
> 
> 6hours of Prime95 28.9 without error
> Good chip or dual channel DDR4 really helps push my core


Fantastic silicon, dual channel helps a little bit but not that much.


----------



## khaine1711

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Wow. So I somehow killed my first CPU ever. 6800K, completely dead. Tried a fresh board, 00 post code. It was in a X99 strix when it shutdown twice. On the second shutdown all life was gone.... Overnighted a X99 deluxe, and same thing, thought it was the board at first...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily silicon lottery has my back and will replace the CPU.
> 
> Has anyone here manage to kill a CPU yet? This was within reasonable voltages.
> 
> X99 Strix, 4x16GB TridentZ 3200.
> 
> <1.33Vcore @ 4.4ghz
> 
> 1.88 VCCIN Level 5 LLC
> 
> 1.15VCache @ 3.5Ghz
> 
> 1.000 VCCSA
> 
> 1.35Vdimm


My first dead 6800k was also with a Strix x99 with 1.25v and light overclock to 4ghz (no cache/ram overclock, no xmp). Cpu dead while browsing web. My case was computer shutdown once, code 00 + cpu led light up; clear CMOS and I was able to get into bios/windows, then one or two reboots later it died for good







.

Quite a few people on newegg have the same issue with the strix board too.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *khaine1711*
> 
> My first dead 6800k was also with a Strix x99 with 1.25v and light overclock to 4ghz (no cache/ram overclock, no xmp).


These stories have me a little concerned with my Strix now.
I've got a 4.2Ghz OC on my 6900k, guess I'll know in a month, had it since July..


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> These stories have me a little concerned with my Strix now.
> I've got a 4.2Ghz OC on my 6900k, guess I'll know in a month, had it since July..


As Silicon Lottery has said, it's not likely to be anything to do with the overclock.


----------



## Cryptopone

My X99 Strix died as well. I'll see if the CPU made it when I get the board back.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> As Silicon Lottery has said, it's not likely to be anything to do with the overclock.


I got that, just that 2 guys here have had their Strix's die.
djgar and myself haven't had that happen...yet









Hopefully it was just bad luck and not a widespread problem.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cryptopone*
> 
> My X99 Strix died as well. I'll see if the CPU made it when I get the board back.


Let us know how it goes when you get the replacement, I'm curious.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Wow. So I somehow killed my first CPU ever. 6800K, completely dead. Tried a fresh board, 00 post code. It was in a X99 strix when it shutdown twice. On the second shutdown all life was gone.... Overnighted a X99 deluxe, and same thing, thought it was the board at first...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily silicon lottery has my back and will replace the CPU.
> 
> Has anyone here manage to kill a CPU yet? This was within reasonable voltages.
> 
> X99 Strix, 4x16GB TridentZ 3200.
> 
> <1.33Vcore @ 4.4ghz
> 
> 1.88 VCCIN Level 5 LLC
> 
> 1.15VCache @ 3.5Ghz
> 
> 1.000 VCCSA
> 
> 1.35Vdimm


damn bro - nothing unusual in that list of voltages.








Great deal with SL! All the more reason to buy the intel tuning plan.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Nope, take some serious effort (aside from bashing it with a hammer) to kill a CPU. And I have been in this business since the 80286 days (building computers)


well... in some cases it can take no effort at all.


----------



## GRABibus

Maybe the problem could be the Vccio at "Auto" which is 1.25V ?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> These stories have me a little concerned with my Strix now.
> I've got a 4.2Ghz OC on my 6900k, guess I'll know in a month, had it since July..


Let's go back to MSI


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Let us know how it goes when you get the replacement, I'm curious.


Will do. My issue was different from the diagnostic codes and post led's others are having.

I wasn't able to power on at all after a clean shutdown. As if the power switch did nothing. So I'm hopeful the CPU is fine.


----------



## GreedyMuffin

My MSI Z170 Krait randomly died (well not mine, but a folding machine). Had one LED light but nothing else was alive. Fans woulden't spin etc.

Waiting on a new board, hopefully they'll accept the RMA.


----------



## Coopiklaani

My Asrock X99 itx gives me a crazy +0.57 VCCSA offset on auto. Auto no longer equals "save" I'll say.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Maybe the problem could be the Vccio at "Auto" which is 1.25V ?


You're right there, I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me, now I have it very close to the default 1.050v (1.100 for me).
So far the board has lasted a little over a month, so......








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Let's go back to MSI


No


----------



## Jpmboy

Auto Volt... 2 four letter words.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Nope, take some serious effort (aside from bashing it with a hammer) to kill a CPU. And I have been in this business since the 80286 days (building computers)


Any Z8000s?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Auto Volt... 2 four letter words.


























I got some more info on TjMax from Aida's Fiery:

"On Nehalem and later Intel processors, the TJMax value is SKU specific, and is encoded into a MSR (Model Specific Register). Hence it can be detected, and no need to use static presets or hard-encoded values. However, it also means that the TJMax value may vary between individual parts, so it's not guaranteed that e.g. your i7-6900K would use the same value as your friend's seemingly similar i7-6900K part."

Me: But I take it this means when read properly (e.g. Auto in Aida64) it's the correct TjMax for your specific chip which is great.

"Yes, correct."


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Any Z8000s?


No, Zilog's Z8000 era, I was only a kid. My first job at 16 was at some computer company building PCs, and I have been working in this industry since.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got some more info on TjMax from Aida's Fiery:
> 
> "On Nehalem and later Intel processors, the TJMax value is SKU specific, and is encoded into a MSR (Model Specific Register). Hence it can be detected, and no need to use static presets or hard-encoded values. However, it also means that the TJMax value may vary between individual parts, so it's not guaranteed that e.g. your i7-6900K would use the same value as your friend's seemingly similar i7-6900K part."
> 
> Me: But I take it this means when read properly (e.g. Auto in Aida64) it's the correct TjMax for your specific chip which is great.
> 
> "Yes, correct."


So... essentially what I said before.

Good to know for sure.

TJMAX should be CPU specific. If a board changes the TJMAX from whatever the CPU specifies.... that board sucks. Lol.

On that temp sensor talk earlier.... I know it's not a "Real" sensor. It's been this way for a long time, however it does give us SOME sort of temp reading. They're pretty accurate, usually within 5c of actual temp. Proven with temp sensors embedded in IHS.


----------



## [email protected]

The TJMAX value is UEFI settable on HW-E and BW-E. It is an Intel touted feature. Intel wanted the vendors to adopt the adjustment for these architectures.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Maybe the problem could be the Vccio at "Auto" which is 1.25V ?


No, my Vccio voltage was not at auto. It was running at 1.0625V as usual. My guess is, this chip was weak to begin with, it had a seemingly weaker Uncore(cache) compared to the other BW-E's ive used ( granted only two other ones ). Running high density ram probably pushed the IMC/Uncore just a bit on the edge, combined with the workloads it gets put under... it just gave out early on, luckily.

We'll see what SL says, I really hope it's the CPU... wasn't able to fully test the PSU.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> The TJMAX value is UEFI settable on HW-E and BW-E. It is an Intel touted feature. Intel wanted the vendors to adopt the adjustment for these architectures.


So Intel initially sets a CPU's TjMax from their manufacturing specs, why would the MB manufacturer arbitrarily change that? IOW, what process would they use to improve on it?

BTW, based on the Intel PDF, it IS a "real" sensor - a sensor who's voltage varies based on the die temperature.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> So Intel initially sets a CPU's TjMax from their manufacturing specs, why would the MB manufacturer arbitrarily change that? IOW, what process would they use to improve on it?
> 
> BTW, based on the Intel PDF, it IS a "real" sensor - a sensor who's voltage varies based on the die temperature.


There is a setting in bios that you can adjust, that's all. If you leave this on Auto, it is the default. I set mine to 85C on the R5E/5960X. Been running the R5E10/6950X with Auto. The sensor reports distance to TJmax afaik.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> There is a setting in bios that you can adjust, that's all. If you leave this on Auto, it is the default. I set mine to 85C on the R5E/5960X. Been running the R5E10/6950X with Auto. The sensor reports distance to TJmax afaik.


I didn't mess with the BIOS setting. In Aida, someone reported for the 6900K it was 100, which I take as accurate since the 100 setting in Aida gives me the same readings as Auto in Aida.


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I didn't mess with the BIOS setting. In Aida, someone reported for the 6900K it was 100, which I take as accurate since the 100 setting in Aida gives me the same readings as Auto in Aida.


yep, my 6900k is 100C as are ones I have seen. Realtemp reports temp on top row (= tjmax read from msr 0x1A2 - distance to tjmax (sensor), and bottom number is distance to tjmax (direct sensor only), so adding the two together will give you tjmax, ie 100C. Coretemp displays msr 0x1A2 ie tjmax. And you can use an MSR editor to read bit in 0x1A2 as 64 hex which is 100 dec, ie 100C.

Setting a different throttling temp in bios, I doubt is going to write to msr of the cpu, hence wont change tjmax as read from cpu, just make the cpu throttle at the lower set temp in bios, "effectively" making tjmax lower.


----------



## unclewebb

X99 is the first series of CPUs where TJMax is adjustable and I believe the Asus boards let you adjust this value in the bios. The value in MSR 0x1A2 is now read / write. In previous CPU generations, this register was read only.

opt33 - You should be able to use MSR Editor to change the value of TJ Max from within Windows. After you do this, restart Core Temp and see what it reports for TJ Max.

If the bios is allowed to adjust the value in this register, I am not sure if any temperature monitoring software is going to be accurate anymore.

This same register also contains a few bits called TJ Offset. Previous generations could set an offset from 0°C to 15°C so if the Intel specified throttling point was 100°C and a 15°C offset was set in the bios, the CPU would start thermal throttling at 85°C instead of 100°C. A lot of laptops use this TJ Offset feature.

With X99, I guess Intel feels that if a customer pays top dollar for a CPU and they feel comfortable running it at full speed at 105°C or 110°C then they can go ahead and do that. Conservative users can set a lower throttling temperature if they want to protect their new investment. Thermal shutdown has typically been at 125°C to 130°C for the majority of Intel CPUs so Intel must feel comfortable with their new CPUs occasionally using some of that headroom.


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *unclewebb*
> 
> X99 is the first series of CPUs where TJMax is adjustable and I believe the Asus boards let you adjust this value in the bios. The value in MSR 0x1A2 is now read / write. In previous CPU generations, this register was read only.
> 
> opt33 - You should be able to use MSR Editor to change the value of TJ Max from within Windows. After you do this, restart Core Temp and see what it reports for TJ Max.
> 
> If the bios is allowed to adjust the value in this register, I am not sure if any temperature monitoring software is going to be accurate anymore.
> 
> This same register also contains a few bits called TJ Offset. Previous generations could set an offset from 0°C to 15°C so if the Intel specified throttling point was 100°C and a 15°C offset was set in the bios, the CPU would start thermal throttling at 85°C instead of 100°C. A lot of laptops use this TJ Offset feature.
> 
> With X99, I guess Intel feels that if a customer pays top dollar for a CPU and they feel comfortable running it at full speed at 105°C or 110°C then they can go ahead and do that. Conservative users can set a lower throttling temperature if they want to protect their new investment. Thermal shutdown has typically been at 125°C to 130°C for the majority of Intel CPUs so Intel must feel comfortable with their new CPUs occasionally using some of that headroom.


hey whats up...havent seen you in a while... once I read Raja's post I first thought he meant msr was read/write, but then I spent half an hour trying to write to mine, but no dice. I tried changing the value to 69, ie 105c, and several other numbers, but wouldnt let me change it in windows. I tried writing full string (have to in fact or it gives error of enter hexadec), but I couldnt change it. So then I assumed "bios changing tjmax" is just lowering throttling temp in bios. But yeah, if bios does change that value in msr, then temps should be completely off...that would be nothing other than an annoyance imo.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *unclewebb*
> 
> X99 is the first series of CPUs where TJMax is adjustable and I believe the Asus boards let you adjust this value in the bios. The value in MSR 0x1A2 is now read / write. In previous CPU generations, this register was read only.
> 
> opt33 - You should be able to use MSR Editor to change the value of TJ Max from within Windows. After you do this, restart Core Temp and see what it reports for TJ Max.
> 
> If the bios is allowed to adjust the value in this register, I am not sure if any temperature monitoring software is going to be accurate anymore.
> 
> This same register also contains a few bits called TJ Offset. Previous generations could set an offset from 0°C to 15°C so if the Intel specified throttling point was 100°C and a 15°C offset was set in the bios, the CPU would start thermal throttling at 85°C instead of 100°C. A lot of laptops use this TJ Offset feature.
> 
> With X99, I guess Intel feels that if a customer pays top dollar for a CPU and they feel comfortable running it at full speed at 105°C or 110°C then they can go ahead and do that. Conservative users can set a lower throttling temperature if they want to protect their new investment. Thermal shutdown has typically been at 125°C to 130°C for the majority of Intel CPUs so Intel must feel comfortable with their new CPUs occasionally using some of that headroom.


Hei unclewebb, I remember you from XS. Any updates to RealTempGT for 8-10 cores? I still use 3.70 with my 6950X.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> So Intel initially sets a CPU's TjMax from their manufacturing specs, why would the MB manufacturer arbitrarily change that? IOW, what process would they use to improve on it?
> 
> BTW, based on the Intel PDF, it IS a "real" sensor - a sensor who's voltage varies based on the die temperature.


It's simply a variable range, with a min and max that are defined by Intel. It allows you to fine tune the throttling point of the CPU. That's all. I suspect your confusion stems from the assumption that the value is being overridden to an extent that breaches Intel guidelines. Not the case, as they still define the absolute max it can be set to. If one is overclocking the system, a lot of this guidelines/safety stuff is out of the window, anyway. You can degrade a chip without hitting TjMax.


----------



## tistou77

Someone had the batch J602C063 for 6900K?
Good or not ?

The CPU is the 2nd week of 2016 (J*602*) ?


----------



## opt33

Intel's tjmax being for stock settings, so mobo manufactures can adjust down ?10C or so, is fine in theory. However in practice, I dont see the masses running overclocked systems using throttling temps like 100C tjmax as their endpoint, or see that lowering it to 90C would then save them. In practice, if a mobo can change msr 0x1A2 value, the only thing it would accomplish is making cpu temps even less accurate for the software using that value to report temps...and if not changing that value and just effectively lowering tjmax, then no issue, other than being pointless.


----------



## [email protected]

Only Intel didn't design the dts for accurate user core temp monitoring, really. People make too big a deal of all of this stuff.


----------



## Fidelity21

Well I thought I was done working on this system after finding a happy middle ground for my overclock, but that was short lived.








6850k CPU
32GB 3200mhz CAS 14 RIPJAW 5 4x8Gb
Asus Deluxe II motherboard

4.2ghz overclock at 1.300v Vcore
Vcache at 1.150v and 3.6ghz
VCCIO at 1.100v
VCCSA at 1.112v
This system was stable after a 20 minute RealBench test and I didn't have any issues while using the computer so I left it alone. However, after 5 or 6 hard system crashes while playing THE DIVISION, I figured it was time to go back to the drawing boat and run RealBench over night. 130minutes into the Stress Test, it failed with System instability detected. The windows system logs aren't reporting anything nor do they report anything when the system hard crashes so I have no idea why my system is unstable.

I'm working my way up on each voltage trying to find something that works because I just want a stable system, so now I'm up to:

4.3ghz at 1.310v
Vcache 1.200v at 3.6ghz
VCCIO at 1.100v
VCCSA at 1.144v

120 minutes into the Realbench score and it's still running well...time will tell.

Can anyone see a problem with the system?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> It's simply a variable range, with a min and max that are defined by Intel. It allows you to fine tune the throttling point of the CPU. That's all. I suspect your confusion stems from the assumption that the value is being overridden to an extent that breaches Intel guidelines. Not the case, as they still define the absolute max it can be set to. If one is overclocking the system, a lot of this guidelines/safety stuff is out of the window, anyway. You can degrade a chip without hitting TjMax.


Thanks for the good info, Raja!


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Only Intel didn't design the dts for accurate user core temp monitoring, really. People make too big a deal of all of this stuff.


Agreed. But everyone still uses it for semi-accurate temps regardless of intended purpose or usefulness, just part of the hobby. Changing the status quo with no practical benefit is rarely well received. One could equally argue that changing tjmax is making a big deal out of nothing...since norm isnt running OCed cpus at 90 to 100C, or using throttling in that range to control temps.


----------



## [email protected]

There's also the fact that not everyone overclocks their processor. And the fact that this is a controllable function. That plus the intended use makes all of this stuff a moot point to me.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Only Intel didn't design the dts for accurate user core temp monitoring, really. People make too big a deal of all of this stuff.


Agreed.

Remember when CPU's had nothing to monitor temps?

We still overclocked them. Celeron 300a sandwich anyone? Still have mine somewhere... lol.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Remember when CPU's had nothing to monitor temps?
> 
> We still overclocked them. Celeron 300a sandwich anyone? Still have mine somewhere... lol.


Not to mention, even if they were hyper-accurate, there are only so many points probed. The energy density of a Si these days is such that any given transistor can heat up extremely rapidly and there is zero guarantee that the temp sensor "over there" will reflect this temp spike. It might come and go without the temp ever showing it, but the damage is done.


----------



## djgar

Hence the thrills and spills


----------



## vibraslap

I've been having some trouble getting my 6900k stable at 4.4Gbz with my memory overclocked, so i decided to start from scratch.

I started by loading defaults and finding a stable 4.4 overclock(1 hour RealBench) which I got at 1.344v VCORE, level 5 LLC. Then I made these changes:

DRAM Speed: 3200Mhz
DRAM Voltage: 1.35v
Primary Timings:14-14-14-34-1T
DRAM Max Current: 140%
VCCIO: Auto -> 1.05(same voltage at 4.4 stable)
VCCSA Offset: Auto -> 0.001(Gives the same voltage that was used for 4.4 stable)

That passed 1 hour of GSAT, but fails after a few minutes of RealBench.(MCE, WHEA, CWT)

Then I tried incrementing VCCIN in 0.01v intervals from 1.88 to 1.95v, then VCCSA offset 0.01v intervals from 0.010 to .250v. Everything I've tried so far with those failed RealBench in a few minutes with CWT or MCE.

Should I keep trying combinations of VCCIN and SA? Or is there something else I should be looking at?


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I've been having some trouble getting my 6900k stable at 4.4Gbz with my memory overclocked, so i decided to start from scratch.
> 
> I started by loading defaults and finding a stable 4.4 overclock(1 hour RealBench) which I got at 1.344v VCORE, level 5 LLC. Then I made these changes:
> 
> DRAM Speed: 3200Mhz
> DRAM Voltage: 1.35v
> Primary Timings:14-14-14-34-1T
> DRAM Max Current: 140%
> VCCIO: Auto -> 1.05(same voltage at 4.4 stable)
> VCCSA Offset: Auto -> 0.001(Gives the same voltage that was used for 4.4 stable)
> 
> That passed 1 hour of GSAT, but fails after a few minutes of RealBench.(MCE, WHEA, CWT)
> 
> Then I tried incrementing VCCIN in 0.01v intervals from 1.88 to 1.95v, then VCCSA offset 0.01v intervals from 0.010 to .250v. Everything I've tried so far with those failed RealBench in a few minutes with CWT or MCE.
> 
> Should I keep trying combinations of VCCIN and SA? Or is there something else I should be looking at?


Did you try 4.3GHz at the same voltage to rule out core instability woth the quicker memory? It's not unheard of to need a little bit more vcore with faster memory configurations.


----------



## Coopiklaani

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> I've been having some trouble getting my 6900k stable at 4.4Gbz with my memory overclocked, so i decided to start from scratch.
> 
> I started by loading defaults and finding a stable 4.4 overclock(1 hour RealBench) which I got at 1.344v VCORE, level 5 LLC. Then I made these changes:
> 
> DRAM Speed: 3200Mhz
> DRAM Voltage: 1.35v
> Primary Timings:14-14-14-34-1T
> DRAM Max Current: 140%
> VCCIO: Auto -> 1.05(same voltage at 4.4 stable)
> VCCSA Offset: Auto -> 0.001(Gives the same voltage that was used for 4.4 stable)
> 
> That passed 1 hour of GSAT, but fails after a few minutes of RealBench.(MCE, WHEA, CWT)
> 
> Then I tried incrementing VCCIN in 0.01v intervals from 1.88 to 1.95v, then VCCSA offset 0.01v intervals from 0.010 to .250v. Everything I've tried so far with those failed RealBench in a few minutes with CWT or MCE.
> 
> Should I keep trying combinations of VCCIN and SA? Or is there something else I should be looking at?


Have you tried increasing your uncore voltage or dropping or uncore clock? Realbench is quite sensitive to uncore stability.


----------



## ypaul123

Hello,

Just purchased the 6900k along with that infamous strix mobo.
All I want is for my cpu to run at 4.2 so I changed the core speed to 4.2 and setup vcore at 1.215, afterwards I ran cinabench and it didnt crash.
what do you think of the said settings.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Fidelity21

Install AIDA64 and see what your actual Vcore voltage is. If it's holding at 1.215v then I'm very impressed! My 6850k needs 1.300v for 4.2ghz...the VID won't allow anything less than 1.298v. Also, are you running Vcore at a manual setting of 1.215v or Adaptive with a 1.215v Turbo?

You may also want to go into your settings and check VCCIO and VCCSA as those voltages seem very high if left on Auto.


----------



## ypaul123

Hey,

thanks for responding.

I'm actually using Adaptive with a 1.215v offset.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ypaul123*
> 
> Hey,
> 
> thanks for responding.
> 
> I'm actually using Adaptive with a 1.215v offset.


Hopefully you meant adaptive with 1.215 Turbo, Auto for offset. If not, change it pronto!


----------



## ypaul123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Hopefully you meant adaptive with 1.215 Turbo, Auto for offset. If not, change it pronto!


These are the settings


----------



## Fidelity21

So it looks like you have it set to Auto for Turbo Mode offset. What's AIDA reporting the CPU core voltage at during a heavy load? Also, looks like your System Agent voltage is 1.328v? Is so, may be worth lowering that and also checking on VCCIO as both of them tend to stay high if left on Auto. Something like 1.05-1.1v should be good as reported by several people on here, although I had to keep VCCIO at 1.100v and VCCSA at 1.144v as anything less would cause instability.


----------



## djgar

I'm guessing that since he has both in Auto the MB is setting it to 1.215 in full turbo situations.


----------



## cekim

Project undervolt continues, but nothing more than confusion and confoundment to report this weekend - summary of prior, then the update:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Previous, very stable starting point - weeks in this config under heavy usage without issue:
> RVE: 128G - 8x16G [email protected] [email protected] adaptive | [email protected]+0.29 offset | [email protected] (1.2v per Aida64 and bios)
> 
> I had previously experimented with SA and while I could boot/run as low as 1.15, ultimately that failed to prove stable-stable (vs the Benchmark standard of seeing a win10 desktop ;-))
> 
> So far I've tried:
> a. -0.200 (produced a 0.675v reading of VCCSA in aida64!! How does that even boot? but it does...)
> b. -0.100
> c. +0
> d. +0.100
> e. +0.200
> 
> All crashed.


Can't fix SA and adapt core which is a bummer, but so be it, core set to 1.35, cache to 1.29 and off to the races with fully-manual SA:

1. Seems I can put just about anything in there and it still boots (assuming something is setting/enforcing a floor here, but Aida64 shows a variable and very low voltage reflecting my settings, so not entirely sure what's going on.

2. Spent most of my time around 0.90-1.00 in smaller increments as that was the region that showed the most promise (passing aida64 for 15+ minutes in some cases, BUT

3. nothing made it through H.264 encoding of RB, ranging from encoding error to spontaneous reboot

4. curiously, the system seemed as stable at 4.5 as it was 4.4 - I got the same range of Aida64 success+H.264 crash

5. same goes for offsets of AVX in both cases. Pegging AVX at 4.0GHz in either 44 or 45 multipler bought me nothing in stability - though lower temps obviously.

6. Curiously, DDR4 smiled and hummed in both windows and stressapp through all of this - not one single setting produced a memory error.

7. Vin remained only able to make things worse from 1.90-1.95

So, I see some hints of either 4.5GHz or lower 4.4 voltage in there, but the magic incantation eludes... So, back to work with the stable 4.4/3.7/SA=1.20 setup...


----------



## ypaul123

is it an OK configuration ??


----------



## joms

Hi,

My computer setup:
i7-6800k
Noctua NH-D15s (single fan only)
Corsair 780T case (stock fans)
Asus X99 Deluxe U3.1 (version 1 only - BIOS updated to latest)
Gskill ripjaws 32GB RAM (4x8GB)
Geforce GTX 760 (soon to be GTX1070 or 1080)
Corsair AX860i power supply
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 SSD - 512GB
Samsung 850 Pro SSD - 512GB
WD Black 4TB HDD
WD RE 6TB HDD
Windows 10 Pro 64bit

My usage = Photoshop / Lightroom / Light premiere (to study it this year) / Light after effects (to study it next year) / Light gaming (Starcraft 2 - once or 2x a week)

My comfortable voltage = 1.25v

I tried to overclock as high as I can on a 1.25v as i've read that more voltage would not be good for the long term.

Here are my results: (overclocked using BIOS)

Speed/Volt/XMP/Results
4.2 / 1.25 / No / Fail
4.1 / 1.25 / No / Fail
4.0 / 1.22 / No / Good (40mins with max core temps from 64-70)
3.9 / 1.22 / XMP / Good (24mins with max core temps from 62-67)
4.0 / 1.22 / XMP / Fail
4.0 / 1.23 / XMP / Fail (system restart - 3min mark)
4.0 / 1.24 / XMP / Fail (system hang - 9min mark)
4.0 / 1.25 / XMP / Good (70mins with max core temps from 66-76)

Software used:
RealBench 2.43 - upto 4GB RAM
Core Temp 1.2
CPUID HWMonitor

Question:
1) Should I set my settings to 4.0/1.22v/No XMP or 3.9/1.22v/XMP or 4.0/1.25v/XMP ?
2) Was I right to increase Vcore to stabilize XMP (from 1.22v to 1.25v) or would it be better to increase System Agent (VCCSA) and/or VCCIO ?
3) How do you increase VCCSA and/or VCCIO? Do I raise it simultaneously or do I raise one first? If so, which one and by how much?
4) Is 1.25v really safe for long term use? If not, what would you suggest?

Thanks


----------



## ypaul123

So I've OC's my 6900k to 4.2 at v1.215
i was wondering

1) I ran adia stability test for 20 min and i was reaching 50c with no crashing, is it enough ?
also I ran cinibench without any issues (scored 1500+)

2) is v1.215 a solid settings or could it damage the PC in some way

thanks


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ypaul123*
> 
> So I've OC's my 6900k to 4.2 at v1.215
> i was wondering
> 
> 1) I ran adia stability test for 20 min and i was reaching 50c with no crashing, is it enough ?
> also I ran cinibench without any issues (scored 1500+)
> 
> 2) is v1.215 a solid settings or could it damage the PC in some way
> 
> thanks


Well I'm running the same OC but with 1.26v, I did a lot more and longer stress testing than you did..lol..

Try a hour long Realbench stress test and see how you go.


----------



## Coopiklaani

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ypaul123*
> 
> So I've OC's my 6900k to 4.2 at v1.215
> i was wondering
> 
> 1) I ran adia stability test for 20 min and i was reaching 50c with no crashing, is it enough ?
> also I ran cinibench without any issues (scored 1500+)
> 
> 2) is v1.215 a solid settings or could it damage the PC in some way
> 
> thanks


NO, aida64 stable is far from real stable.
You should at least pass 20 loops of LinX with 50000+ problem size and 8 hours of realbench.


----------



## MissHaswellE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Well I'm running the same OC but with 1.26v, I did a lot more and longer stress testing than you did..lol..
> 
> Try a hour long Realbench stress test and see how you go.


I run stability tests with vegas pro 12 H264 MP4 1 hour render test.
It'll crash and bluescreen with unstable overclocks almost wthin a minute or 2.
My 4.3ghz OC passed every single synth stress test I threw at it.
Blue screened 1 min 20seconds into a vegas render test.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MissHaswellE*
> 
> I run stability tests with vegas pro 12 H264 MP4 1 hour render test.
> It'll crash and bluescreen with unstable overclocks almost wthin a minute or 2.
> My 4.3ghz OC passed every single synth stress test I threw at it.
> Blue screened 1 min 20seconds into a vegas render test.


That'll do it too...








Anything is better than 20 Minutes of AIDA64 stress test, specially if you didn't tick the FPU option..


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coopiklaani*
> 
> NO, aida64 stable is far from real stable.
> You should at least pass 20 loops of LinX with 50000+ problem size and 8 hours of realbench.


AIDA with all boxes besides GPU and FPU ticked is still a good test to keep in ones testing regiment. Also 1 to 2 hours of Realbench is fairly telling, or more if you feel uncertain. To proclaim that the test needs to run for at least 8 hours in order to be stable is borderline criminal, though. You pulled that number out of an unpleasant orifice.


----------



## mbze430

my understanding is that you either click CPU or FPU by itself and not both. If you did both it actually conflict with each other's test.


----------



## MR-e

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> my understanding is that you either click CPU or FPU by itself and not both. If you did both it actually conflict with each other's test.


Interesting... I didn't know that. I just clicked both to get the most out of the stability test


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> Interesting... I didn't know that. I just clicked both to get the most out of the stability test


Not sure AIDA put this out with a built in conflict. When I do use the test I check all the 'cept disks and gpus


----------



## mbze430

I noticed that if you have CPU and FPU ticked it doesn't "heatup" the CPU when it's FPU by itself. Maybe the word conflict is the wrong word to use, .... maybe "interference"?


----------



## Silent Scone

Maybe it's just bollocks.


----------



## intrigger

Lool


----------



## MR-e

Or Maybe She's Born with It, Maybe It's Maybelline?


----------



## intrigger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Maybe it's just bollocks.


Loool


----------



## Jpmboy

yeah, bollocks.


----------



## djgar

So, bollocks it is! If they were either-or selections they're smart enough to have implemented it with a two-radio-button choice.


----------



## mbze430

well you guys should go ask the author why they always suggest to only use FPU to heat stress the CPU instead of using BOTH CPU & FPU........................................................................................


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> well you guys should go ask the author why they always suggest to only use FPU to heat stress the CPU instead of using BOTH CPU & FPU........................................................................................


Can you define who it is that always suggest this? It's news to me, not that I know everything of course.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> Or Maybe She's Born with It, Maybe It's Maybelline?


"We all know how damaging testing advanced vector extensions can be, that's why I use..."
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> well you guys should go ask the author why they always suggest to only use FPU to heat stress the CPU instead of using BOTH CPU & FPU........................................................................................


You're going to have to tell us your source before going any further, your wording suggests the two tests shouldn't be run together at all


----------



## [email protected]

Pantene? We all know how damaging having hair can be....


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> well you guys should go ask the author why they always suggest to only use FPU to heat stress the CPU instead of using BOTH CPU & FPU........................................................................................


erm... because the FPU test heats the cpu more than the combined?








.. don;t confuse heat with being a better test of an OC


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Pantene? We all know how damaging having hair can be....


Thank you, indeed, that's why smooth heads are such a plus








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm... because the FPU test heats the cpu more than the combined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. don;t confuse heat with being a better test of an OC


I would think there are certain assumptions the app makes based on the stressing choices and shapes the stressing profile accordingly.

If for dinner I decide to pig out on chicken wings I might eat a bucketful, but if I decide to have some of everything I wouldn't be eating a bucket full of each available dish ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Thank you, indeed, that's why smooth heads are such a plus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think there are certain assumptions the app makes based on the stressing choices and shapes the stressing profile accordingly.
> 
> If for dinner I decide to pig out on chicken wings I might eat a bucketful, but if I decide to have some of everything I wouldn't be eating a bucket full of each available dish ...


lol - how about a bucket full of some of everything? Sounds like my house on Sunday's.








The point being that when you select only the FPU test, it essentially is a bucket of linpac/p95 small FFTs and of course runs hotter... which is not necessarily a better test of stability. I've been on this campaign to dispel this myth that hot stresstests running a limited instruction set, and then restricting it further by limiting the problem set, are more "difficult" for an OC... well yes, if thermal instability is what one is seeking. just my 50cent.


----------



## djgar

^^^ Exactly!


----------



## Fediuld

Guys, I was given an offer to buy a used 6800K that clocks 4.4, with Rampage V and 16gb vram for £550.

Does it worth the money or keep my 4930K @4.5 until Zen or Skylake-E are out next year?
(cannot overclock the 4930K more than 4.5, needs 1.45v for 4.6)


----------



## Kana Chan

You'd be fine staying on the [email protected]

Broadwell-E is EOL

Skylake-X is guaranteed 2 upgrades

Zen gets at least Zen+ (+15% IPC ) and maybe Zen++


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> You'd be fine staying on the [email protected]
> 
> *Broadwell-E is EOL
> *
> Skylake-X is guaranteed 2 upgrades
> 
> Zen gets at least Zen+ (+15% IPC ) and maybe Zen++


Not sure you understand what this means. Maybe you think EOL stands for everywhere online, in which case, yes that is correct.


----------



## MR-e

BW-E may be end of life in terms of no more future upgrades for the cpu socket, I think that's what Kana is referring to.


----------



## mbze430

OK this is for all the haters, doubters and the Mr. "I know it all". I asked the questions to AIDA as a layman.




So go suck on some bollocks


----------



## lilchronic

How about read here.
https://forums.aida64.com/topic/481-stress-test-help/

Again, FPU is a thermal stress test.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> OK this is for all the haters, doubters and the Mr. "I know it all". I asked the questions to AIDA as a layman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So go suck on some bollocks


wth? the respopnse you received is exactly what I posted. FPU is a limited "Floating Point" load. Hey - feel free to run the FPU test as long as you like.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> How about read here.
> https://forums.aida64.com/topic/481-stress-test-help/
> 
> Again, FPU is a thermal stress test.











good post. +1


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> well you guys should go ask the author why they always suggest to only use FPU to *heat stress the CPU i*nstead of using BOTH CPU & FPU........................................................................................


Whooa whooa... I ALWAYS indicated the FPU will produce the most heat by itself as a "HEAT STRESS" for the CPU, as I have quoted myself in this post. I never mention the word "stability" in any of my comments. (being in this industry over 30, I know exactly what is what) So... I don't need to read anything that I already know


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I noticed that if you have CPU and FPU ticked it doesn't "heatup" the CPU when it's FPU by itself. Maybe the word conflict is the wrong word to use, .... maybe "interference"?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm... because the FPU test heats the cpu more than the combined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. don;t confuse heat with being a better test of an OC


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Whooa whooa... I ALWAYS indicated the FPU will produce the most heat by itself as a "HEAT STRESS" for the CPU, as I have quoted myself in this post. I never mention the word "stability" in any of my comments. (being in this industry over 30, I know exactly what is what) So... I don't need to read anything that I already know


This is getting a bit aphasic; there is no conflict or interference. Each runs cleanly either scheduled together or solo. The reason why there is less heat with CPU and FPU checked, than just the FPU subtest is....? *Jeopardy music playing*...


----------



## mbze430

*yawn*


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Whooa whooa... I ALWAYS indicated the FPU will produce the most heat by itself as a "HEAT STRESS" for the CPU, as I have quoted myself in this post. I never mention the word "stability" in any of my comments. (being in this industry over 30, I know exactly what is what) So... I don't need to read anything that I already know


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> *yawn*


wrong answer.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> my understanding is that you either click CPU or FPU by itself and not both. If you did both it actually conflict with each other's test.


Here's what you said, and there is no "conflict". You can run them both together. It just creates a different profile for the stress test with a different purpose.


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*


as long it's chocolate chips, thanks


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Here's what you said, and there is no "conflict". You can run them both together. It just creates a different profile for the stress test with a different purpose.


Yes, and in addition to Realbench, I run Aida64 "CPU+FPU" some hours to confirm stability versus Vcore and Vccin.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I was playing around last night, decided to run OCCT, no crashes or anything, but I only did 30 minutes as temps hit 81c on the hottest core, so I stopped it.
I'm guessing that's normal for CPU [email protected]/Cache [email protected] and a Kraken x61?

I know custom water will bring that down a lot more, hopefully October I'll have that done, it'll be my first custom loop


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Let us know how it goes when you get the replacement, I'm curious.


Happy to report that I'm back up and running after my Strix X99 died. I think I got a new motherboard returned to me. On the bright side my CPU and RAM both appear to be intact. Did a bit of stress testing to check, will do some more in the coming days and will report back if I run into issues.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I was playing around last night, decided to run OCCT, no crashes or anything, but I only did 30 minutes as temps hit 81c on the hottest core, so I stopped it.
> I'm guessing that's normal for CPU [email protected]/Cache [email protected] and a Kraken x61?
> 
> I know custom water will bring that down a lot more, hopefully October I'll have that done, it'll be my first custom loop


You need that much voltage for 4.2GHz only?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You need that much voltage for 4.2GHz only?


Honestly I haven't tried any lower yet.
Took an average voltage of other people's voltages (high and lower), was going to have a little play today anyway.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Honestly I haven't tried any lower yet.
> Took an average voltage of other people's voltages (high and lower), was going to have a little play today anyway.


You should do that, it will bring the temperatures down considerably.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You should do that, it will bring the temperatures down considerably.


Don't know what's going on, I've dropped it back to 1.240v, but all the sensors are still reading the cpu core as 1.267v.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Don't know what's going on, I've dropped it back to 1.240v, but all the sensors are still reading the cpu core as 1.267v.


Try a bit lower, like 1.22V


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Try a bit lower, like 1.22V


Seems I can't use adaptive at all, I can set it to 1.24v manually, but as soon as I go back to adaptive it'll set the voltages to 1.265v not matter the max cpu voltage set.

This will read 1.267v in Windows:


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Seems I can't use adaptive at all, I can set it to 1.24v manually, but as soon as I go back to adaptive it'll set the voltages to 1.265v not matter the max cpu voltage set.
> 
> This will read 1.267v in Windows:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Hello

Adaptive voltage cannot be forced lower than the default turbo VID programmed by Intel.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Adaptive voltage cannot be forced lower than the default turbo VID programmed by Intel.


Ah so manually it is then.
So how do we get the voltages to lower on idle.

Just started OCCT temps a better at 1.223, but it detected an error in core 3 within 2 minutes, at least it wasn't a blue screen, so my voltages can't be too off.
Will try 1.23v.

1.23v blue screen.
1.24v blue screen or error at 4 minutes.
1.25v still going at 30 minutes but package temp is hitting 82c max, pretty much the same temps as i was getting with 1.26v.

Honestly I'm fine with 30 minutes of OCCT there's nothing I do that stresses the cpu like that, most stressful thing is converting raw video to h264.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Ah so manually it is then.
> *So how do we get the voltages to lower on idle.
> *
> Just started OCCT temps a better at 1.223, but it detected an error in core 3 within 2 minutes, at least it wasn't a blue screen, so my voltages can't be too off.
> Will try 1.23v.
> 
> 1.23v blue screen.
> 1.24v blue screen or error at 4 minutes.
> 1.25v still going at 30 minutes but package temp is hitting 82c max, pretty much the same temps as i was getting with 1.26v.
> 
> Honestly I'm fine with 30 minutes of OCCT there's nothing I do that stresses the cpu like that, most stressful thing is converting raw video to h264.


in manual override... c-states.

if the CPU can hold up at idle, you can attempt to run a negative offset with the turbo voltage you had before.


----------



## Fidelity21

Easy answer is "Don't". Leave it on adaptive and consider the very real prospect that Intel set VID for a reason. I tried chasing this exact question and ended up right back to values assigned by VID. Mine is considerably higher than yours at 1.298v at anything 4.2ghz or higher. Going to manual, I was able to drop to 1.260v at 4.2ghz in manual mode but it ended up not being stable for more than 30 minutes. I ended up setting my adaptive turbo mode to the ViD value and it's been fine ever since. I even went to 4.3ghz with a modest increase in Vcore to 1.310v and it's been stable as well.

Also, I had the same thought you did. "Honestly, I'm fine with 30 minutes of stress test because I don't push my system that hard." I've since realized that I was wrong. Playing video games caused my system to hard crash after 2-3 hours. I went back to realbench and the system failed at 130 minutes...which meant I was unstable. I increased my VCCSA voltage slightly, ran the realbench for 4 hours with no failures and now I can play games without crashes. It should be clear that games like "The Divison" don't put nearly as much load as RealBench but the system fails all the same. So you might want to keep testing until you can run realbench for 4 hours at least. Also, I would avoid manual mode for voltage as the system will not let you enter a low voltage state like adaptive does...and temps should change much either way.


----------



## StullenAndi

Anyone tried new bios version 3005 for Asus X99-M WS and can tell me if there are some differences between 3003 and 3005 in case of overclocking? For me it seems that I have to raise the cpu cache voltage to get it as stable as before.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> in manual override... c-states.
> 
> if the CPU can hold up at idle, you can attempt to run a negative offset with the turbo voltage you had before.


I was having a little fiddle with that today, didn't really improve the temps anymore than when I had it on Adaptive, I even dropped the cache back to default with auto voltages, still the same temps.
So I just put it back to everything I had set before, it's not like I'm going to be running OCCT everyday of the week, it did 30 minutes with these settings probably would of done longer, but it surely didn't like going under 1.255v for 4.2Ghz..








Custom water is the way to go that's for sure.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Also, I had the same thought you did. "Honestly, I'm fine with 30 minutes of stress test because I don't push my system that hard." I've since realized that I was wrong. Playing video games caused my system to hard crash after 2-3 hours. I went back to realbench and the system failed at 130 minutes...which meant I was unstable. I increased my VCCSA voltage slightly, ran the realbench for 4 hours with no failures and now I can play games without crashes. It should be clear that games like "The Divison" don't put nearly as much load as RealBench but the system fails all the same. So you might want to keep testing until you can run realbench for 4 hours at least. Also, I would avoid manual mode for voltage as the system will not let you enter a low voltage state like adaptive does...and temps should change much either way.


With the 5820k setup I had before I found 30 minutes to an hour of OCCT were fine to put your mind at ease for heavy load testing, if the core/cache voltages were too low you'd get problems.
But you don't just rely on one stress test at the end of the day, with VCCSA you can stress test all day, but it won't fail until you starting using the machine in a real world setting.

The guys here help as much as they could with the 5820k setup, but I was using a MSI motherboard, so some of the settings were strange, but now I've got the Strix it's made it easier to get help, though I did have to relearn the settings, but hey I now know the MSI x99 BIOS layout


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I was having a little fiddle with that today, didn't really improve the temps anymore than when I had it on Adaptive, I even dropped the cache back to default with auto voltages, still the same temps.
> So I just put it back to everything I had set before, it's not like I'm going to be running OCCT everyday of the week, it did 30 minutes with these settings probably would of done longer, but it surely didn't like going under 1.255v for 4.2Ghz..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Custom water is the way to go that's for sure.
> With the 5820k setup I had before I found 30 minutes to an hour of OCCT were fine to put your mind at ease for heavy load testing, if the core/cache voltages were too low you'd get problems.
> But you don't just rely on one stress test at the end of the day, with VCCSA you can stress test all day, but it won't fail until you starting using the machine in a real world setting.
> 
> The guys here help as much as they could with the 5820k setup, but I was using a MSI motherboard, so some of the settings were strange, but now I've got the Strix it's made it easier to get help, though I did have to relearn the settings, but hey I now know the MSI x99 BIOS layout


if you should try the negative offset method, note the idle vid when set to adaptive as you have before, and the idle vcore being applied... my 6950x has an idle VID of 0.757V and and idle vcore of 0.757V... so it did not look promising to go with a negative offset. It can work if the VID and vcore are cooperative... basically downvolt across the entire VID line.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you should try the negative offset method, note the idle vid when set to adaptive as you have before, and the idle vcore being applied... my 6950x has an idle VID of 0.757V and and idle vcore of 0.757V... so it did not look promising to go with a negative offset. It can work if the VID and vcore are cooperative... basically downvolt across the entire VID line.


So if my VID is 1.267, should I give it a little negative offset to start with, like -0.005, I know I couldn't get under 1.25v stable when using manual voltage.

Oh and I had a blonde moment, my hottest core wasn't 81c, that was my package temp..


----------



## Silent Scone

Or you could just leave it


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Or you could just leave it


What part of tinker do you not understand?









Speaking of which, I may want to adjust my system a little - ran BF1 last night for, cough, a few hours with 2x1080 (OC=2050MHz) in the same loop (420+280 rad)... BF1 makes more use of the CPU - at least 4 cores were seeing pretty heavy load and my hottest core (tends to be about 5-8C warmer than the coolest) was tapping 71C at least once a round. Averaged 48C for the gaming session, but...

Nothing fatal, but going to look at AVX to see if maybe its hitting mere here with the combined heat of cpu/gpu adding up over time. Still 100% stable, just warmer than I like and I doubt I'll even be able to measure the impact of dialing back AVX for example.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> You'd be fine staying on the [email protected]
> 
> Broadwell-E is EOL
> 
> Skylake-X is guaranteed 2 upgrades
> 
> Zen gets at least Zen+ (+15% IPC ) and maybe Zen++


ROFL.

You're EOL.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Or you could just leave it


Probably will just do that








Temps are all in the normal range for the clocks and voltages when using a AIO..


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> You'd be fine staying on the [email protected]
> 
> Broadwell-E is EOL
> 
> Skylake-X is guaranteed 2 upgrades
> 
> Zen gets at least Zen+ (+15% IPC ) and maybe Zen++


Not sure if you're trolling or just plain stupid. Probably both.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> You'd be fine staying on the [email protected]
> 
> Broadwell-E is EOL
> 
> Skylake-X is guaranteed 2 upgrades
> 
> Zen gets at least Zen+ (+15% IPC ) and maybe Zen++


There'a at least a good 12+ months before Skylake-E/X (whatever)

If you look at the release dates between cpu refreshes and new sockets

4790k (Haswell refresh) - June 2014
6700K - August 2015

Haswell-E - August 2014
Broadwell-E - May 2016

Think we're a long way off Broadwell-E being EOL...


----------



## Kana Chan

There's three generations or two refinement processes per socket now ( SKL / KBL / CNL-X ) before Ice-X ( 2020 ) and X99 can't be upgraded further.

If he's upgrading yearly, he'd only have to swap boards / drives / OS once if he went AM4 / Basinwells and then only bios update / swapping cpus twice.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> There's three generations or two refinement processes per socket now ( SKL / KBL / CNL-X ) before Ice-X ( 2020 ) and X99 can't be upgraded further.
> 
> If he's upgrading yearly, he'd only have to swap boards / drives / OS once if he went AM4 / Basinwells and then only bios update / swapping cpus twice.


you should wait until 2020 then.


----------



## Raghar

But when you are late adopter and your MB would blow up, you will not be able to get new MB.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> But when you are late adopter and your MB would blow up, you will not be able to get new MB.


And THAT's why eBay was created


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> But when you are late adopter and your MB would blow up, you will not be able to get new MB.


You could always buy another board when the new socket is announced, so then you've got a spare.
Bonus is if you don't use it, it'll be worth something on ebay


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you should wait until 2020 then.


Optical computing is right around the corner, just like it has been for 30 years. Don't bother with a new PC until at least 2036, anything you buy now will look like a fit-bit compared to the new stuff.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana Chan*
> 
> There's three generations or two refinement processes per socket now ( SKL / KBL / CNL-X ) before Ice-X ( 2020 ) and X99 can't be upgraded further.
> 
> If he's upgrading yearly, he'd only have to swap boards / drives / OS once if he went AM4 / Basinwells and then only bios update / swapping cpus twice.


You forget which game were playing here?

It's called the enthusiast game....

People who would worry about more than 1 socket every few years should probably go back to Tom's Hardware.

This IS an enthusiast forum. I still don't know why we cater to n00bs at all personally. We should be more like HWBOT.


----------



## guttheslayer

I hope they will skip SL-E and go straight to KBL-E.

After all the difference between the 2 is just the optimised process node, am I right?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I hope they will skip SL-E and go straight to KBL-E.
> 
> After all the difference between the 2 is just the optimised process node, am I right?


PCper did a write up on it.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-7th-Generation-Core-Processor-Kaby-Lake-Revealed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETgBZDol6E#

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> You forget which game were playing here?
> 
> It's called the enthusiast game....
> 
> People who would worry about more than 1 socket every few years should probably go back to Tom's Hardware.
> 
> This IS an enthusiast forum. I still don't know why we cater to n00bs at all personally. We should be more like HWBOT.


HWbot loves getting new guy's overclocking and learning. They have lots of competition's for novice and rookie's.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> This IS an enthusiast forum. I still don't know why we cater to n00bs at all personally. We should be more like HWBOT.


I was a huge n00b when I started in the Haswell-E thread, but I'm learning and adopting new tech with the big boys now









Most of us here will get the next new socket anyway, even though we say we won't at the time...


----------



## tistou77

Hello

I see that some manage to have at 3400mhz ram in strap 100
I tried with the Platinum 3733 C17
ram in 3400, all the timings AUTO and VDRAM to 1.37v, but without success, to boot I return to the bios

IMC ? RAM ?
If anyone has any ideas

Thanks


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Hello
> 
> I see that some manage to have at 3400mhz ram in strap 100
> I tried with the Platinum 3733 C17
> ram in 3400, all the timings AUTO and VDRAM to 1.37v, but without success, to boot I return to the bios
> 
> IMC ? RAM ?
> If anyone has any ideas
> 
> Thanks


Mixture of your ability to dial in stability, and the fact it's not a kit certified for the platform


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Mixture of your ability to dial in stability, and the fact it's not a kit certified for the platform


Ok thanks, I will stay at 3200


----------



## mrkambo

so there was a BIOS update for my motherboard, so back to scratch to find my OC.

So far ive managed to get the Core stable at 0.015mv less then previous, Uncore still refuses to boot higher than 37, but its stable at same voltage of 1.325.

Also managed to get the memory to run at XMP settings without using the profile as the profile would bang +380mv through SA.


----------



## tistou77

I test a bit the OC with RealBench 2.44 and AIDA64, to
4300 (AVX 4100): 1.25v
Cache 3700: 1.29
RAM: 14-16-16-30 3200 1T
Its good

But in 4400 (AVX 4100), that directly freeze with RealBench 2.44 and AIDA64 (even benchmark of RB, test H.264)
I increased the Vcore of 0.06v and Vcache of 0.03v, or even fallen Cache at 3500, but still the same
Another voltage that blocks ? Vcache ?

Thanks


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I test a bit the OC with RealBench 2.44 and AIDA64, to
> 4300 (AVX 4100): 1.25v
> Cache 3700: 1.29
> RAM: 14-16-16-30 3200 1T
> Its good
> 
> But in 4400 (AVX 4100), that directly freeze with RealBench 2.44 and AIDA64 (even benchmark of RB, test H.264)
> I increased the Vcore of 0.06v and Vcache of 0.03v, or even fallen Cache at 3500, but still the same
> Another voltage that blocks ? Vcache ?
> 
> Thanks


According to your rig description you're running a 5930K. You do realize this is a thread for Broadwell -E, not Haswell-E? Very different animals to OC.


----------



## tistou77

I test a 6900K with R5E10 (no AVX frequency with 5930K)









It seems that this is the Vcache
In h24, I can go up to how much ?
Nothing serious if Vcache exceeds the Vcore ?

Thanks for your help


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I test a 6900K with R5E10 (no AVX frequency with 5930K)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this is the Vcache
> In h24, I can go up to how much ?
> Nothing serious if Vcache exceeds the Vcore ?
> 
> Thanks for your help


Good, we have the same CPU







. Max cache speed will be ~ 3800 but you'll probably need > 1.33 vcache, so you're in the right place. vcache and vcore are independent AFAIK. Have fun!


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I test a 6900K with R5E10 (no AVX frequency with 5930K)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this is the Vcache
> In h24, I can go up to how much ?
> Nothing serious if Vcache exceeds the Vcore ?
> 
> Thanks for your help


In fact, it's the Vcore ...
At 4300, must 1.25v and 4400 must be at least 1.37v








I'll stay at 4300 I think
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Good, we have the same CPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Max cache speed will be ~ 3800 but you'll probably need > 1.33 vcache, so you're in the right place. vcache and vcore are independent AFAIK. Have fun!












For 3700, I need 1.296v (ram 3200 14-16-16-30 1T), I will try at 3800

You have what frequency for Cores and Cache (and voltages) ?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> In fact, it's the Vcore ...
> At 4300, must 1.25v and 4400 must be at least 1.37v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll stay at 4300 I think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For 3700, I need 1.296v (ram 3200 14-16-16-30 1T), I will try at 3800
> 
> You have what frequency for Cores and Cache (and voltages) ?


In my sig


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> In my sig












You tests with what software ?
Otherwise there is an error in your sig for Cache (coeff 37, is 38, right?)

I think I'll stay at 4.3ghz for cores, above the gain is not really significant compared to the difference of Vcore
For me, 1.25v to 4300, as a minimum 1.36, 1.37v for 4.4ghz


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tests with what software ?
> Otherwise there is an error in your sig for Cache (coeff 37, is 38, right?)
> 
> I think I'll stay at 4.3ghz for cores, above the gain is not really significant compared to the difference of Vcore
> For me, 1.25v to 4300, as a minimum 1.36, 1.37v for 4.4ghz


My 6900K needs 1.35V for 4.3, can't do 4.4 at any voltage, so yours isn't so bad in comparison!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tests with what software ?
> Otherwise there is an error in your sig for Cache (coeff 37, is 38, right?)
> 
> I think I'll stay at 4.3ghz for cores, above the gain is not really significant compared to the difference of Vcore
> For me, 1.25v to 4300, as a minimum 1.36, 1.37v for 4.4ghz


Oops! You're absolutely right - forgot to update that. Done!

I test with GSAT (80 minutes / no spiking) and RealBench. I got 4 hours RB last time, then I killed it as I needed some sleep







I also use Windows winsat for quick checking if some memory tweaking is having any effect.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> My 6900K needs 1.35V for 4.3, can't do 4.4 at any voltage, so yours isn't so bad in comparison!


Indeed, you have even less luck than me

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Oops! You're absolutely right - forgot to update that. Done!
> 
> I test with GSAT (80 minutes / no spiking) and RealBench. I got 4 hours RB last time, then I killed it as I needed some sleep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also use Windows winsat for quick checking if some memory tweaking is having any effect.


Ok, thanks. Good CPU








And for the AVX frequency, you have how many ?
In what extent this frequency "plays" on stability ?

Should I look for temperature, if it really heat up with 1.37v Vcore
For at the 100mhz core, I'm not sure that the performance difference is so huge compared to the difference in Vcore


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Ok, thanks. Good CPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for the AVX frequency, you have how many ?
> In what extent this frequency "plays" on stability ?
> 
> Should I look for temperature, if it really heat up with 1.37v Vcore
> For at the 100mhz core, I'm not sure that the performance difference is so huge compared to the difference in Vcore


I have AVX on Auto. I try both 125 and 100 strap and see which one gets me closest to the RAM speed I'm trying to get. The ratios are different so the RAM speed selection tends to be different. Not sure how they affect stability or if they do. I always try both and see which one gets me closest to my current goals, though I tend to favor 100 so I can use adaptive mode which tends to be more efficient with vcore. Only on vcore - adaptive cache does not work, not sure why they even offer it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I test a 6900K with R5E10 (no AVX frequency with 5930K)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this is the Vcache
> In h24, I can go up to how much ?
> Nothing serious if Vcache exceeds the Vcore ?
> 
> Thanks for your help


In bios on the tweaker page, inncrease PLL offset by 1 notch (25mV), and VCCU by 4mV (set a value of 4). try 4.4 again with +60-+80mV vcore.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> In bios on the tweaker page, inncrease PLL offset by 1 notch (25mV), and VCCU by 4mV (set a value of 4). try 4.4 again with +60-+80mV vcore.


Thanks for your help
In Paradise, I've put at 3 for VCCU Offset, I will test at 4 (if that's what you talk)
I will test for PLL Offset

For Vcore
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> In fact, it's the Vcore ...
> At 4300, must 1.25v and 4400 must be at least 1.37v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll stay at 4300 I think


But I'll test with +60 or 80mV

You would have the settings from your bios that I can watch

Thanks

EDIT: In the bios, PLL Offset is "PLL Offset Reference Value"?
I had set 1 for the "Internal PLL Voltage Step Adjustment"


----------



## webmi

not that bad, i guess


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I test a bit the OC with RealBench 2.44 and AIDA64, to
> 4300 (AVX 4100): 1.25v
> Cache 3700: 1.29
> RAM: 14-16-16-30 3200 1T
> Its good
> 
> But in 4400 (AVX 4100), that directly freeze with RealBench 2.44 and AIDA64 (even benchmark of RB, test H.264)
> I increased the Vcore of 0.06v and Vcache of 0.03v, or even fallen Cache at 3500, but still the same
> Another voltage that blocks ? Vcache ?
> 
> Thanks


If you're trying to move on from 4.3, I suggest dropping down cache frequency and voltage to stock. And work on your core. Once you find new stable core clock and voltage, work on you cache then.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Thanks for your help
> In Paradise, I've put at 3 for VCCU Offset, I will test at 4 (if that's what you talk)
> I will test for PLL Offset
> 
> For Vcore
> But I'll test with +60 or 80mV
> 
> You would have the settings from your bios that I can watch
> 
> Thanks
> 
> EDIT: In the bios, PLL Offset is "PLL Offset Reference Value"?
> I had set 1 for the "Internal PLL Voltage Step Adjustment"


Do you still freeze in RB? If so, it's probably cache needs more volts.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Do you still freeze in RB? If so, it's probably cache needs more volts.


I have not tested it yet, but I no longer freeze with the Vcore at 1.36v for 4400
I will test at 1.32, 1.33v and if it freezes, then I'll stay at 4300


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Is it really worth setting the AVX clock lower than the oc clocks if I'm only running 4.2Ghz on the 6900k?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Is it really worth setting the AVX clock lower than the oc clocks if I'm only running 4.2Ghz on the 6900k?


I left mine on Auto @ 4.592, but then I'm running 1.385 vcore ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I have not tested it yet, but I no longer freeze with the Vcore at 1.36v for 4400
> I will test at 1.32, 1.33v and if it freezes, then I'll stay at 4300


did you set the tweaker values mentioned?


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> did you set the tweaker values mentioned?


This ?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> In bios on the tweaker page, inncrease PLL offset by 1 notch (25mV), and VCCU by 4mV (set a value of 4). try 4.4 again with +60-+80mV vcore.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Thanks for your help
> In Paradise, I've put at 3 for VCCU Offset, I will test at 4 (if that's what you talk)
> I will test for PLL Offset
> 
> For Vcore
> But I'll test with +60 or 80mV
> 
> You would have the settings from your bios that I can watch
> 
> Thanks
> 
> EDIT: In the bios, PLL Offset is "PLL Offset Reference Value"?
> I had set 1 for the "Internal PLL Voltage Step Adjustment"


----------



## webmi

best-core 44x
all-core 43x
avx offset 2x
vcore 1.26
1h realbench


----------



## r0l4n

I may have gotten the worst 6800K in the thread







It needs 1.377v/1,175v to reach 4200/3400, realbench 1h stable, with 3000CL15 memory (100 strap). VCCSA 1.1, VIN 1.88, LLC 5, VCCIO 1.1 (and tweakers menu +1 and +4 as recommended).


----------



## tistou77

So I tested with the settings of jpmboy, and I need 1.33v to pass CB R15 (+ 80mV compared to 4300)
I think need 1.37v to be stable (test I was doing last time)
I have VCCIN to 1.85v, be tested at 1.90v ?

I also tested the Cache at 3800, and with the Offset to 0.34 it does not boot, error b1 (or 61)
At 3700, I have an offset of 0.30 (1.29v)

Thanks for your help


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> This ?


yes.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *webmi*
> 
> best-core 44x
> all-core 43x
> avx offset 2x
> vcore 1.26
> 1h realbench


lookin'
real good. I run about the same with AVX offset at 1 (so 42 under avx load) @ 1.281V. With the ATCT, 1x45/9x44 @ 1.425V cache 3.8 @ 1,325V and the ATCT set to drop to [email protected] when temp>65C. works like a charm.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> So I tested with the settings of jpmboy, and I need 1.33v to pass CB R15 (+ 80mV compared to 4300)
> I think need 1.37v to be stable (test I was doing last time)
> I have VCCIN to 1.85v, be tested at 1.90v ?
> 
> I also tested the Cache at 3800, and with the Offset to 0.34 it does not boot, error b1 (or 61)
> At 3700, I have an offset of 0.30 (1.29v)
> 
> Thanks for your help


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> So I tested with the settings of jpmboy, and I need 1.33v to pass CB R15 (+ 80mV compared to 4300)
> I think need 1.37v to be stable (test I was doing last time)
> I have VCCIN to 1.85v, be tested at 1.90v ?
> 
> I also tested the Cache at 3800, and with the Offset to 0.34 it does not boot, error b1 (or 61)
> At 3700, I have an offset of 0.30 (1.29v)
> 
> Thanks for your help


You might need .35-.37 offset for 3800 cache. I was able to use .35 for 2 hours RealBench. I do appear to have a nice cpu, lucky!

BTW, Cinebench is not really a good stress test. Try RealBench.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*


that's a pretty low VCCIN.


----------



## mrkambo

When testing with GAT, when it says 'pausing worker threads in preparation for power spike'

Is this part of the routine?


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You might need .35-.37 offset for 3800 cache. I was able to use .35 for 2 hours RealBench. I do appear to have a nice cpu, lucky!
> 
> BTW, Cinebench is not really a good stress test. Try RealBench.


I tested at 0.38 (~1.355v in bios) for Vcache and freeze it at the opening session (Windows)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's a pretty low VCCIN.


I always had this VCCIN on HW-E (5930K) and no problem.
No problem either with 6900K to 4300

It's better to increase it ?
It plays on the stability with the Vcore ?

Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> When testing with GAT, when it says 'pausing worker threads in preparation for power spike'
> 
> Is this part of the routine?


yes. that's normal.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I tested at 0.38 (~1.355v in bios) for Vcache and freeze it at the opening session (Windows)
> I always had this VCCIN on HW-E (5930K) and no problem.
> No problem either with 6900K to 4300
> 
> It's better to increase it ?
> *It plays on the stability with the Vcore ?*
> 
> Thanks


yes it does. I run between 1.92-1.96 depending on the OC. LLC 5


----------



## DrFreeman35

Didn't want to start a new thread, but here is my ?:

I'm looking to test my components outside my Caselabs case, so just on the MB tray.... What would be recommended to cool the CPU? I'll be doing a 6850k, Rampage V E-10. Want to test everything out before I start my custom loop, but this is my first build, and the 6850 doesn't come with a fan. Thanks


----------



## sy5tem

Hello

i think my 6850k just died ...

ran fine @4200mhz @1.3 volt for 2 month.

yesterday was on netflix system just shutdown ... oh nos..

tried power back on ... system would power on half a second and power off .. and loop like this

bios reset still boot loop

removed power cord waiting 2 minute pluged in and tried ... same boot loop.

tried another psu same boot loop

tried 1 stick of working ddr4 same boot loop

i removed cpu and ram and used bios flash back it went ok

i do not have a spare motherboard to try the cpu on







i don't know if its the motherboard or cpu ... anybody from montreal quebec can test my cpu on a x99 board?

specs:
Custom watercooling loop EK block with 1x120rad + 1x240 rad cpu never went over 60C .. usually 45C while gaming

Asus x99a-ii
crucial ballistix 4x8 32gb ddr4
corsair 860i
gtx1080
2xintel 720 480gb raid0 ssd's

really wondering if its the cpu ... it would be my first cpu to ever die ...


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes. that's normal.
> yes it does. I run between 1.92-1.96 depending on the OC. LLC 5


Ok thanks









I am currently at 1.85v in bios, 1.84v idle and 1.796v load
I'll try to 1.90v and 4400 to see

For 4300, it's good with VCCIN at 1.85v


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sy5tem*
> 
> Hello
> 
> i think my 6850k just died ...
> 
> ran fine @4200mhz @1.3 volt for 2 month.
> 
> yesterday was on netflix system just shutdown ... oh nos..
> 
> tried power back on ... system would power on half a second and power off .. and loop like this
> 
> bios reset still boot loop
> 
> removed power cord waiting 2 minute pluged in and tried ... same boot loop.
> 
> tried another psu same boot loop
> 
> tried 1 stick of working ddr4 same boot loop
> 
> i removed cpu and ram and used bios flash back it went ok
> 
> i do not have a spare motherboard to try the cpu on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't know if its the motherboard or cpu ... anybody from montreal quebec can test my cpu on a x99 board?
> 
> specs:
> Custom watercooling loop EK block with 1x120rad + 1x240 rad cpu never went over 60C .. usually 45C while gaming
> 
> Asus x99a-ii
> crucial ballistix 4x8 32gb ddr4
> corsair 860i
> gtx1080
> 2xintel 720 480gb raid0 ssd's
> 
> really wondering if its the cpu ... it would be my first cpu to ever die ...


CPUs are pretty resilient, I would guess it's your motherboard but you never know.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sy5tem*
> 
> Hello
> 
> i think my 6850k just died ...
> 
> ran fine @4200mhz @1.3 volt for 2 month.
> 
> yesterday was on netflix system just shutdown ... oh nos..
> 
> tried power back on ... system would power on half a second and power off .. and loop like this
> 
> bios reset still boot loop
> 
> removed power cord waiting 2 minute pluged in and tried ... same boot loop.
> 
> tried another psu same boot loop
> 
> tried 1 stick of working ddr4 same boot loop
> 
> i removed cpu and ram and used bios flash back it went ok
> 
> i do not have a spare motherboard to try the cpu on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't know if its the motherboard or cpu ... anybody from montreal quebec can test my cpu on a x99 board?
> 
> specs:
> Custom watercooling loop EK block with 1x120rad + 1x240 rad cpu never went over 60C .. usually 45C while gaming
> 
> Asus x99a-ii
> crucial ballistix 4x8 32gb ddr4
> corsair 860i
> gtx1080
> 2xintel 720 480gb raid0 ssd's
> 
> really wondering if its the cpu ... it would be my first cpu to ever die ...


Try one stick of ram in each slot.

If you were able to do the bios flash back it seems the mobo is still working so im thinking it could possibly be the cpu.

That kinda stuff sucks man hope you figure it out and get it working again.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrFreeman35*
> 
> Didn't want to start a new thread, but here is my ?:
> 
> I'm looking to test my components outside my Caselabs case, so just on the MB tray.... What would be recommended to cool the CPU? I'll be doing a 6850k, Rampage V E-10. Want to test everything out before I start my custom loop, but this is my first build, and the 6850 doesn't come with a fan. Thanks


an NH-D14 would do the job.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sy5tem*
> 
> Hello
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> i think my 6850k just died ...
> 
> ran fine @4200mhz @1.3 volt for 2 month.
> 
> yesterday was on netflix system just shutdown ... oh nos..
> 
> tried power back on ... system would power on half a second and power off .. and loop like this
> 
> bios reset still boot loop
> 
> removed power cord waiting 2 minute pluged in and tried ... same boot loop.
> 
> tried another psu same boot loop
> 
> tried 1 stick of working ddr4 same boot loop
> 
> i removed cpu and ram and used bios flash back it went ok
> 
> i do not have a spare motherboard to try the cpu on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't know if its the motherboard or cpu ... anybody from montreal quebec can test my cpu on a x99 board?
> 
> specs:
> Custom watercooling loop EK block with 1x120rad + 1x240 rad cpu never went over 60C .. usually 45C while gaming
> 
> Asus x99a-ii
> crucial ballistix 4x8 32gb ddr4
> corsair 860i
> gtx1080
> 2xintel 720 480gb raid0 ssd's
> 
> 
> 
> really wondering if its the cpu ... it would be my first cpu to ever die ...


can you see what q-code is displayed before the reboot? (I'm assuming you mean it fails to POST not boot to windows). And where on the status LEDs is the post failing. Check the cpu socket carefully for "FOD" or bent pins... bios flash back will work on a trashed socket since there is no CPU.


----------



## sy5tem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Try one stick of ram in each slot.
> 
> If you were able to do the bios flash back it seems the mobo is still working so im thinking it could possibly be the cpu.
> 
> That kinda stuff sucks man hope you figure it out and get it working again.


yeah moved 1 stick to different slot same boot loop.

all of my hardware still under warranty.... i will have to test it locally somehow.. don't want to send cpu to intel if its fine .... or motherboard to asus if its fine hate that situation.


----------



## mrkambo

Is there a safe range of voltage that shouldnt be exceeded with the VCCSA? for some reason i cant get 3200 CAS16 stable unless its +390 on VCCSA, VCCIO is 1.070


----------



## webmi

best-core 4.400, all-core 4.300, cache 3.700, ram 3200-14-14-14-34-1


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's a pretty low VCCIN.


I tested with 1.95v, LLC 5 and 6 and it does not help for 4400
Always need as much Vcore

I will stay at 4300 and 1.25v


----------



## tistou77

I had seen in the topic (but I do not find) that it was advisable to increase the VCCIO.
But it's the CPU or the PCH (or both) ?

Thanks


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I had seen in the topic (but I do not find) that it was advisable to increase the VCCIO.
> But it's the CPU or the PCH (or both) ?
> 
> Thanks


Usually CPU.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Usually CPU.


Thanks

What voltage is recommended?

Auto => 1.05xV
1.05V => 1.01xV

I put 1.09v in bios for ~ 1.05xV


----------



## webmi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Adaptive voltage cannot be forced lower than the default turbo VID programmed by Intel.


with override we can get lower than default Intel turbo VID.

i have the same problem. settings are 1.225 additional with -0.025 offset and system/windows reads from 1.2 on one core to 1.29!! one the other core.

cant use adative atm to get max voltage to max 1.2 (in this example), have to use override to get 1.2v max, but with override there is no idle voltage.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Thanks
> 
> What voltage is recommended?
> 
> Auto => 1.05xV
> 1.05V => 1.01xV
> 
> I put 1.09v in bios for ~ 1.05xV


Usually 1.05. I had to go to 1.15 for my OC, and Auto was feeding > 1.2v


----------



## tistou77

At 4300, I have adaptive voltage at 1.25v, and VID is 1.29v
Weird


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Usually 1.05. I had to go to 1.15 for my OC, and Auto was feeding > 1.2v


Auto for me is 1.01v or 1.05V, it depends
1.15V in the BIOS or under Windows?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Auto for me is 1.01v or 1.05V, it depends
> 1.15V in the BIOS or under Windows?


At my overclocking Auto was reading > 1.2v in Aida. When I put 1.15 in BIOS, I get 1.148 in Aida, close enough.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *webmi*
> 
> with override we can get lower than default Intel turbo VID.
> 
> i have the same problem. settings are 1.225 additional with -0.025 offset and system/windows reads from 1.2 on one core to 1.29!! one the other core.
> 
> cant use adative atm to get max voltage to max 1.2 (in this example), have to use override to get 1.2v max, but with override there is no idle voltage.


It's not a problem, it's how adaptive works by using the stock VID table. Easiest thing to do is accept what you're able to use as the minimum value if wanting to use adaptive.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Well, Here is my best results of a stable OC with a 6800k, Antec kuhler h20 1250 AIO watercooler, Corsair AIR540 case @ 21C, ASUS X99-AII (beta bios version 0903) mainboard @ 19C and EVGA FTW GTX1080. CASE CLOSED for most stable bench + OC.
The parameters of this OC are:
CPU 126fsb * 36clock = 4535.6mhz @1.516v plus additional power adjustments obviosly too many to list Max Temp 66C Gaming Temp 51C
CPU Cache 126fsb * 27clock = 3402 (have had success with 29 * 126 but am a lil nervous) @ 1.35v
16 Gb 4gb x 4 Quad channel DDR 4 3400 mhz XMP @ 3360 @ 1.35v
GTX 1080 @ 2126 core 11000mhz Mem with throttle to 2114 after 52C temp maxes at 53C factory cooling.
2x Kingston SSD 240GB @ Raid 0
LEPA B1000M 1000w PS
TimeSpy Result: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/419746 Score: 8133
Fire Strike Result: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/10100095 Score: 20550
All Benches running with 100% Fan speed. Not exactly quite but not exactly too noisy I guess. The AIO is very windy albiet a lil noisy and coolermaster fans ramp up quite nicely as well.
Any AA game that came out this year runs at least 4k @ 60fps + (with the exception of Deus EX )or @ 6k resolution. F1 2016 runs solid @ 8k after latest patch. Waiting for the DX12 update.
Every other racing game I have runs 8k minimum 45 fps.
Logitech G920 wheel.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> At 4300, I have adaptive voltage at 1.25v, and VID is 1.29v
> Weird


I have adaptive and I can't get it any lower than 1.267v no matter what turbo voltage I set (VID table like Silent said), my OC was only 4.2Ghz.
But I did just set it to 4.3Ghz, thought if the voltage is going to be that high I'll increase the core clocks.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I have adaptive and I can't get it any lower than 1.267v no matter what turbo voltage I set (VID table like Silent said), my OC was only 4.2Ghz.
> But I did just set it to 4.3Ghz, thought if the voltage is going to be that high I'll increase the core clocks.


I take it you mean it won't go any lower at 100% cpu, right?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I take it you mean it won't go any lower at 100% cpu, right?


No I mean using adaptive voltage I can't set the voltage lower than 1.267v, no matter what additional turbo mode voltage is set to.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> No I mean using adaptive voltage I can't set the voltage lower than 1.267v, no matter what additional turbo mode voltage is set to.


1) Are you running 100 strap?
2) Do you have offset set to Auto?
3) And no matter what you put in Additional Turbo you can't get lower than 1.267 vcore?

That's really weird. I have Turbo set to 1.4v and on idle I have 1200MHz with 0.852 vcore.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> 1) Are you running 100 strap?
> 2) Do you have offset set to Auto?
> 3) And no matter what you put in Additional Turbo you can't get lower than 1.267 vcore?
> 
> That's really weird. I have Turbo set to 1.4v and on idle I have 1200MHz with 0.852 vcore.


100 Strap.
Offset Auto

If I set the voltage higher than 1.267v it will stick, just not lower, I even put in 1.200v...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> 100 Strap.
> Offset Auto
> 
> If I set the voltage higher than 1.267v it will stick, just not lower, I even put in 1.200v...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


And you have C-states enabled, and get a low idle cpu speed but still getting 1.267 vcore? That makes no sense!

Maybe you should re-flash your BIOS, because that is really weird behavior.

BTW, that beta 0903 BIOS is working really nice for my overclocking


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> And you have C-states enabled, and get a low idle cpu speed but still getting 1.267 vcore? That makes no sense!
> 
> Maybe you should re-flash your BIOS, because that is really weird behavior.
> 
> BTW, that beta 0903 BIOS is working really nice for my overclocking


C-States are fine, voltages and clocks drop on idle like normal, I just can't set a lower voltage that 1.267v when using adaptive.
Manual voltage I can set 1.25v and be stable, but it doesn't drop the voltages on idle.

Silent Scone was saying that with adaptive you can't set the voltage lower than the VID.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> C-States are fine, voltages and clocks drop on idle like normal, I just can't set a lower voltage that 1.267v when using adaptive.
> Manual voltage I can set 1.25v and be stable, but it doesn't drop the voltages on idle.
> 
> Silent Scone was saying that with adaptive you can't set the voltage lower than the VID.


Ah, so voltage does drop at idle, but can't get lower than 1.267 at 100% cpu utilization (full turbo time). So yes, Scone has stated it correct. Might as well put on some more speed


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Silent Scone was saying that with adaptive you can't set the voltage lower than the VID.


Hello

Once the architecture is understood what Scone wrote will make perfect sense.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Ah, so voltage does drop at idle, but can't get lower than 1.267 at 100% cpu utilization (full turbo time). So yes, Scone has stated it correct. Might as well put on some more speed


Yep, and I just realized you said that back a few post, sorry I must of missed it..









I did increase the to core to 4.3Ghz and 4.2Ghz for AVX, Cache is still 3.4Ghz, all seems stable so far.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Once the architecture is understood what Scone wrote will make perfect sense.


Yeah he explained it to me a few days ago, I understood what he meant.


----------



## Martin778

My 6950X is going to die, looks like. Probably some VRM inside is going nuts. I will have to re-check the volts.
I've almost always had Intels but I can tell you this was the last one. Utterly idiotic temp. differences, this happens every time when I start 3dmark.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> My 6950X is going to die, looks like. Probably some VRM inside is going nuts. I will have to re-check the volts.
> I've almost always had Intels but I can tell you this was the last one. Utterly idiotic temp. differences, this happens every time when I start 3dmark.


the new 3DMark sysinfo puts an incredible load on the cpu - higher temps than anything the benchmark will do. It's a Futuremark issue, not the borad or cpu. Solution: either don't run it or change the voltage and frequency on the fly using turbo vcore.


----------



## Martin778

That's pretty crazy, considering it's just a hardware info scan







It hits core 2, 3 and 4 the hardest.
Still the temp difference seems to get worse...I will re-lap the CPU again soon to make the IHS thinner and apply Conductonaut TIM to see if it will help.


----------



## Raghar

What's your voltage?


----------



## StullenAndi

Take a look at the CoreTemp Screen, there you can see the used VID.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> That's pretty crazy, considering it's just a hardware info scan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hits core 2, 3 and 4 the hardest.
> Still the temp difference seems to get worse...I will re-lap the CPU again soon to make the IHS thinner and apply Conductonaut TIM to see if it will help.


you lapped a 6950X? Daaum. No intel tuning plan for you.


----------



## Martin778

1.31-1.32V, custom loop. Bad TIM though.


----------



## kaczorws

Hello,

Looks like we've got another dead Broadwell on Asus board: after 2 weeks without any problems, suddenly my X99-A II is now showing code 00 and doesn't even POST. Only CPU fan is spinning and nothing more. Can it mean dead CPU or rather dead motherboard? The only hope for CPU is that CPU_LED is NOT lit and when I remove memory, the DRAM_LED is not lit as well.

I must admit I already jumped the gun here and RMAed the mobo (based on some findings on the net), so I can't check what happens when mobo is on without the CPU installed, but I was wondering if the overclocking I've done could be a cause?

The CPU is 6800K and I managed to run it at 4.2GHz @1.284V. Less voltage was causing instability. The temps never exceeded 71 C after heavy stress testing (several hrs of Prime95 26.6 and RealBench) and the max temp ever achieved was 85 C but only for a short while (few seconds) before I realized my error (AVX causes new Broadwells to raise voltage automatically), but that was few days before the failure. Normal load temp was about 60C.

Voltage was set to Adaptive + offset 0.010V: despite setting 1.200V it wasn't getting below 1.275 but I had to add this offset for stability. In the end worst core was getting 1.308V. Everything else was set to Auto.

The rest of the specs:
i7 6800K
Noctua NH-D15 (Almost, as I had to replace one of 140mm fans with 120mm, because it couldn't fit my case)
Asus X99-A II
G.Skill Trident Z 3200Mhz (set to default XMP profile with 1.35V)
Corsair RM850i (I can't hear any clicking so I would rule out OCP tripping)

Could the 1.3V voltage kill the CPU so quickly (if ever)? Or the short temp spike to 85C?

I would appreciate any help, thank you


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaczorws*
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Looks like we've got another dead Broadwell on Asus board: after 2 weeks without any problems, suddenly my X99-A II is now showing code 00 and doesn't even POST. Only CPU fan is spinning and nothing more. Can it mean dead CPU or rather dead motherboard? The only hope for CPU is that CPU_LED is NOT lit and when I remove memory, the DRAM_LED is not lit as well.
> 
> I must admit I already jumped the gun here and RMAed the mobo (based on some findings on the net), so I can't check what happens when mobo is on without the CPU installed, but I was wondering if the overclocking I've done could be a cause?
> 
> The CPU is 6800K and I managed to run it at 4.2GHz @1.284V. Less voltage was causing instability. The temps never exceeded 71 C after heavy stress testing (several hrs of Prime95 26.6 and RealBench) and the max temp ever achieved was 85 C but only for a short while (few seconds) before I realized my error (AVX causes new Broadwells to raise voltage automatically), but that was few days before the failure. Normal load temp was about 60C.
> 
> Voltage was set to Adaptive + offset 0.010V: despite setting 1.200V it wasn't getting below 1.275 but I had to add this offset for stability. In the end worst core was getting 1.308V. Everything else was set to Auto.
> 
> The rest of the specs:
> i7 6800K
> Noctua NH-D15 (Almost, as I had to replace one of 140mm fans with 120mm, because it couldn't fit my case)
> Asus X99-A II
> G.Skill Trident Z 3200Mhz (set to default XMP profile with 1.35V)
> Corsair RM850i (I can't hear any clicking so I would rule out OCP tripping)
> 
> Could the 1.3V voltage kill the CPU so quickly (if ever)? Or the short temp spike to 85C?
> 
> I would appreciate any help, thank you


Hi, can you remember what digi+ settings you had changed?


----------



## kaczorws

Nope, but I'm pretty sure I haven't touched anything other than Adaptive voltage setting and core multiplier ("Sync all cores" was set).


----------



## navjack27

digi+ is a BIG issue and more people need to be educated about it. AUTO runs my VRMS too hot. i recommend doing manual settings and the LOWEST ones at first. there is one setting something like power phase and then you have options for regular, fast, faster ETC... use that one but set it to regular


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> digi+ is a BIG issue and more people need to be educated about it. AUTO runs my VRMS too hot. i recommend doing manual settings and the LOWEST ones at first. there is one setting something like power phase and then you have options for regular, fast, faster ETC... use that one but set it to regular


Do you mean "CPU Power Phase Control" which is under "External Digi+ Power Control" ?

I have mine set at "Extreme". According to sensor readings (AIDA64 software), voltage values are in check.


----------



## navjack27

Yes. There is no need for it to be that high. I mean, there might be, but, all it will do is produce more heat for maybe more oc stability and that's a big maybe. Voltages will check just fine with it not so high, almost all those Digi+ settings. Check the vrm temps


----------



## kaczorws

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Do you mean "CPU Power Phase Control" which is under "External Digi+ Power Control" ?
> 
> I have mine set at "Extreme". According to sensor readings (AIDA64 software), voltage values are in check.


Have you changed it or was the 'Extreme' setting default? Because that could mean that I had it set to Extreme as well


----------



## PowerK

If my memory serves correctly, the default is regular. I changed it to extreme with DRAM Power Phase Control as well. Hehe


----------



## kaczorws

I haven't touched it so it must have been Regular then. But I do admit that I wasn't paying much attention to vrm temps :/

I was actually following the guide from Asus on Broadwell-E overclocking and they didn't even mention Digi+ settings, rather suggested leaving everything on Auto.


----------



## navjack27

i learned about this stuff from FUGGER who set i guess a record for broadwell-H using phase change cooling... even with that insane overclocking he had everything set to the lowest when it came to the digi+ power phase crap.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaczorws*
> 
> I haven't touched it so it must have been Regular then. But I do admit that I wasn't paying much attention to vrm temps :/
> 
> I was actually following the guide from Asus on Broadwell-E overclocking and they didn't even mention Digi+ settings, rather suggested leaving everything on Auto.


And that shouldn't be a problem. It's not clear whether the board has actually failed, either? Have you simply RMA both?


----------



## kaczorws

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> And that shouldn't be a problem. It's not clear whether the board has actually failed, either? Have you simply RMA both?


I sent only the board now as CPU was bought from different place and it would be more complicated to RMA it. I'll post the update here when I get the response.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaczorws*
> 
> I haven't touched it so it must have been Regular then. But I do admit that I wasn't paying much attention to vrm temps :/
> 
> I was actually following the guide from Asus on Broadwell-E overclocking and they didn't even mention Digi+ settings, rather suggested leaving everything on Auto.


It's Auto, Standard, Optimized, Extreme and Power Phase Control.
I'll stick with Extreme.
Description attached


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Has anyone here manage to kill a CPU yet?


Not a BW-E, but that's because I haven't bought one yet. Took me about 6 months to kill my first Haswell-E.

With how fragile CPUs have become, relative to what they can do, I anticipate killing at least one sample of every new architecture that I acquire as I feel around for the limits of what's safe and reliable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got some more info on TjMax from Aida's Fiery:
> 
> "On Nehalem and later Intel processors, the TJMax value is SKU specific, and is encoded into a MSR (Model Specific Register). Hence it can be detected, and no need to use static presets or hard-encoded values. However, it also means that the TJMax value may vary between individual parts, so it's not guaranteed that e.g. your i7-6900K would use the same value as your friend's seemingly similar i7-6900K part."
> 
> Me: But I take it this means when read properly (e.g. Auto in Aida64) it's the correct TjMax for your specific chip which is great.
> 
> "Yes, correct."


ADIA64 gives me different TJmax values depending on what board my CPU is installed in and I suspect quite a few boards out there override the MSR.

Which brings me back to the idea that the delta to TJmax is the only reading of relevance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Setting a different throttling temp in bios, I doubt is going to write to msr of the cpu, hence wont change tjmax as read from cpu, just make the cpu throttle at the lower set temp in bios, "effectively" making tjmax lower.


If that's how it's working the TJmax name in the BIOS is a highly misleading name. If it's not overriding the MSR, but lowering throttle temp, it should be called "PROCHOT offset" or something to that effect.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> You can degrade a chip without hitting TjMax.


Yeah, any Intel TJmax value is going to assume bone stock settings and actual safe temperature, whatever that may be, is going to decline rapidly with more current and voltage.

Opposite is also true as well...industrial/military/aerospace parts with higher temperature limits are generally the same silicon, just heavily underclocked.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opt33*
> 
> Intel's tjmax being for stock settings, so mobo manufactures can adjust down ?10C or so, is fine in theory. However in practice, I dont see the masses running overclocked systems using throttling temps like 100C tjmax as their endpoint, or see that lowering it to 90C would then save them. In practice, if a mobo can change msr 0x1A2 value, the only thing it would accomplish is making cpu temps even less accurate for the software using that value to report temps...and if not changing that value and just effectively lowering tjmax, then no issue, other than being pointless.


Distance to TJmax is all that matters. People just tend to have a psychological attachment to absolutes...as if being able to relate the temperature to something makes it more useful.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Remember when CPU's had nothing to monitor temps?


I remember when I started using my own temp sensors, right after I melted a VCC pin on my passively cooled Pentium 75 @ 100 to the motherboard.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Not to mention, even if they were hyper-accurate, there are only so many points probed. The energy density of a Si these days is such that any given transistor can heat up extremely rapidly and there is zero guarantee that the temp sensor "over there" will reflect this temp spike. It might come and go without the temp ever showing it, but the damage is done.


Still very useful to know relative temperature.

Every 10C hotter cuts off very roughly half the life span of a part, so having something other than instability (throw enough voltage at a modestly OCed part and it will be stable way past the point it will be reliable), or outright failure, to guesstimate how much headroom one has can be a big deal.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Maybe it's just bollocks.


Some loads harness a part more completely than others and scheduling a different load at the same time can easily reduce total utilization.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> well you guys should go ask the author why they always suggest to only use FPU to heat stress the CPU instead of using BOTH CPU & FPU........................................................................................


Because just FPU is hotter than running FPU+CPU tests concurrently.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> This is getting a bit aphasic; there is no conflict or interference. Each runs cleanly either scheduled together or solo. The reason why there is less heat with CPU and FPU checked, than just the FPU subtest is....? *Jeopardy music playing*...


There is a conflict for execution resources. Less CPU time spent running the hotter test means lower temperatures.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> This IS an enthusiast forum. I still don't know why we cater to n00bs at all personally.


Plenty of "n00bs" are very enthusiastic.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Is it really worth setting the AVX clock lower than the oc clocks if I'm only running 4.2Ghz on the 6900k?


Are you going to be avoiding extremely demanding AVX tasks anyway?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> digi+ is a BIG issue and more people need to be educated about it. AUTO runs my VRMS too hot. i recommend doing manual settings and the LOWEST ones at first. there is one setting something like power phase and then you have options for regular, fast, faster ETC... use that one but set it to regular


On boards that allow VRM switching speed to be set I usually raise this with the degree of LLC I'm using. If I'm using lower to middling levels of LLC I set a low switching speed, my hypothesis being that less LLC means more time for transients to be suppressed, which means lower tolerable switching frequency.

I always set number of phases to maximum, because I don't particularly care about idle power consumption or heat, and I want to spread load current over as many phases as possible, whithout any added complexity from having to turn idle phases on.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Wow @Blameless that's the most quotes I've ever seen at once here









I'm running 4.3Ghz and 4.2Ghz AVX now so all good, that was due to wanting to run adaptive and my set VID won't go any lower that 1.267v which is fine for 4.3Ghz, just not AVX loads.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Wow @Blameless that's the most quotes I've ever seen at once here


I've only had sporadic internet access for the last two weeks, so I just clicked the thread and started from where I left off. Apologies for the wall of text.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I'm running 4.3Ghz and 4.2Ghz AVX now so all good, that was due to wanting to run adaptive and my set VID won't go any lower that 1.267v which is fine for 4.3Ghz, just not AVX loads.


I'll probably end up doing something similar when I get around to slapping a BW-E in my spare board.

Right now I've got my 5820K at lowest denominator clocks...will run anything I throw at it, but I've got 200-300MHz more headroom for less demanding loads. I plan on testing to the same point with BW-E, and using that multiplier for AVX, then seeing what I can squeeze out of non-AVX loads to settle on a primary multiplier.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> Yes. There is no need for it to be that high. I mean, there might be, but, all it will do is produce more heat for maybe more oc stability and that's a big maybe. Voltages will check just fine with it not so high, almost all those Digi+ settings. Check the vrm temps


VRM temps 31C idle, 33~35C under load.


----------



## webmi

35°C VRM @ load


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> Yes. There is no need for it to be that high. I mean, there might be, but, all it will do is produce more heat for maybe more oc stability and that's a big maybe. Voltages will check just fine with it not so high, almost all those Digi+ settings. Check the vrm temps


Power phase control is related to the "ready" state of the power phases. Optimized is fine for modest overclocks (and adaptive). Extreme is no major change except that the Phases are always "up". I run both depending on the OC and task at hand.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> i learned about this stuff from FUGGER who set i guess a record for broadwell-H using phase change cooling... even with that insane overclocking he had everything set to the lowest when it came to the digi+ power phase crap.


You should probably have fugger explain to you what power phases are.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Not a BW-E, but that's because I haven't bought one yet. Took me about 6 months to kill my first Haswell-E.
> 
> With how fragile CPUs have become, relative to what they can do, I anticipate killing at least one sample of every new architecture that I acquire as I feel around for the limits of what's safe and reliable.
> ADIA64 gives me different TJmax values depending on what board my CPU is installed in and I suspect quite a few boards out there override the MSR.
> 
> Which brings me back to the idea that the delta to TJmax is the only reading of relevance.
> If that's how it's working the TJmax name in the BIOS is a highly misleading name. If it's not overriding the MSR, but lowering throttle temp, it should be called "PROCHOT offset" or something to that effect.
> Yeah, any Intel TJmax value is going to assume bone stock settings and actual safe temperature, whatever that may be, is going to decline rapidly with more current and voltage.
> 
> Opposite is also true as well...industrial/military/aerospace parts with higher temperature limits are generally the same silicon, just heavily underclocked.
> Distance to TJmax is all that matters. People just tend to have a psychological attachment to absolutes...as if being able to relate the temperature to something makes it more useful.
> I remember when I started using my own temp sensors, right after I melted a VCC pin on my passively cooled Pentium 75 @ 100 to the motherboard.
> Still very useful to know relative temperature.
> 
> Every 10C hotter cuts off very roughly half the life span of a part, so having something other than instability (throw enough voltage at a modestly OCed part and it will be stable way past the point it will be reliable), or outright failure, to guesstimate how much headroom one has can be a big deal.
> Some loads harness a part more completely than others and scheduling a different load at the same time can easily reduce total utilization.
> Because just FPU is hotter than running FPU+CPU tests concurrently.
> There is a conflict for execution resources. Less CPU time spent running the hotter test means lower temperatures.
> Plenty of "n00bs" are very enthusiastic.
> Are you going to be avoiding extremely demanding AVX tasks anyway?
> On boards that allow VRM switching speed to be set I usually raise this with the degree of LLC I'm using. If I'm using lower to middling levels of LLC I set a low switching speed, my hypothesis being that less LLC means more time for transients to be suppressed, which means lower tolerable switching frequency.
> 
> I always set number of phases to maximum, because I don't particularly care about idle power consumption or heat, and I want to spread load current over as many phases as possible, whithout any added complexity from having to turn idle phases on.


accumulated drafts?


----------



## StullenAndi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> VRM temps 31C idle, 33~35C under load.


Watercooled or how did you get temps like this?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Watercooled or how did you get temps like this?


erm... I think the question is how did _you_ get VRM temps that high?


----------



## StullenAndi

That high, are you kidding me? What is "high" on 70°C? System is running on full load there.


----------



## webmi

i am scratching the 60´s on VRM when doing 1h realbench with all fans max rpm (R5E10 on optimzed phase control)

35°C VRM @ load - not even with watercoolig them


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> It's Auto, Standard, Optimized, Extreme and Power Phase Control.
> I'll stick with Extreme.
> Description attached


From my experience with RIV BE, 450 000 Hz is sweet, and 400 000 Hz passable. With these numbers you practically can say I don't care about LLC, it can be at minimum level. But of course when you are not watercooling mosfets and need to run it 24/7, it might be bit iffy in summer heats.
So either standard and don't overdo it with OC, or extreme and sensible frequency. 600000 Hz is probably too much. (Aka it does what 450000 does but it only heats more.)

As for CPU fragility. I'd like to have some kind of hardened CPU design based on SKY lake architecture. Add to it hardened X99 MB, and you can be set for 10 years or longer. I think Intel and AMD should extend warranty to 7 years of 24/7 running PRIME. You can break IMC or VRM too easily. With this level of stuff, I'd consider even underclocking 6+ core CPU. With 6600K, you blast it off, you get 7600K which you bought to have spare CPU, but with SKY-X, the cost is too high to replace CPU easily.

Also can we have a BIOS option of disabling OC socket?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Also can we have a BIOS option of disabling OC socket?


Hello

The options to do so have always been in the BIOS.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> From my experience with RIV BE, 450 000 Hz is sweet, and 400 000 Hz passable. With these numbers you practically can say I don't care about LLC, it can be at minimum level. But of course when you are not watercooling mosfets and need to run it 24/7, it might be bit iffy in summer heats.
> So either standard and don't overdo it with OC, or extreme and sensible frequency. 600000 Hz is probably too much. (Aka it does what 450000 does but it only heats more.)
> 
> As for CPU fragility. I'd like to have some kind of hardened CPU design based on SKY lake architecture. Add to it hardened X99 MB, and you can be set for 10 years or longer. I think Intel and AMD should extend warranty to 7 years of 24/7 running PRIME. You can break IMC or VRM too easily. With this level of stuff, I'd consider even underclocking 6+ core CPU. With 6600K, you blast it off, you get 7600K which you bought to have spare CPU, but with SKY-X, the cost is too high to replace CPU easily.
> 
> Also can we have a BIOS option of disabling OC socket?


Chuckle, no, you don't want that. Specifically, you are not willing to pay what they would need to charge you and the lowered speeds/performance you'd need to tolerate (which negates OC entirely)

Both AMD and Intel do offer long-life parts for various government and "big" contracts, but after 10 years the efficiency and performance of a CPU make it cost ineffective to do it (you pay more in electricity and heat removal costs than it would take to replace the unit with a newer one).

If you run at stock speeds, the CPU, VRM, etc... will last a long time. You can do that now.

The best way to ensure you get a long life out of a CPU is give it the best possible cooling you can afford, good fans, cool room, etc... If you run at stock speeds and keep it cool, it will run long into being obsolete from a performance/efficiency standpoint.

These chips are tolerating an enormous amount of abuse on these OC capable boards. It is a credit to the board designers and Intel that we have as much flexibility as we do given the RMA costs if they weren't pretty robust.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> From my experience with RIV BE, 450 000 Hz is sweet, and 400 000 Hz passable. With these numbers you practically can say I don't care about LLC, it can be at minimum level. But of course when you are not watercooling mosfets and need to run it 24/7, it might be bit iffy in summer heats.
> So either standard and don't overdo it with OC, or extreme and sensible frequency. 600000 Hz is probably too much. (Aka it does what 450000 does but it only heats more.)
> 
> As for CPU fragility. I'd like to have some kind of hardened CPU design based on SKY lake architecture. Add to it hardened X99 MB, and you can be set for 10 years or longer. I think Intel and AMD should extend warranty to 7 years of 24/7 running PRIME. You can break IMC or VRM too easily. With this level of stuff, I'd consider even underclocking 6+ core CPU. With 6600K, you blast it off, you get 7600K which you bought to have spare CPU, but with SKY-X, the cost is too high to replace CPU easily.
> 
> Also can we have a BIOS option of disabling OC socket?


10 years before your next CPU acquisition? How boring would life be??!!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> 10 years before your next CPU acquisition? How boring would life be??!!


I have some athlon64s that still run great... My phone literally has more compute power, but hey, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I have some athlon64s that still run great... My phone literally has more compute power, but hey, whatever floats your boat.


Sure, I also have an Amiga 3000 - what do you do with those Anthlons, if I may ask? Just curious


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Sure, I also have an Amiga 3000 - what do you do with those Anthlons, if I may ask? Just curious


Collect dust.... see above, not cost effective to turn them on.

What I used to do with them was run verilog simulations.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Collect dust.... see above, not cost effective to turn them on.
> 
> What I used to do with them was run verilog simulations.


Ahh, my Amiga does the same - just a bit of nostalgia


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> That high, are you kidding me? What is "high" on 70°C? System is running on full load there.


that's a pretty high vrm temp with any load. Makes me wonder if HWInfo is reading it correctly. Try AID64.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *webmi*
> 
> i am scratching the 60´s on VRM when doing 1h realbench with all fans max rpm (R5E10 on optimzed phase control)
> 
> 35°C VRM @ load - not even with watercoolig them


^^ same here. never higher than the mid 40s. Package temp is up there tho.

idle:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






AVX load, AVX offset = 1)


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Blameless

35C load VRM temps, without additional VRM specific cooling, means not much of a load, really low ambients, or a sensor that isn't anywhere near the actual VRM...or the Rampage V E10 has the most efficient VRM I've ever heard of.

VRM cooling on the board doesn't look like anything special, and I'd expect even a 95% efficient VRM to show more than 4C idle (3-4A input) to load (15-20A input) delta.


----------



## Silent Scone

With a light fan cooling the VRM I never breach 50c in Handbrake.


----------



## Blameless

45-50C is one thing, but 35C is nuts unless your case filters are to keep the snow out.


----------



## kaczorws

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> And that shouldn't be a problem. It's not clear whether the board has actually failed, either? Have you simply RMA both?


Just an addition, I managed to get my hands on my board today for a while as store suggested it'll be way faster if I RMA the board directly to the manufacturer. So I run the board without the CPU installed and still code 00 and the CPU_LED not lit. It can't even see that the CPU is not there at all. So this basically means the board. Well, that was fast









Too bad I will have to wait for new board longer than I used the first one


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Has anyone been able to get cache over 3.8GHz for 6950x on asus boards yet? I remember this was a problem a month or two ago and people figured it was just a hard cap for the 6950X?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Has anyone been able to get cache over 3.8GHz for 6950x on asus boards yet? I remember this was a problem a month or two ago and people figured it was just a hard cap for the 6950X?


From everything we've seen, short of SS/LN2 cooling setups, this appears to be "how it is". We know BWE to draw an enormous amount of current with the cache even at "just" 3.8.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaczorws*
> 
> Just an addition, I managed to get my hands on my board today for a while as store suggested it'll be way faster if I RMA the board directly to the manufacturer. So I run the board without the CPU installed and still code 00 and the CPU_LED not lit. It can't even see that the CPU is not there at all. So this basically means the board. Well, that was fast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad I will have to wait for new board longer than I used the first one


If there is no CPU present, code 00 will be displayed.


----------



## kaczorws

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> If there is no CPU present, code 00 will be displayed.


But shouldn't CPU_LED light up?


----------



## Martin778

I went through many many pages of this thread and can't understand how one can run 1.35V on 6950 with LC under 80*c under RealBench. No way







At 1.27V i already get 80*C+.

BTW what's the correct range to aim for regarding cache voltage and VCCIO/VCCSA? I still have a hard time fully stabilizing any OC above 4GHz and when left on auto the voltages are all over the place


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm... I think the question is how did _you_ get VRM temps that high?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's a pretty high vrm temp with any load. Makes me wonder if HWInfo is reading it correctly. Try AID64.
> ^^ same here. never higher than the mid 40s. Package temp is up there tho.
> 
> idle:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVX load, AVX offset = 1)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I must have a problem with the VRM ...
With the EK block, temperatures are really high

Idle

water : 27°
VRM : 38°

load (just HyperPI 32M)

water : 29°
VRM : 59°

I do not see where the problem can come


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaczorws*
> 
> But shouldn't CPU_LED light up?


That's a bit further into the process, I think.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> With a light fan cooling the VRM I never breach 50c in Handbrake.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> 45-50C is one thing, but 35C is nuts unless your case filters are to keep the snow out.


lol ... those Canadians!

Anyway, hitting 50C on the VRMs on a R5E 0r R5E-10 is not impossible, but can be avoided with a "gentle breeze"' over the OEM heatsinks.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> If there is no CPU present, code 00 will be displayed.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaczorws*
> 
> But shouldn't CPU_LED light up?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I went through many many pages of this thread and can't understand how one can run 1.35V on 6950 with LC under 80*c under RealBench. No way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 1.27V i already get 80*C+.
> 
> BTW what's the correct range to aim for regarding cache voltage and VCCIO/VCCSA? I still have a hard time fully stabilizing any OC above 4GHz and when left on auto the voltages are all over the place


keep cache voltage (well) under 1.3V for 24/7 high-load use. Benchmarking is a different ceiling..

I can post a RB run at 1.281V later...


----------



## PowerK

I have not really paid attention to VRM temps before. However, 31C idle and 34~35C load temps are what AIDA64 was reporting while playing GTA5 and Witcher 3. (which is considered to be light load)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Power phase control is related to the "ready" state of the power phases. Optimized is fine for modest overclocks (and adaptive). Extreme is no major change except that the Phases are always "up". I run both depending on the OC and task at hand.


Thanks Jpm for the explaination.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Anyway, *hitting 50C on the VRMs on a RT5E 0r R5E-10* is not impossible, but can be avoided with a "gentle breeze"' over the OEM heatsinks.


Below or above ? Below I guess


----------



## kaczorws

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> That's a bit further into the process, I think.


Right now I'm getting code 00 no matter if the CPU is present or not. And the CPU_LED never lights up.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaczorws*
> 
> Right now I'm getting code 00 no matter if the CPU is present or not. And the CPU_LED never lights up.


that sure looks like a bad CPU (or many bent pins in the socket)


----------



## kaczorws

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that sure looks like a bad CPU (or many bent pins in the socket)


I would rule out pins as it was working flawlessly for 2 weeks and suddenly just stopped.

However, CPU dying after 2 weeks is not what I was hoping for...







Could 1.3V kill it so quickly? :/


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaczorws*
> 
> I would rule out pins as it was working flawlessly for 2 weeks and suddenly just stopped.
> 
> However, CPU dying after 2 weeks is not what I was hoping for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could 1.3V kill it so quickly? :/


If 1.3V killed it in 2 weeks, it would have probably died within a month running at stock either way.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I went through many many pages of this thread and can't understand how one can run 1.35V on 6950 with LC under 80*c under RealBench. No way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 1.27V i already get 80*C+.
> 
> BTW what's the correct range to aim for regarding cache voltage and VCCIO/VCCSA? I still have a hard time fully stabilizing any OC above 4GHz and when left on auto the voltages are all over the place


Real Bench 2.43. 2 min and 12 min in... 1.281V Adaptive.




you might want to try using the Asus thermal control tool...


----------



## PowerK

Hi Jpm.
Is RealBench's stress test incompatibility issue with multi-GPU fixed?

Also, what's your uncore frequency and voltage at?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I have not really paid attention to VRM temps before. However, 31C idle and 34~35C load temps are what AIDA64 was reporting while playing GTA5 and Witcher 3. (which is considered to be light load)


Running OCCT Linpack, VRM temp rises to 44~45C. (AIDA64 report)


----------



## Fidelity21

Hopefully someone here can help me because I'm freakin lost. My computer has been running perfectly for about a month now and all of a sudden, upon bootup, I'm getting a Boot Code error of 61. That eventually goes away after about the 4th or 5th attempt to boot. Now I'm getting boot code error 91 and my computer doesn't want to even show video. I kept retrying over and and right now I'm in windows but this is starting to really worry me. Does anyone have any ideas on why I'm suddently having issues like this? I'm worried my motherboard may be going bad.

Asus X99 Deluxe II motherboard
6850k CPU
32Gb 4x8Gb 3200 CAS 14 G.Skill Ripjaw 5 memory
512Gb M.2 Samsung 950 Pro boot drive

Update: I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it, but I unplugged the AURA external lighting connector and the errors are gone...at least for now. That just seems odd


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi Jpm.
> Is RealBench's stress test incompatibility issue with multi-GPU fixed?
> 
> Also, what's your uncore frequency and voltage at?


it's in the sensor table on the right of the screenshot.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> it's in the sensor table on the right of the screenshot.


Ah, yes. x37 uncore with ~1.260V
That's very similar to what I've been running which is at 1.265V I haven't tried any lower values yet. Too lazy I guess hehe


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Running OCCT Linpack, VRM temp rises to 44~45C. (AIDA64 report)


With which ambient temperature ?

Thanks


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Hopefully someone here can help me because I'm freakin lost. My computer has been running perfectly for about a month now and all of a sudden, upon bootup, I'm getting a Boot Code error of 61. That eventually goes away after about the 4th or 5th attempt to boot. Now I'm getting boot code error 91 and my computer doesn't want to even show video. I kept retrying over and and right now I'm in windows but this is starting to really worry me. Does anyone have any ideas on why I'm suddently having issues like this? I'm worried my motherboard may be going bad.
> 
> Asus X99 Deluxe II motherboard
> 6850k CPU
> 32Gb 4x8Gb 3200 CAS 14 G.Skill Ripjaw 5 memory
> 512Gb M.2 Samsung 950 Pro boot drive
> 
> Update: I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it, but I unplugged the AURA external lighting connector and the errors are gone...at least for now. That just seems odd


If it happens again, look to your overclock


----------



## webmi

will keep this for my 24/7 setting


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> With which ambient temperature ?
> 
> Thanks


Ambient temp is between 21C~23C. (Air conditioning in my room)


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Ambient temp is between 21C~23C. (Air conditioning in my room)


Ok thanks (in aircooling, block Asus I guess)
I really have a problem with my VRM block
I'll re dismount it all


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Ok thanks (in aircooling, block Asus I guess)
> I really have a problem with my VRM block
> I'll re dismount it all


Yes, indeed. My current custom water consists of EK Nikkel watever water block for CPU only. (480 top + 240 front + 380 bottom radiators, overkill for CPU only, I guess. Hehe). VRMs and Titan XPs are all stock (air cooled)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Yes, indeed. My current custom water consists of EK Nikkel watever water block for CPU only. (480 top + 240 front + 380 bottom radiators, overkill for CPU only, I guess. Hehe). VRMs and Titan XPs are all stock (air cooled)


get those TXPs under water.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Running OCCT Linpack, VRM temp rises to 44~45C. (AIDA64 report)


Ok, that sounds plausible. Thanks for checking.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> get those TXPs under water.


Hi Jpm.
I thought about it.







I have not fiddled around with overclocking, yet. However, these Titans boosting to 1848MHz out of the box, I'm very satisfied with them as it is at the moment.
Only downside I can think of is increased noise but whenever I game, I use headphone so I really can't hear them at all.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi Jpm.
> I thought about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not fiddled around with overclocking, yet. However, these Titans boosting to 1848MHz out of the box, I'm very satisfied with them as it is at the moment.
> Only downside I can think of is increased noise but whenever I game, I use headphone so I really can't hear them at all.


Just joking... the TXP is a fantastic card air or water cooled.


----------



## pillowsack

Hey dudes,

I'm a proud new owner of a 6800K and a X99 Asus Sabertooth board.

I have my 6800K at 1.327Vcore and 4.5ghz. It seems to run intels extreme tuning utilities stress test perfectly fine for about an hour.
I'm just wondering what your guys recommended vcore, cache, ect voltages should be. I'm looking for 24/7 usage and it's under water.

Currently sitting at:
CPU Cache Voltage 1.265-1.27V
CPU System Agent: 1.248-1.256V
CPU Input Voltage: 1.95V

Are these within the safe 24/7? I wanna push my cache harder now and whatnot.

Is XTU's stress test any good? Thanks guys.









Edit:

What's the difference between Package Temperature listed on XTU and CPU temp listed on Thermal Radar (AI Suite)? My package is 63C running the stress, CPU is 47C. Mosfets are 58C running LLC #7 and set to extreme.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

I get what you mean by cpu voltage offset now (a few day old conversation I'm referring to).
Instead of setting the Additional Turbo Mode CPU Voltage when using adaptive, leave that as Auto and set a negative offset, the allows you to use adaptive voltages correctly but have a lower voltage than the programmed VID.
I set a negative offset of -0.010v which gives me a max voltage of 1.25v, but I understand I have to watch idle voltages as that might become unstable if they are too low.
Just dropping down that small amount has knocked 3c off my hottest core temp, plus I need it "Summer is coming"... (sorry bad GOT reference..lol)


----------



## BrainSplatter

HardOCP has mentioned several times that their 2 6950X CPUs both have deteriorated pretty quick in terms of maximum overclock.
Quote:


> Our Core i7-6950X CPUs are both degrading in terms of top stable overclocks. The best I could do with it this round in 12 hours of stability testing was all 10 cores at 4.2GHz, at 1.28v. That vCore is very nice though as it keeps the CPU a lot cooler than our ~1.34v we were having to use to keep stable at 4.3GHz.


from here (toward bottom):
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/08/10/msi_x99a_xpower_gaming_titanium_lga2011v3_review/7

Is this something which people here can confirm ?

It should affect other Broadwell E CPUs as well since the degradation is probably related to the manufacturing process.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BrainSplatter*
> 
> HardOCP has mentioned several times that their 2 6950X CPUs both have deteriorated pretty quick in terms of maximum overclock.
> from here (toward bottom):
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/08/10/msi_x99a_xpower_gaming_titanium_lga2011v3_review/7
> 
> Is this something which people here can confirm ?
> 
> It should affect other Broadwell E CPUs as well since the degradation is probably related to the manufacturing process.


Every component degrade, be it electrical or mechanical.
Broadwell-E CPUs been out for only 3-4 months now. Obviously, [H]ardOCP is doing something wrong. Also, 6950X @4.3 shouldn't require that much of Vcore. The article says 1.34V.)
My 6950X requires 1.360V for 4.4 and 1.280V for 4.3GHz.
2600K @4.5GHz in my house is still kicking hard. No problem whatsoever.


----------



## Martin778

If it does 4.3 on 1.28v it's probably a very good chip. The 6950X seems to start soaking up vCore like a sponge around 4.3GHz.


----------



## [email protected]

Bear in mind the reports on degradation are related to running lengthy sessions of Prime95 without paying attention to current draw. Any architecture will degrade if you expose it to excessive levels of current. HW-E was exactly the same when it came to hardiness when faced with the brutality of Prime 95 at excessive Vcore (over 1.30V).


----------



## Martin778

I don't understand...they mentioned degrading but how was it like? What was the pre-degrade vcore/frequency?

When I was OCing the 6950X and had AI Suite installed I tried running P95 AVX and I could briefly see 250W cpu power in AI suite before it locked up.

P95 is a set of synthetic calculations all over again, since the AVX was added not really relevant anymore as it will cook/destroy anything in the long run.
I very much prefer the latest realbech as it also stresses the GPU etc.

+ Just looked up some more reviews with OC of the 6950x and I wasn't that far off - almost 250W power usage:


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> I get what you mean by cpu voltage offset now (a few day old conversation I'm referring to).
> Instead of setting the Additional Turbo Mode CPU Voltage when using adaptive, leave that as Auto and set a negative offset, the allows you to use adaptive voltages correctly but have a lower voltage than the programmed VID.
> I set a negative offset of -0.010v which gives me a max voltage of 1.25v, but I understand I have to watch idle voltages as that might become unstable if they are too low.
> Just dropping down that small amount has knocked 3c off my hottest core temp, plus I need it "Summer is coming"... (sorry bad GOT reference..lol)


good to know. the only way to test the idle voltage - that I could conjure up - is to disable turbo, set 1200 for min and max freq at the noted idle voltage when using a negative offset and run some RB image edit benchmarks, then just use it .. no hangs or BSODs and it's good to go.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BrainSplatter*
> 
> HardOCP has mentioned several times that their 2 6950X CPUs both have deteriorated pretty quick in terms of maximum overclock.
> from here (toward bottom):
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/08/10/msi_x99a_xpower_gaming_titanium_lga2011v3_review/7
> 
> Is this something which people here can confirm ?
> 
> It should affect other Broadwell E CPUs as well since the degradation is probably related to the manufacturing process.


like Raja said... IMO any protracted stress testing is gonna affect these 8 and 10 core parts.. and not in a good way. I've seen guys here running p95 and/or OCCT for many hours... and a full day, get "stable" and then not long after complain that their OC is no longer stable.. up voltage and another round of brutalizing the silicon... then. rinse and repeat in a cycle of stability testing degradation. Crazy.


----------



## DarkIdeals

So just re-did my loop with my new i7 6950X in it. Succeeded at a 4.3ghz 1 hour realbench run and some Cinebench runs and just did a REAL quick 4.4ghz run as well. Seems 100% stable at 1.4v 4.4ghz so far (haven't even tried anything lower. just went straight to 1.4v since i'm tired as hell. gonna work on trying to dial in a 1.35v or less 4.4ghz stable OC in the morning)

Here's my Cinebench 4.4ghz run with 3.5ghz uncore/cache and 3000mhz 16-18-18-36 2T Dominator Platinum RAM on a RVE 10 board.

http://hwbot.org/submission/3315608_darkideals_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6950x_2291_cb

Once i buy my set of 64GB 3333mhz i'm gonna work on getting a C15 1T setup going (hoping for 15-17-17-35 1T or so. Might try for 3200 C14 though) and i'm gonna see about dialing the cache frequency up to ~3.8 or so and testing for possible 4.5ghz stability. If all goes well i should be looking at a mid 2,300's score. If not i always have the 2nd 6950X that i'm going to test too, so i can see which of the two OC's the best.


----------



## Martin778

What could cause q-code 91 and red led above the GPU to stay lit? This happens when touch SA / cache / Input voltage.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> What could cause q-code 91 and red led above the GPU to stay lit? This happens when touch SA / cache / Input voltage.


it's hard to tell what the actual voltages are unless you boot in High Performance mode. Reinstall the chipset drivers (same version).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> So just re-did my loop with my new i7 6950X in it. Succeeded at a 4.3ghz 1 hour realbench run and some Cinebench runs and just did a REAL quick 4.4ghz run as well. Seems 100% stable at 1.4v 4.4ghz so far (haven't even tried anything lower. just went straight to 1.4v since i'm tired as hell. gonna work on trying to dial in a 1.35v or less 4.4ghz stable OC in the morning)
> 
> Here's my Cinebench 4.4ghz run with 3.5ghz uncore/cache and 3000mhz 16-18-18-36 2T Dominator Platinum RAM on a RVE 10 board.
> 
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3315608_darkideals_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6950x_2291_cb
> 
> Once i buy my set of 64GB 3333mhz i'm gonna work on getting a C15 1T setup going (hoping for 15-17-17-35 1T or so. Might try for 3200 C14 though) and i'm gonna see about dialing the cache frequency up to ~3.8 or so and testing for possible 4.5ghz stability. If all goes well i should be looking at a mid 2,300's score. If not i always have the 2nd 6950X that i'm going to test too, so i can see which of the two OC's the best.


nice job... but why buy 3333 ram? get the 3200c14 kit or wait until the new ICs come out (by year end supposedly).


----------



## Martin778

Those are stock voltages shown on the left, it won't boot with the voltages that I chose. It gets stuck on q-code 91 and red LED above the GPU. After rebooting again it says overclocking failed.


----------



## BrainSplatter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Any architecture will degrade if you expose it to excessive levels of current. HW-E was exactly the same when it came to hardiness when faced with the brutality of Prime 95 at excessive Vcore (over 1.30V).


So according to your experience, Broadwell-E isn't more prone to degradation due to the smaller chip structures compared to earlier architectures with larger chip structures.

Still curious about what hardocp reported. Usually they are quite reliable. They said that they talked to a motherboard manufacturer who apparently reported very much the same.
Quote:


> Both of the 6950X CPUs we have on hand have deteriorated in terms of overclocking ability. We run these CPUs very hard in stability testing here with the motherboard review program. At first I thought that our issues with overclocking on the X99-Phoenix SLI were due to the motherboard, but in the end it turned out to be our CPUs. And we are not alone in this. *Talking to one of the big three motherboard builders, they have seen much the same in their testing facilities.*


http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/09/14/gigabyte_x99_phoenix_sli_motherboard_review/7


----------



## pillowsack

I think you guys might have skimped over my post

Currently sitting at:
CPU Vcore: 1.333V
CPU Cache Voltage 1.278-1.29V
CPU System Agent: 1.256-1.262V
CPU Input Voltage: 1.952V

Are these within the safe 24/7? What can I do to push cache higher?

My CPU is stable at 4.5ghz and 3.8ghz cache. I have a 6800K and I feel like this is a good chip


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> I think you guys might have skimped over my post
> 
> Currently sitting at:
> CPU Vcore: 1.333V
> CPU Cache Voltage 1.278-1.29V
> CPU System Agent: 1.256-1.262V
> CPU Input Voltage: 1.952V
> 
> Are these within the safe 24/7? What can I do to push cache higher?
> 
> My CPU is stable at 4.5ghz and 3.8ghz cache. I have a 6800K and I feel like this is a good chip


Hello

There is no magic. Higher speeds require more voltage. Not sure why SA needs to be set so high though.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> What could cause q-code 91 and red led above the GPU to stay lit? This happens when touch SA / cache / Input voltage.


I had the same question a few days ago. I was getting error code 61 followed by 91 and I couldn't figure out why. I ended up setting VCCIO and VCCSA to Auto settings and I haven't had a problem booting since. This leads me to think it had something to do with my manually set values of VCCIO=1.100v and VCCSA=1.128v. So now that everything is stable again...and I'm not happy leaving VCCIO to AUTO at 1.256v and VCCSA to AUTO at 1.304v, I'm giving them another shot to see if slightly higher values (than I had set in manual previously) will still provide stability while preventing the error codes.

So far, I'm VCCIO=1.150v and VCCSA=(0.250v offset)1.200v. That's a fairly significant drop from AUTO but still higher than I had them on before. The weird thing about these values is that my system was running rock solid after an 8 hour stress test using RealBench v2.44. It was only the error code 61 that started to pop up occasionally and then the error code 91 that really made me think I fried my system. I was forced to set all BIOS settings to default to boot successfully (because it appears before the video loads...preventing you from accessing the BIOS) and then slowly change the settings back to what i had before...minus the VCCIO and VCCSA values.

I hope this helps!


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice job... but why buy 3333 ram? get the 3200c14 kit or wait until the new ICs come out (by year end supposedly).


Because the 3333mhz C16 kit is only a ~$10 difference over the 3200mhz C16 kit (even the 3466mhz C16kit is only ~$15 more) and since G.Skill is the only one really selling 64GB C14 3000+ kits that i like the looks of much at all i figured i could buy a set of Corsair 3333 or 3466 with C16 and have a much better odds of achieving a real nice timing setup like C14-16-16-1T or similar after some tweaking.

What "new ICs" are you talking about BTW? Haven't heard anything new in RAM news as of late so that's kinda interesting to me.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> I think you guys might have skimped over my post
> 
> Currently sitting at:
> CPU Vcore: 1.333V
> CPU Cache Voltage 1.278-1.29V
> CPU System Agent: 1.256-1.262V
> CPU Input Voltage: 1.952V
> 
> Are these within the safe 24/7? What can I do to push cache higher?
> 
> My CPU is stable at 4.5ghz and 3.8ghz cache. I have a 6800K and I feel like this is a good chip


For vcore enerally anything under 1.4v is considered safe, although some people like to stick to the 1.3v region due to fear of degredation and whatnot etc.. but most will say that anything under 1.35v for vcore is fine for 24/7 use and i agree.

Input voltage is fine although not really necessary (especially if you have load line calibration cranked), and i typically run with SA and Cache on AUTO personally.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I've seen guys here running p95 and/or OCCT for many hours... and a full day, get "stable" and then not long after complain that their OC is no longer stable.. up voltage and another round of brutalizing the silicon... then. rinse and repeat in a cycle of stability testing degradation. Crazy.


I do a bi-monthly 24 hour run of Prime95 28.9 Large FFTs to measure/track degradation. Nothing yet on my current 5820K, other than the initial break in period, which was over with the first week I had the part. Since I just started using the OC Socket features again (though with more conservative, and completely manual VL control) about three months ago, the next few tests should be interesting.

You do bring up a good point though: stable and reliable aren't the same thing. You can easily achieve near term stability with settings that severely compromise long term reliability. Need to work in considerable headroom if a heavily OCed and heavily used part is to last without significant degradation.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BrainSplatter*
> 
> So according to your experience, Broadwell-E isn't more prone to degradation due to the smaller chip structures compared to earlier architectures with larger chip structures.
> 
> Still curious about what hardocp reported. Usually they are quite reliable. They said that they talked to a motherboard manufacturer who apparently reported very much the same.
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/09/14/gigabyte_x99_phoenix_sli_motherboard_review/7


No different on our side. You just need to track current and not abuse the die. Same case for HW-E, as well.


----------



## Raghar

How can you track current? We can affect only voltage.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Those are stock voltages shown on the left, it won't boot with the voltages that I chose. It gets stuck on q-code 91 and red LED above the GPU. After rebooting again it says overclocking failed.


yeah - I see wgat you set, I was interestinf is seeing the bios "load" voltages.. thaty's why I asked about changing boot performance. anyway.. nvm.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> I think you guys might have skimped over my post
> 
> Currently sitting at:
> CPU Vcore: 1.333V
> CPU Cache Voltage 1.278-1.29V
> CPU System Agent: 1.256-1.262V
> CPU Input Voltage: 1.952V
> 
> Are these within the safe 24/7? What can I do to push cache higher?
> 
> My CPU is stable at 4.5ghz and 3.8ghz cache. I have a 6800K and I feel like this is a good chip


VSA (system agent) is quite high for my liking.. as Praz noted. Prolly best to keep Vcache comfortably below 1.3V if you plan to run at those voltages for a long time. VCCIN 1.952? Didn't kn ow it had that resolution... anyway, the key missing setting is LLC. What do you have LLC set to?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I had the same question a few days ago. I was getting error code 61 followed by 91 and I couldn't figure out why. I ended up setting VCCIO and VCCSA to Auto settings and I haven't had a problem booting since. This leads me to think it had something to do with my manually set values of VCCIO=1.100v and VCCSA=1.128v. So now that everything is stable again...and I'm not happy leaving VCCIO to AUTO at 1.256v and VCCSA to AUTO at 1.304v, I'm giving them another shot to see if slightly higher values (than I had set in manual previously) will still provide stability while preventing the error codes.
> 
> So far, I'm VCCIO=1.150v and VCCSA=(0.250v offset)1.200v. That's a fairly significant drop from AUTO but still higher than I had them on before. The weird thing about these values is that my system was running rock solid after an 8 hour stress test using RealBench v2.44. It was only the error code 61 that started to pop up occasionally and then the error code 91 that really made me think I fried my system. I was forced to set all BIOS settings to default to boot successfully (because it appears before the video loads...preventing you from accessing the BIOS) and then slowly change the settings back to what i had before...minus the VCCIO and VCCSA values.
> 
> I hope this helps!


I can't see why yall need VSA so high?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I do a bi-monthly 24 hour run of Prime95 28.9 Large FFTs to measure/track degradation. Nothing yet on my current 5820K, other than the initial break in period, which was over with the first week I had the part. Since I just started using the OC Socket features again (though with more conservative, and completely manual VL control) about three months ago, the next few tests should be interesting.
> 
> You do bring up a good point though: *stable and reliable aren't the same thing*. You can easily achieve near term stability with settings that severely compromise long term reliability. Need to work in considerable headroom if a heavily OCed and heavily used part is to last without significant degradation.


they can be... it is a balance for sure.
lol - I figured you were still punishing that cpu with p95.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> How can you track current? We can affect only voltage.


POwer used. with a $20 killawatt meter you can get a good idea of the wattage/power the cpu is sucking down. Not as accurate as a proper ammeter, but good enough for us mortals.


----------



## Fidelity21

I wish there was a clear cut answer about the proper VCCSA Voltage but it seems to depend on several factors and changes for everyone. I thought I was rock solid with an offset of 0.200 (1.150v) but apparently that was causing me to have random Boot error codes of 61. I ignored it until my system refused to boot and presented an error code of 91. Now, the only change I've made is going up to VCCSA (0.250 offset) 1.200v. That might be a fairly large jump (0.200 to 0.250) but the total value is still far lower than the AUTO settings.


----------



## mbze430

I have my VCCSA with a .230 offset or else I can't boot. However when I was trying for 3200 speed, the VCCSA didn't make any difference higher....


----------



## Silent Scone

My 6950x is quite happy with 1v for 3200 speeds, my 6900K seemed to like a little more with same memory settings at 1.05v. Some CPUs may need more than this, it is what it is.


----------



## Martin778

Does VCCSA affect CPU overclocking in any way or is it only to stabilize the RAM at higher speeds?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I wish there was a clear cut answer about the proper VCCSA Voltage but it seems to depend on several factors and changes for everyone. I thought I was rock solid with an offset of 0.200 (1.150v) but apparently that was causing me to have random Boot error codes of 61. I ignored it until my system refused to boot and presented an error code of 91. Now, the only change I've made is going up to VCCSA (0.250 offset) 1.200v. That might be a fairly large jump (0.200 to 0.250) but the total value is still far lower than the AUTO settings.


that's the thing with VSA, more is not always better. When tuning this voltage rail it is always a good idea to try a range both higher and lower.


----------



## Martin778

@jpmboy, this is the voltage my X99 deluxe comes up with for 32x125MHz,. 2666MHz RAM loosely running 15-15-15-36-2T and 3124MHz cache.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's the thing with VSA, more is not always better. When tuning this voltage rail it is always a good idea to try a range both higher and lower.


That makes it ever harder to tune!







The range I've tried to date is 1.088 to 1.200v. Anything lower than 1.12 and it seems to fail pretty quickly but I haven't tried lower than 1.088v to your point. Getting up to 1.128v was good for a while but eventually failed after 2 hours of a stress test so I went up to 1.150v. That was working perfectly for over a month BUT I was getting these really strange BIOS boot error 61 codes at random and didn't know why. Restarting the system a few times fixed that error until the Bios boot error 91 popped up and I thought I destroyed my computer or at least the video card. But back to factory default settings in the BIOS and I was able to load the BIOS. Now I'm staying north of where I was before and things seem to be stable so far. I can't imagine 1.200v is a dangerous area since the AUTO setting is 1.300v. I'm not changing the VCCIO or VCCSA settings from AUTO for any other reason than I was told it could be dangerous to leave them on AUTO. Things seem to work very well on AUTO but those voltages seem VERY high.

Also, according to the ASUS overclocking guide, memory timings north of 3000mhz should required VCCSA south of 1.300v so I'm definitely within range of what was quoted previously. Even the stock AUTO timing seems spot on at 1.296 to 1.304v for VCCSA.
http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/2/

I'm running 3200mhz memory at CAS 14 timings.
GSkill Ripjaw 5 32gb 4x8Gb 3200mhz CAS 14 memory kit


----------



## mbze430

they make CL5 DDR4 memory?!?!?!?!? man, I want some of those!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> @jpmboy, this is the voltage my X99 deluxe comes up with for 32x125MHz,. 2666MHz RAM loosely running 5-5-5-35-2T and 3124MHz cache.


----------



## Martin778

15









The VCCSA must be.....just right











I just instaled DIP5 software but man, it trashes my OS (Win 10 x64) totally.
Everything gets laggy, last time i installed it my OS died - black screen after a few seconds from start.
Could be conflicting with EVGA OC tool.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> How can you track current? We can affect only voltage.


You can measure current directly at the +12v ATX/EPS cable with a clamp ammeter, or via software that can read the VRM control ICs on a motherboard. If you know wattage, you can also calculate current by dividing it by voltage.

Depending on what stage you measure current or wattage at, you may need to account for one or two steps of efficiency loss and possibly subtract low idle power consumption.

On my current board, I normally take what HWinfo64 reports and multiply it by four (either not all phases are being read, or the software is misinterpreting what the board/CPU reports, though in a predicable manner) as this figure corresponds very closely with my ammeter and kill-a-watt readings.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> they make CL5 DDR4 memory?!?!?!?!? man, I want some of those!


I suspect he left a 1 off all of those fives.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> @jpmboy, this is the voltage my X99 deluxe comes up with for 32x125MHz,. 2666MHz RAM loosely running 15-15-15-36-2T and 3124MHz cache.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


gimme a few minutes to zip up my current bios settings (a sedate 42a42c37m3200 as a guide for ya. (Adaptive). I'll edit this post with the zip files.

160915174531.zip 1954k .zip file


160915174358.zip 1977k .zip file


I can load a manual override group of settings is you are worried about adaptive. You have a different board, but the main settings are the same. Any bios pages not shown = all settings are Auto (optimized defaults). Importantly.. before entering any new settings, load optimized defaults, F10 and post back to bios then enter the new settings. Each CPU is different... your voltage may vary. But, with Adaptive, the best way to proceed is to set a "Total Adaptive (Turbo) voltage that you are comfortable with, then begin increasing the multiplier until it fails to POST (or load windows... ALWAYS have a fresh SYSTEM IMAGE, somewhere). When you hit the first failed post when increasing the multiplier, get back into bios (holding down the start button = safe boot) and lower the multiplier *2* notches. Boot to windows. Then... go about fine tuning the system for other voltages like vsa, cache.. do ytyour ram last, after you have a solid CPU base OC to work from (and save that OC to a bios save slot). I say that because if the base is not (reasonably) solid, failed ram could be for any number of reasons.
Get this set.. then we can see if those Geil sticks can cooperate.
Adaptive works fine on ASUS boards - try it.


----------



## PowerK

AIDA64 reports CPU current in A (and power in W), FYI.


----------



## Martin778

Thanks, I was playing with adaptive once and somehow got greeted by "CPU overvoltage error" and 1,69Vcore in BIOS


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> AIDA64 reports CPU current in A (and power in W), FYI.


On my X99 SOC Champion it reports the same as HWinfo...which is precisely one-quarter of actual value.


----------



## pillowsack

I'm at class right now but when I get home I will try to lower the system agent a bit. I have my HyperX Predator 3000's at 3200 15-16-16-1T atm. I kinda just set them to what auto had set them too. I have LLC at 7 if I remember right.

Is my 6800K considered a good overclocker though? 4.5Ghz at 1.33vcore? What I see online is that everyone needs 1.4V to do anything above 4.4ghz

Also what are others standard cache overclocks, ie what do people hit? I know my 5820K hit 4.2ghz with the gigabyte board and whatnot. If I could get that flat 4ghz i'd be happy. Dunno how Asus overclock sockets work.

Does this CPU scale with temps better? I'm thinking about ramping my pump and fans up a bit more to keep the CPU happier.

Sorry for the barrage of questions, new chip and new motherboard. I'm a little lost


----------



## Martin778

@jpmboy, many thanks for the pics! I used your settings, except for the RAM which I don't care for since these GeILs are on the way out to be replaced by a 4x8 DDR4-3200 CL14 TridentZ kit.









So far so good, no lockups, no error 91 during boot. Some settings were a tiny bit different as the X99 Deluxe lacks some features the RVE has but the most important voltage settings are indeed the same.
I have to admit I was surprised it even booted with 3.7GHz uncore









Thankfully the ambient temps are dropping sharp to more bearable low 20s (we had 30+ for the last week) so I will be able to push the hardware a bit more.
Now it's time for the big test - RealBench

+ Nope, 1.225 vcore won't cut it at 4.2GHz - Clock watchdog timeout BSOD within 10 secs.
Bumped it up to 1.255 and it passed 15 minutes, haven't tried longer yet.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> good to know. the only way to test the idle voltage - that I could conjure up - is to disable turbo, set 1200 for min and max freq at the noted idle voltage when using a negative offset and run some RB image edit benchmarks, then just use it .. no hangs or BSODs and it's good to go.


I pretty much left the machine on all night just with Chrome and email open, no hangs or crashes.
Will try your trick now too just to be sure.

I didn't really don't too much off the voltages because when I was playing with the manual voltages I couldn't get 4.2Ghz stable under 1.25v, so I knew my starting point anyway.
Did you see they removed DMI Skew Sign and DMI Skew from Tweakers Paradise in the new Strix BIOS, not that I honestly knew what they do.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> @jpmboy, many thanks for the pics! I used your settings, except for the RAM which I don't care for since these GeILs are on the way out to be replaced by a 4x8 DDR4-3200 CL14 TridentZ kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far so good, no lockups, no error 91 during boot. Some settings were a tiny bit different as the X99 Deluxe lacks some features the RVE has but the most important voltage settings are indeed the same.
> I have to admit I was surprised it even booted with 3.7GHz uncore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully the ambient temps are dropping sharp to more bearable low 20s (we had 30+ for the last week) so I will be able to push the hardware a bit more.
> Now it's time for the big test - RealBench
> 
> + Nope, 1.225 vcore won't cut it at 4.2GHz - Clock watchdog timeout BSOD within 10 secs.
> *Bumped it up to 1.255* and it passed 15 minutes, haven't tried longer yet.










Good to know it helped. each chip is different... just watch peak temps as to up the multiplier and voltage. Use The Asus Thermal Control tool.
btw - those ram settings are for a 64GB 3200c14 TZ kit.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I pretty much left the machine on all night just with Chrome and email open, no hangs or crashes.
> *Will try your trick now too just to be sure.*
> 
> I didn't really don't too much off the voltages because when I was playing with the manual voltages I couldn't get 4.2Ghz stable under 1.25v, so I knew my starting point anyway.
> Did you see they removed DMI Skew Sign and DMI Skew from Tweakers Paradise in the new Strix BIOS, not that I honestly knew what they do.


not really sure the locked low clock fully replicates the idle state.. it just mimicks the base clock function at the lower than VID voltage.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> That makes it ever harder to tune!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The range I've tried to date is 1.088 to 1.200v. Anything lower than 1.12 and it seems to fail pretty quickly but I haven't tried lower than 1.088v to your point. Getting up to 1.128v was good for a while but eventually failed after 2 hours of a stress test so I went up to 1.150v. That was working perfectly for over a month BUT I was getting these really strange BIOS boot error 61 codes at random and didn't know why. Restarting the system a few times fixed that error until the Bios boot error 91 popped up and I thought I destroyed my computer or at least the video card. But back to factory default settings in the BIOS and I was able to load the BIOS. Now I'm staying north of where I was before and things seem to be stable so far. I can't imagine 1.200v is a dangerous area since the AUTO setting is 1.300v. I'm not changing the VCCIO or VCCSA settings from AUTO for any other reason than I was told it could be dangerous to leave them on AUTO. Things seem to work very well on AUTO but those voltages seem VERY high.
> 
> Also, according to the ASUS overclocking guide, memory timings north of 3000mhz should required VCCSA south of 1.300v so I'm definitely within range of what was quoted previously. Even the stock AUTO timing seems spot on at 1.296 to 1.304v for VCCSA.
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/2/
> 
> I'm running 3200mhz memory at CAS 14 timings.
> GSkill Ripjaw 5 32gb 4x8Gb 3200mhz CAS 14 memory kit


yeah, that kit should run well with VSA in the 1V range... something else is going on.
1) fill out rigbuilder and add it to your signiture block
2) enter bios with a USB stick in any port, on each relevant bios page, hit F12.... ESC to boot to windowsa when done. OPen the USB stick and select the bmp files just saved, rt click> send to> compressed zip folder. Post that folder here using the "paper clip" tool in the editor.








let's have a look.


----------



## pillowsack

I think it's ridiculous everywhere online people are just saying these chips suck for overclocking and not to buy them. My 6800K was only $400 at microcenter, it's $80 more than 5820K sure but it overclocks the same.

What's with the stigma behind these chips??? I can't find any threads to compare my batch number with or just overall overclocking leaderboard. I saw a leaderboard post on OCN with 6 replies.

EDIT:
I'm now stable with:
Cache: 1.275-1.285v
System Agent: 1.144-1.160v
Input 1.904v

I lowered the system agent and input down a notch and it was stable overnight. I should just aim to lower everything as far down as I can right now I guess? The 5820K I had loved system agent volts.

What does VCCU offset do?


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> I think it's ridiculous everywhere online people are just saying these chips suck for overclocking and not to buy them. My 6800K was only $400 at microcenter, it's $80 more than 5820K sure but it overclocks the same.


Its not ridiculous, its the facts, on average 1.3V get you ~4.55GHz on HW-E and ~4.3GHz on BW-E.

The HW-E chip ends up faster and cheaper, unless you get lucky with a good BW-E chip that can do 4.5GHz @ ~1.35V

I had a 6800K, was an average chip, it did 4.3GHz @ ~1.33V, and 4.4GHz @ ~1.4V.

I went back to my 4.75 [email protected] 1.34V 5820K.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> I think it's ridiculous everywhere online people are just saying these chips suck for overclocking and not to buy them. My 6800K was only $400 at microcenter, it's $80 more than 5820K sure but it overclocks the same.
> 
> What's with the stigma behind these chips??? I can't find any threads to compare my batch number with or just overall overclocking leaderboard. I saw a leaderboard post on OCN with 6 replies.
> 
> EDIT:
> I'm now stable with:
> Cache: 1.275-1.285v
> System Agent: 1.144-1.160v
> Input 1.904v
> 
> I lowered the system agent and input down a notch and it was stable overnight. I should just aim to lower everything as far down as I can right now I guess? The 5820K I had loved system agent volts.
> 
> *What does VCCU offset do*?


helps with cache and cpu oc stability. I run this at 4.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Its not ridiculous, its the facts, on average 1.3V get you ~4.55GHz on HW-E and ~4.3GHz on BW-E.
> 
> The HW-E chip ends up faster and cheaper, unless you get lucky with a good BW-E chip that can do 4.5GHz @ ~1.35V
> 
> I had a 6800K, was an average chip, it did 4.3GHz @ ~1.33V, and 4.4GHz @ ~1.4V.
> 
> I went back to my 4.75 [email protected] 1.34V 5820K.


you are right... ya haveta run an HWE at a higher clock to keep pace. lol, comparing GHz across architectures is wrong. Granted tho, in a single core app, 4.75 will do better than 4.3. IMO. the reason to get a BWE (aside from it being new gen with better IPC etc) is 10 cores. 8 and 6 core parts are a side grade.


----------



## Martin778

Peeps are/were complaining about the BW as it mostly clocks worse than HW-E. Just look what the 5960X can do in terms of OC compared to the 6950X that hits a wall around 4.3GHz and needs way more volts while being newer architecture.
Second thing might be expectations from ones who use(d) 2600/3770/4700/6700 that clocked 4.7-5.0GHz and switch platform to X99 just to see their high end platform won't do 4.3GHz.

The 6950X has thermal issues because of it's core layout and most probably the die has became too small to get rid of the heat effectively.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Its not ridiculous, its the facts, on average 1.3V get you ~4.55GHz on HW-E and ~4.3GHz on BW-E.
> 
> The HW-E chip ends up faster and cheaper, unless you get lucky with a good BW-E chip that can do 4.5GHz @ ~1.35V
> 
> I had a 6800K, was an average chip, it did 4.3GHz @ ~1.33V, and 4.4GHz @ ~1.4V.
> 
> I went back to my 4.75 [email protected] 1.34V 5820K.


That is quite the 5820k. I was hoping to get something like that with my first one but ended up with a 4.5ghz at 1.31v and 4.2ghz cache. R.I.P. you average bastard
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> helps with cache and cpu oc stability. I run this at 4.


Does running it at 4 actually help you overclock any? Has it allowed you to bump up the cache? I'm just aiming for a higher cache clock now since I got my core happy at 4.5ghz

I'm gonna start testing LLC set to 5 instead of 7 now and see how that goes stability wise.

Is it weird that this chip runs cooler than my 5820K?

EDIT: previous picture came out really low resolution for some reason


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Peeps are/were complaining about the BW as it mostly clocks worse than HW-E. Just look what the 5960X can do in terms of OC compared to the 6950X that hits a wall around 4.3GHz and needs way more volts while being newer architecture.
> Second thing might be expectations from ones who use(d) 2600/3770/4700/6700 that clocked 4.7-5.0GHz and switch platform to X99 just to see their high end platform won't do 4.3GHz.
> 
> The 6950X has thermal issues because of it's core layout and most probably the die has became too small to get rid of the heat effectively.


AGain, if you are comparing frequency across chips it is meaningless. I have a 6950x and a 5960x running side-by-side right now. 4.3/3.7 on the 10 core just stomps all over the 5960X at 4.7/4.2 in any multithreaded app. If you want to compare single core performance my 6700K is faster - sure, but my 6320 2-core (non-K overclock bios) does better than the 6700K - cause it can clock higher. For me, single threaded apps are out of the Cretaceous period and have the same fate.
.. lol cores count.

like I recommended earlier - try the ATCT for a higher single core (=light load) frequency. Frankly, for $35 you can buy the ITP and have a safety net... but (i think it was yoiu) lapping a 6950X when the thermal issue was related to bios settings and not the cpu build was misguided.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> That is quite the 5820k. I was hoping to get something like that with my first one but ended up with a 4.5ghz at 1.31v and 4.2ghz cache. R.I.P. you average bastard
> Does running it at 4 actually help you overclock any? Has it allowed you to bump up the cache? I'm just aiming for a higher cache clock now since I got my core happy at 4.5ghz
> I'm gonna start testing LLC set to 5 instead of 7 now and see how that goes stability wise.
> Is it weird that this chip runs cooler than my 5820K?
> EDIT: previous picture came out really low resolution for some reason


LLC on this platform acts on VCCIN, not vcore - just FYI
VCCU offset seems to help with cache @ 3.8 on my chip.


----------



## Martin778

I wasn't referring to performance, merely clock rates.







I know the BW-E has superior IPC and thus higher performance overall.

By the way big rep for you for the voltage settings, just passed 1h realbench with no issues.








The temp difference is purely a CPU thing, it's just how my chip is made. Delid would be the only possible option left.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I wasn't referring to performance, merely clock rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the BW-E has superior IPC and thus higher performance overall.
> 
> By the way big rep for you for the voltage settings, just passed 1h realbench with no issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The temp difference is purely a CPU thing, it's just how my chip is made. Delid would be the only possible option left.


those temps are from running what? With the EK EVO? that block should do as well or better than most. BTW - delidding a soldered IHS is not trivial like a 6700K is.


----------



## Martin778

This is after 1h RealBench and it's an EK Supremacy EVO Elite, yes. Highest vcore was 1.255V.

Ambient temps are 19-20*C.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> EK Supremacy EVO Elite, yes. Highest vcore was 1.255V.


if those temps are peak while running RBv2.44, your chip is normal. What was the coolant temp at 1h?


----------



## Martin778

These are the peak temperatures.
I don't have a a water temp sensor installed at the moment. I'm still trying to figure out where to hide the ASUS fan extension card somewhere in the case as it has 1 external temp sensor that I could put in the rez.
The pump was running at around 40-50%, fans maybe 60-70%.


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

So I've recently picked up a new 6850k with a R5E-10, and have been reading through much of the info in this thread in order to achieve a good overclock with it. So far I'm stable at 2 hours of Realbench with 4.4 GHz at 1.3v, with a mild cache of 3.5 at 1.2v.

I've toyed around with 4.5 GHz a little bit, but it requires ~1.39v to achieve the same stability. Do you think this kind of voltage is reasonable/safe for a 24/7 overclock? I'm tempted to run it higher, but I also plan to hang onto it for a few years.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lon3Tr3k*
> 
> So I've recently picked up a new 6850k with a R5E-10, and have been reading through much of the info in this thread in order to achieve a good overclock with it. So far I'm stable at 2 hours of Realbench with 4.4 GHz at 1.3v, with a mild cache of 3.5 at 1.2v.
> 
> I've toyed around with 4.5 GHz a little bit, but it requires ~1.39v to achieve the same stability. Do you think this kind of voltage is reasonable/safe for a 24/7 overclock? I'm tempted to run it higher, but I also plan to hang onto it for a few years.


what VCCIN and LLC?


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what VCCIN and LLC?


1.93v VCCIN and 5 LLC.

Temps are at or below 60C with 1.3 vcore and at or below 70C with the 1.39 vcore, under Realbench.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lon3Tr3k*
> 
> 1.93v VCCIN and 5 LLC.
> 
> Temps are at or below 60C with 1.3 vcore and at or below 70C with the 1.39 vcore, under Realbench.


nice... be sure to check the package temp tho, this can run 10+C hotter than any of the cores.


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice... be sure to check the package temp tho, this can run 10+C hotter than any of the cores.


Ok, I'll be sure to check what kind of temps I'm getting that way when I get home later today. What should I be aiming to stay under with the package temp, is it ok to be in the 70-80C range with this?

Also, given these temps, should I be ok with running 4.5 under ~1.39v for 24/7 long term use?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lon3Tr3k*
> 
> Ok, I'll be sure to check what kind of temps I'm getting that way when I get home later today. What should I be aiming to stay under with the package temp, is it ok to be in the 70-80C range with this?
> 
> Also, given these temps, should I be ok with running 4.5 under ~1.39v for 24/7 long term use?


once you get into the 80s with package temp, you are in the extreme range imo for a 24/7 oc - tho there's likely nothing you do normally that will load the system to that level. Once you go above 1.3V for a day-driver OC, I'd use the Asus Thermal Control Tool to manage those hot moments.


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> once you get into the 80s with package temp, you are in the extreme range imo for a 24/7 oc - tho there's likely nothing you do normally that will load the system to that level. Once you go above 1.3V for a day-driver OC, I'd use the Asus Thermal Control Tool to manage those hot moments.


Ok, I'll give that a read through and go from there once I do some more tweaking with that 4.5 oc. Thanks!

Edit: I guess I could just turn up the fans on my loop for cooler temps too, but I like the silence I've got now


----------



## The Stilt

Could Broadwell-E owners check something for me? While MCE (Multicore Enhancement) is disabled, multiplier is set to "Auto" and Turbo / EIST are enabled:

CPU-Z -> About -> Save Report (.TXT). In the report scroll down until you see "Processors Information". What are the specified ratios for "Ratio 1 Core" - "Ratio x Core" on your CPU? I'm specifically interested in 6900K, but all of the other models are welcome too.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> Could Broadwell-E owners check something for me? While MCE (Multicore Enhancement) is disabled, multiplier is set to "Auto" and Turbo / EIST are enabled:
> 
> CPU-Z -> About -> Save Report (.TXT). In the report scroll down until you see "Processors Information". What are the specified ratios for "Ratio 1 Core" - "Ratio x Core" on your CPU? I'm specifically interested in 6900K, but all of the other models are welcome too.


it records the correct ratio for the core count, but trips up on threads 11-20 on a 6950X (has these at 34)

my mistake... worse than I thought:


----------



## Martin778

Seems like from a certain point ramping up the voltage a bit on the 6950X just doesn't matter anymore







I tried 4.3GHz @ 1.27V = crash after 6 minutes, rasied the voltage to 1.295V - passed 15 mins with no problems. None of the cores hit 80*C in both cases, it looks like there is just no difference??


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> it records the correct ratio for the core count, but trips up on threads 11-20 on a 6950X (has these at 34)
> 
> my mistake... worse than I thought:


I'm aware of that








On my 2699 V3 it shows 54 threads instead of 36.

It seems that you have MCE / Multicore Enhancement enabled or the ratio set manually, since all of the ratios are the same. It is of course possible that CPU-Z doesn't read these properly on Broadwell, despite the registers are the same as on Haswell.


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

Is the only way to use the Asus Thermal Control Tool through using adaptive or offset voltage, instead of manual? Ideally, I'd like to be able to use it to switch between my 4.4 and 4.5 GHz overclocks depending on the thermal conditions, but not downclock or undervolt further. How would I go about doing this?

Also, can using adaptive voltage can introduce unwanted voltage spikes?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Seems like from a certain point ramping up the voltage a bit on the 6950X just doesn't matter anymore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried 4.3GHz @ 1.27V = crash after 6 minutes, rasied the voltage to 1.295V - passed 15 mins with no problems. None of the cores hit 80*C in both cases, it looks like there is just no difference??


there are voltage tuning settings in the tweakers menu that may help.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> I'm aware of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On my 2699 V3 it shows 54 threads instead of 36.
> 
> It seems that you have MCE / Multicore Enhancement enabled or the ratio set manually, since all of the ratios are the same. It is of course possible that CPU-Z doesn't read these properly on Broadwell, despite the registers are the same as on Haswell.


ASUS multicore is disabled... and once you exceed the stock max turbo multiplier on an X or K chip the underlying Intel multi core E is disabled also. Yes, I have the multiplier set manually to 42, dynamic voltage and frequency. Not sure how a locked E-class processor is in the question except that the E chip can;t run a multi higher than the stock max turbo, so you cannot disable the Intel core enhancement..








so.. you are asking about default settings on X or K chips?
here ya go:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lon3Tr3k*
> 
> Is the only way to use the Asus Thermal Control Tool through using adaptive or offset voltage, instead of manual? Ideally, I'd like to be able to use it to switch between my 4.4 and 4.5 GHz overclocks depending on the thermal conditions, but not downclock or undervolt further. How would I go about doing this?
> 
> Also, can using adaptive voltage can introduce unwanted voltage spikes?


You need to use adaptive or offset with the Tool AFAIK. If you do not want the system to downclock or downvolt (it won't "undervolt" unless you run a negative offset - you can't set adaptive below the VID at a given freq - that's just how it works), then set up adaptive and the tool, select high perf plan in windows... "min proc state = 100%" and then set up the tool to step down the freq and voltage at the desired temp limit.









to your last question - no. the voltage spikes you may want to pay attention to are the ones LLC is designed to mitigate (load line over/under shoot - invisible w/o an oscilloscope), these occur whether using fixed or dynamic voltage control.


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> You need to use adaptive or offset with the Tool AFAIK. If you do not want the system to downclock or downvolt (it won't "undervolt" unless you run a negative offset - you can't set adaptive below the VID at a given freq - that's just how it works), then set up adaptive and the tool, select high perf plan in windows... "min proc state = 100%" and then set up the tool to step down the freq and voltage at the desired temp limit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to your last question - no. the voltage spikes you may want to pay attention to are the ones LLC is designed to mitigate (load line over/under shoot - invisible w/o an oscilloscope), these occur whether using fixed or dynamic voltage control.


Great, thanks! I figured that this was probably the best way to do it if unable to use a manual vcore, but wasn't sure if there might be a better/different way.

I'll do some more testing using this method and report back with the outcome


----------



## pillowsack

Is VCCU offset a safe thing to play with for a 24/7 overclock? I wouldn't mind getting my cache up to 4.2ghz or something.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Is VCCU offset a safe thing to play with for a 24/7 overclock? I wouldn't mind getting my cache up to 4.2ghz or something.


Hello

Yes but I wouldn't exceed a setting of 5 and it is doubtful this high will show tangible benefits. Any more is just increasing voltage for nothing in return. This still will not allow for anything close to 4.2GHz cache speed.


----------



## pillowsack

Hmmm bummer

I know with my cache voltage at 1.3v I get 3.9Ghz but I was thinking of making cache the same as my core at 1.33 and see if I can milk it to 4ghz.

Does that sound bad for 24/7?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Hmmm bummer
> 
> I know with my cache voltage at 1.3v I get 3.9Ghz but I was thinking of making cache the same as my core at 1.33 and see if I can milk it to 4ghz.
> 
> Does that sound bad for 24/7?


You can get 3900 stable cache @ 1.3v? That's incredibly good! The most I can get is~3860 and that's with 1.36v.


----------



## pillowsack

My chip is apparently doing 4.6ghz on 1.35v. I tried 1.375v to do 4.7ghz and it wasn't having that. I'm sure if I put it at 1.4v, but i'd rather not.

Max package temp is 68 and my hottest core 68 as well.

Guess I might start rocking the 4.6ghz @ 1.35vcore(still gonna see if it can go lower). Just wish I could do something about that damn cache overclock.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> My chip is apparently doing 4.6ghz on 1.35v. I tried 1.375v to do 4.7ghz and it wasn't having that. I'm sure if I put it at 1.4v, but i'd rather not.
> 
> Max package temp is 68 and my hottest core 68 as well.
> 
> Guess I might start rocking the 4.6ghz @ 1.35vcore(still gonna see if it can go lower). Just wish I could do something about that damn cache overclock.


Some screenshots would be nice, as that seems apparently exceptional.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You can get 3900 stable cache @ 1.3v? That's incredibly good! The most I can get is~3860 and that's with 1.36v.


6 core.. and I'm sure "stable" is in the eye of the beholder.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Some screenshots would be nice, as that seems apparently exceptional.


unbelievably exceptional.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Hmmm bummer
> I know with my cache voltage at 1.3v I get 3.9Ghz but I was thinking of making cache the same as my core at 1.33 and see if I can milk it to 4ghz.
> Does that sound bad for 24/7?


Buy the Intel Tuning Plan.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 6 core.. and I'm sure "stable" is in the eye of the beholder.


Hello

Or unstable.







The reported temps don't match up with the stated settings if any real stability testing has been done with ambient cooling.


----------



## StullenAndi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Some screenshots would be nice, as that seems apparently exceptional.


Some posts before you can find one from him with 4.5G and 1.33V, even with XTU in the background. But for me screenshots didn´t count, you can modify them like you want.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Or unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reported temps don't match up with the stated settings if any real stability testing has been done
> 
> It seems that he has a good watercooling setup. Even on 1.33V and 4.5G he hits 60° on the core while running xtu, it´s very nice temperature.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Some posts before you can find one from him with 4.5G and 1.33V, even with XTU in the background. But for me screenshots didn´t count, you can modify them like you want.


Hello

XTU? That says it all.


----------



## Silent Scone

You can tell summer is finally over here.


----------



## pillowsack

Well turns out 4.6Ghz wasn't stable at 1.35v overnight. I figure I should just crank it up to 1.4V and see what I can accomplish.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Buy the Intel Tuning Plan.


Is it worth it? If my CPU just magically croaks will Intel ship me a new one ASAP?

Also, skylake can suck it.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Well turns out 4.6Ghz wasn't stable at 1.35v overnight. I figure I should just crank it up to 1.4V and see what I can accomplish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it worth it? If my CPU just magically croaks will Intel ship me a new one ASAP?*
> 
> Also, skylake can suck it.


Yes, Next day delivery.


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ This
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Well turns out 4.6Ghz wasn't stable at 1.35v overnight. I figure I should just crank it up to 1.4V and see what I can accomplish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it worth it? If my CPU just magically croaks will Intel ship me a new one ASAP?
> 
> Also, skylake can suck it.


and no questions.


----------



## djgar

Finally got my ITU - maybe I'll get more adventurous/suicidal


----------



## Fidelity21

How exactly? I purchased the plan and it's now active one month later. I've been looking at Intel's website and I don't see a whole lot of information about how to go about filing the claim. Maybe it's just a matter of sending an email or contacting customer service?


----------



## tistou77

Hello

I see many advised 1.9xV for the VCCIN
If I'm stable with 1.85xV (1.80xV in load) it's still good or not ?

I turned with this voltage over 2 years with H-E, without any problems

Thanks


----------



## Martin778

I just passed 30 minutes of Aida64's stress test at 4.4GHz @ 1.34V.








Load temps hover around 65-75 deg. C with max spikes at 88. Yet no throttling etc.


----------



## pillowsack

Well I ran OCCT for about two hours (1h 59m 43s). Max temp was 77C with it at 4.5Ghz and 1.33v. Keep in mind my pump is running at about 20% and fans are on the lowest.



OCCT doesn't like to report the frequency right though


----------



## Martin778

Mind you, I have the 6950X, 10 red hot cores


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I just passed 30 minutes of Aida64's stress test at 4.4GHz @ 1.34V.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Load temps hover around 65-75 deg. C with max spikes at 88. Yet no throttling etc.


Nice.

Now try the same with Realbench


----------



## pillowsack

Yeah my wall has to be 4.6ghz. I just ran OCCT and it went unstable 1.375v 4.6 after about 5 minutes. 1.4V will run for hours though(assuming).
I ramped my pump and fans up for the testing here. Interesting seeing my water temperature go from 32C idle to 28C, and max temp was 32C under load







. My water normally hits 38C and will ramp the fans to 60% and the pump up to 40%.





I guess I will stick to the nice 1.33v and 4.5ghz and keep my fans whisper quiet even when gaming.

Do you guys think going over 1.3v on cache 24/7 is a bad idea? Say 1.33v, same as my core?

Also I need to figure out the offset/adaptive mode on this board. I would like my CPU and voltage to throttle when not under load.


----------



## Martin778

Hihihi, RealBench didn't even want to start









Lowered to 4.3GHz @ 1.308V and 3.7GHz cache and it is buttery smooth, passed 2h RB with no problems.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Hihihi, RealBench didn't even want to start
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lowered to 4.3GHz @ 1.308V and 3.7GHz cache and it is buttery smooth, passed 2h RB with no problems.


AID64 would just have taken a day to show the same.









does the Deluxe II have a Tweakers Paradise in the Bios?


----------



## Martin778

Yes, it has a lot of 'strange' looking tweaks.

Here is the screenshot after 2h of RB.



Just ordered some 2k and 5k grit polishing paper and will give the 6950X another go. Also ordered the new Kryonaut TIM.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Yes, it has a lot of 'strange' looking tweaks.
> 
> Here is the screenshot after 2h of RB.
> 
> 
> 
> Just ordered some 2k and 5k grit polishing paper and will give the 6950X another go. Also ordered the new Kryonaut TIM.


adaptive or manual?


----------



## Martin778

Adaptive


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Adaptive


if you are looking at the one hot core... lapping is not gonna help. They just run like that.

edit: I see a 12C difference between the low T and high T cores on this chip running RBv2.44. @ 4.3/3.7.


----------



## Martin778

It is lapped already but I wasn't fully happy with the result as the surface still had very minor dents from polishing.
What I want try now is 5000 grit, on a piece of glass.


----------



## pillowsack

Lapping my 5820K proved no benefits and I had used the liquid metal thermal paste. I think I dropped 2C


----------



## Martin778

My IHS was far from flat in all 4 corners. I'm a bit reluctant on using metal based TIM's. I've tried the Indigo Extreme twice with exact the same result - liquid metal leaking out under the CPU block.


----------



## pillowsack

Yeah, liquid metal is a real pain in the butt. You need to coat both surfaces REALLY lightly, you can't have any to spare. I would put a papertowl under neat the waterblock when installing too for run away TIM.

Way too much hassle for what it's worth. I just stick with the noctua paste now.


----------



## Martin778

The Indigo TIM is even crazier, it's a solid U shaped piece of metal that you stick on the CPU and then literally let it cook for some time by throttling the processor so the TIM can liquidify and hopefully start spreading and act like solder between the cooler and the CPU.

The Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut seems to be the best non-metal paste at the moment. I could use CLU but cleaning that mess afterwords, yuck!
I had enough trying to remove the half-cooked Indigo Extreme off both the block and the CPU.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The Indigo TIM is even crazier, it's a solid U shaped piece of metal that you stick on the CPU and then literally let it cook for some time by throttling the processor so the TIM can liquidify and hopefully start spreading and act like solder between the cooler and the CPU.
> 
> The Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut seems to be the best non-metal paste at the moment. I could use CLU but cleaning that mess afterwords, yuck!
> I had enough trying to remove the half-cooked Indigo Extreme off both the block and the CPU.


TGK is very good... so is Gelid Extreme, PK-1 or PK-3, and even ole trusty Nt-H1.


----------



## intrigger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you are looking at the one hot core... lapping is not gonna help. They just run like that.
> 
> edit: I see a 12C difference between the low T and high T cores on this chip running RBv2.44. @ 4.3/3.7.


Nice temps! I am also getting a large temp differential between cores.

May I ask, what settings did you adjust to get such a minimal differential between cup core voltage and vid? Just LLC? And if so what settings did you use? I have a 6950x that's real bench stable at 1.305v (Set in bios) Vid @ 4.4 ghz but under load cpu core voltage jumps to 1.34 and in some cases up to 1.367 (llc on auto)...


----------



## tistou77

For my 6900K (4.3/3.7)
Water : 25° (otherwise it means nothing







)

It gets hotter than HW-E


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *intrigger*
> 
> Nice temps! I am also getting a large temp differential between cores.
> 
> May I ask, what settings did you adjust to get such a minimal differential between cup core voltage and vid? Just LLC? And if so what settings did you use? I have a 6950x that's real bench stable at 1.305v (Set in bios) Vid @ 4.4 ghz but under load cpu core voltage jumps to 1.34 and in some cases up to 1.367 (llc on auto)...


using adaptive? Nothing really. Oh.. and LLC affects VCCIN on this platform, not vcore. The variance in temp between cores is pretty std. I would not worry about it unless you are seeing >20C at load with a large difference at idle.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> For my 6900K (4.3/3.7)
> Water : 25° (otherwise it means nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> It gets hotter than HW-E


I'm pretty sure this was the start of that run.










but absolute temps are not the question.. it's temps between cores we were looking at. you have a 16C range in the cores.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


What temperature for water / ambient ?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> but absolute temps are not the question.. it's temps between cores we were looking at. *you have a 16C range in the cores*.


What's the cause ?

Thanks


----------



## ithree

Regarding VCCSA, could stable voltage range depend on the motherboard instead of just the CPU and RAM? On my MSI XPOWER board I need around 1.08 just to get 2666 RAM stable with 6800K. Same board with 5820K required 1.2 SA for 2666. I've never been able to get it stable with 3000 or 3200 RAM even with 1.25 SA and high VDIMM. Using Auto SA voltage for 3200 XMP uses a whopping 1.38V for SA and still fails to boot. I read about others with 3200 RAM using less than 1.1 SA but all those seem to be ASUS boards. I've pretty much given up hope of better than 2666 on this board.

Curious what others with non-ASUS boards are using for VCCSA on 3000+ RAM. Thx.


----------



## Praz

Hello

The needed SA voltage is dependent on both the CPU and the motherboard design.


----------



## intrigger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> using adaptive? Nothing really. Oh.. and LLC affects VCCIN on this platform, not vcore. The variance in temp between cores is pretty std. I would not worry about it unless you are seeing >20C at load with a large difference at idle.
> I'm pretty sure this was the start of that run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but absolute temps are not the question.. it's temps between cores we were looking at. you have a 16C range in the cores.


I am using adaptive and all auto except maximum turbo voltage (I can't remember exact terminology) set to 1.305, and I have input voltage at 1.95V...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> What temperature for water / ambient ?
> What's the cause ?
> 
> Thanks


All temps are in the screenshot.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *intrigger*
> 
> I am using adaptive and all auto except maximum turbo voltage (I can't remember exact terminology) set to 1.305, and I have input voltage at 1.95V...


same here. each cpu is different. Post up a shot with the load vcore and vid.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> All temps are in the screenshot.


29° is the water in load ?
The CPU/VRM does not heat compared to the water temperature

The GPUs at 31/32° is not in load (with water at 29°) ?

And for this ?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> but absolute temps are not the question.. it's temps between cores we were looking at. you have a 16C range in the cores.


Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> *29° is the water in load ?
> The CPU/VRM does not heat compared to the water temperature*
> 
> The GPUs at 31/32° is not in load (with water at 29°) ?
> 
> And for this ?
> Thanks


huh? look at the water temp in the koolance control panel. gpus are under load in RBv2.44 with 1873 core and 11000 ram. VRM stays in the 40s
12min in

you know how to see the original picture resolution - yes?
the data is all there. why so surprised by efficient cooling?
 








well- you have a 16C difference between the cold and hot core in that screenshot. - it is what your screenshot shows.

EDIT: Before and after Heaven 4.0 runs 2063/11,200 core/ram on the gpus. Pascal runs very cool


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> huh? look at the water temp in the koolance control panel. gpus are under load in RBv2.44 with 1873 core and 11000 ram. VRM stays in the 40s
> 12min in
> 
> you know how to see the original picture resolution - yes?


I thought it was 4.Hot for the water temperature
I do not know the Koolance soft, so I do not know where to look
Over the graph I do not see (with original picture resolution, of course)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the data is all there. why so surprised by efficient cooling?


I thought the water was at 29°








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well- you have a 16C difference between the cold and hot core in that screenshot. - it is what your screenshot shows.


Yes, but I asked the cause of this discrepancy
Application of thermal paste?

Thanks

PS: You spread the paste or you just put a grain of rice?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I thought it was 4.Hot for the water temperature
> I do not know the Koolance soft, so I do not know where to look
> Over the graph I do not see (with original picture resolution, of course)
> I thought the water was at 29°
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I asked the cause of this discrepancy
> Application of thermal paste?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> PS: You spread the paste or you just put a grain of rice?


At 2 min the water is 29C, 12 min it is 32C

it could be related to paste.. or just a hot core (very common). I use a small pea-size in the middle, and allow the block to spread the TIM - this way, no air pockets the create a channel when under pressure. (same technique one uses when using a liquid gasket material in motor assebly - "if you spread, you dread" - quote from a pit crew motor head.







\


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ithree*
> 
> Regarding VCCSA, could stable voltage range depend on the motherboard instead of just the CPU and RAM? On my MSI XPOWER board I need around 1.08 just to get 2666 RAM stable with 6800K. Same board with 5820K required 1.2 SA for 2666. I've never been able to get it stable with 3000 or 3200 RAM even with 1.25 SA and high VDIMM. Using Auto SA voltage for 3200 XMP uses a whopping 1.38V for SA and still fails to boot. I read about others with 3200 RAM using less than 1.1 SA but all those seem to be ASUS boards. I've pretty much given up hope of better than 2666 on this board.
> 
> Curious what others with non-ASUS boards are using for VCCSA on 3000+ RAM. Thx.


My my gigabyte board was in use it was using 1.25 SA for my ram to run at 3200.

I put this board im on at 1.15V and it's stable. Should try to go lower I guess.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> At 2 min the water is 29C, 12 min it is 32C
> 
> it could be related to paste.. or just a hot core (very common). I use a small pea-size in the middle, and allow the block to spread the TIM - this way, no air pockets the create a channel when under pressure. (same technique one uses when using a liquid gasket material in motor assebly - "if you spread, you dread" - quote from a pit crew motor head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> \


Okay, thanks for the paste, that's how I'm doing
You have nevertheless good temperature, I have the hottest cores with water at 26°








You've a Koolance Chiller (RIG) ?

Ok, I looked in the right place, then (4.Hot => "hotter in load")

your GPUs are watercooled but with a delta of 1, 2°
I do not know how you do








Or you've 2 loop ?


----------



## mbze430

since we are on the subject of VCCSA... my X99 Gaming strix, the VCCIO CPU on AUTO is like 1.2x, should that be concerning?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Okay, thanks for the paste, that's how I'm doing
> You have nevertheless good temperature, I have the hottest cores with water at 26°
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've a Koolance Chiller (RIG) ?
> 
> Ok, I looked in the right place, then (4.Hot => "hotter in load")
> 
> your GPUs are watercooled but with a delta of 1, 2°
> I do not know how you do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you've 2 loop ?


Hard to understand what you are asking or what point being made. yes, the gpus are watercooled. single loop, chiller is not on. 4x420 + 1x360 rads.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> since we are on the subject of VCCSA... my X99 Gaming strix, the VCCIO CPU on AUTO is like 1.2x, should that be concerning?


I was getting that and saw that as on the high side so I set it to 1.15 for my fairly high OC.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> since we are on the subject of VCCSA... my X99 Gaming strix, the VCCIO CPU on AUTO is like 1.2x, should that be concerning?


No.

If you're not happy with it, tune it manually


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Now try the same with Realbench


And then With OCCT ?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No.
> 
> If you're not happy with it, tune it manually


Yes, we all have this crazy auto 1.25v for vccio...
If you set manually vccio at 1.25v, you Will see a red warning in Bios....
I run It at 1.1V and It is fine


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Hard to understand what you are asking or what point being made. yes, the gpus are watercooled. single loop, chiller is not on. 4x420 + 1x360 rads.


Ok, I asked for the chiller.
The water temperature is higher than mine, and core less hot, but I have only MORA 3 (3x120)
with single loop, it's weird that GPUs in load are at 33 and 34° (temperatures of Aida64) and water at 32°


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Ok, I asked for the chiller.
> The water temperature is higher than mine, and core less hot, but I have only MORA 3 (3x120)
> with single loop, it's weird that GPUs in load are at 33 and 34° (temperatures of Aida64) and water at 32°


no it is not weird. Titan X pascal runs that cool. highest temp I've seen oon them when benching at >2100 is +8 over the water temp (~ 40C)

Unigine heaven 4.0 at 2068/11200. you can see the peak temp in the MSI graph
cpu, 6950X at 4.4/3.8 1.365V/1.335V


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> since we are on the subject of VCCSA... my X99 Gaming strix, the VCCIO CPU on AUTO is like 1.2x, should that be concerning?


Same here, I set mine to 1.055v for a 4.2Ghz OC on my 6900k.


----------



## Fidelity21

I thought VCCSA setting had to do with the type of memory and memory speed...not the CPU?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I thought VCCSA setting had to do with the type of memory and memory speed...not the CPU?


Hello

The memory controller is part of the processor.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> The memory controller is part of the processor.


That part I get. BUT, the voltage required is heavily dependent on the memory used. 2400mhz seems to require less voltage than 3200mhz for example. I'm currently at 1.200v VCCSA for my 3200mhz memory and that COULD be higher than what other people are seeing, it's still well within the range pointed out by the Asus overclocking guide which states that something under 1.300v should be acceptable for memory timings in the 3000mhz+ range...albeit with "weaker" memory controllers.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> That part I get. BUT, the voltage required is heavily dependent on the memory used. 2400mhz seems to require less voltage than 3200mhz for example. I'm currently at 1.200v VCCSA for my 3200mhz memory and that COULD be higher than what other people are seeing, it's still well within the range pointed out by the Asus overclocking guide which states that something under 1.300v should be acceptable for memory timings in the 3000mhz+ range...albeit with "weaker" memory controllers.


THat's because different memory frequencies load the IMC (and cache) differently. Thankfully I haven't had to use VSA > 1.01V for memory speeds from 2666 - 3400 on the R5E-10. VDIM? sure, this I do run up to 1.45V for 3400c13 (24/7). IDK. maybe folks could try higher VDIMM rather than high VSA?


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> THat's because different memory frequencies load the IMC (and cache) differently. Thankfully I haven't had to use VSA > 1.01V for memory speeds from 2666 - 3400 on the R5E-10. VDIM? sure, this I do run up to 1.45V for 3400c13 (24/7). IDK. maybe folks could try higher VDIMM rather than high VSA?


I don't really understand the difference between the two options. My memory runs XMP settings just fine and the voltage is 1.35v for each DIMM slot. I can lower that to 1.300v but I haven't bothered since it's rated to run at 1.35v and it's working fine at that voltage. Is there a problem running VCCSA at 1.200v or higher? Does it harm anything? Does it lead to higher package temperatures?


----------



## mbze430

VCCSA voltage also heavily depends on HOW much memory you using, I am using 64GB and I need much more voltage at highter freq than if I were to use 16-32GB.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> THat's because different memory frequencies load the IMC (and cache) differently. Thankfully I haven't had to use VSA > 1.01V for memory speeds from 2666 - 3400 on the R5E-10. VDIM? sure, this I do run up to 1.45V for 3400c13 (24/7). IDK. maybe folks could try higher VDIMM rather than high VSA?


With my older HyperX Predator 3000 sticks what would you think 24/7 safe max voltage would be? My temp gun shows them never go above 35C with the current 1.45V 3200 15-16-16-1T. I would like to see how far they can go.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> With my older HyperX Predator 3000 sticks what would you think 24/7 safe max voltage would be? My temp gun shows them never go above 35C with the current 1.45V 3200 15-16-16-1T. I would like to see how far they can go.


If temperature was the only factor here, you could go a lot higher - sadly that's not really how these things work. Stay under 1.5v


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ This
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> With my older HyperX Predator 3000 sticks what would you think 24/7 safe max voltage would be? My temp gun shows them never go above 35C with the current 1.45V 3200 15-16-16-1T. I would like to see how far they can go.


open aid64 to this page.. what ram manufacturer is shown?


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no it is not weird. Titan X pascal runs that cool. highest temp I've seen oon them when benching at >2100 is +8 over the water temp (~ 40C)
> 
> Unigine heaven 4.0 at 2068/11200. you can see the peak temp in the MSI graph
> cpu, 6950X at 4.4/3.8 1.365V/1.335V
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Indeed, it does not heat

Last question, your CPU waterblock is mounted as "goofy" I believe?
The difference will come can be there for my temperature difference between the cores (mine is mounted as "regular", forced with rigid tubes)


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This
> open aid64 to this page.. what ram manufacturer is shown?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Indeed, it does not heat
> 
> Last question, your CPU waterblock is mounted as "goofy" I believe?
> The difference will come can be there for my temperature difference between the cores (mine is mounted as "regular", forced with rigid tubes)


goofy? okay.. I'll forgive the bad english.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*


hynix do better with voltage.when you say "how far they can go" do you mean freq or timings.. cause I don't think you'll do much better than 3200 with that kit.. at sane voltage. And at 1.45V you are very close to the 24/7 day-driver limit for those ICs. You can probably tighten up secondaries and improve performance while staying at 1.45V


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> goofy? okay.. I'll forgive the bad english.


It is a well known term in the forums, especially the English forums









http://www.xtremerigs.net/2014/08/27/cpu-block-rotation-definition/

Thanks for the screen (it's goofy







)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> It is a well known term in the forums, especially the English forums
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.xtremerigs.net/2014/08/27/cpu-block-rotation-definition/
> 
> Thanks for the screen (it's goofy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


yes, I preferred their original nomenclature... 90degree rotation. I've been using the 380i since it launched (3 of them) and now have the 390i on the 5960X/R5E rig... and goofy.








I'lll eventually move the R5E-10 into that box...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, I preferred their original nomenclature... 90degree rotation. I've been using the 380i since it launched (3 of them) and now have the 390i on the 5960X/R5E rig... and goofy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'lll eventually move the R5E-10 into that box...


Also a skating/snowboarding (and I assume surfing) term for riding with the "wrong" foot forward. We've moved past "the king's" here.









EDIT: oh, I see his link even explains the origin of the term.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Also a skating/snowboarding (and I assume surfing) term for riding with the "wrong" foot forward. We've moved past "the king's" here.


well there ya go... should be clear why I would not know the term.


----------



## djgar

I think this is the first time I've been considered "normal"


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> With my older HyperX Predator 3000 sticks what would you think 24/7 safe max voltage would be? My temp gun shows them never go above 35C with the current 1.45V 3200 15-16-16-1T. I would like to see how far they can go.


Hynix MFR, They do become a little finicky @ or above 1.5v


on x99 @3200Mhz i had it running 15-15-15-34-1T @1.4v. More voltage may get you to 14-15--15-34-1t


----------



## ctepp

Anyone have any thoughts on the best test(s) for stability on broadwell-e? The last time I overclocked was ivy bridge and I used P95, but I heard this might damage my CPU due to amperage(?!?).

Stability is very important to me, I'm probably in the upper bracket as far as the pain I am willing to inflict on my cpu to ascertain stability. That said, I obviously don't want to kill it.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts on the best test(s) for stability on broadwell-e? The last time I overclocked was ivy bridge and I used P95, but I heard this might damage my CPU due to amperage(?!?).
> 
> Stability is very important to me, I'm probably in the upper bracket as far as the pain I am willing to inflict on my cpu to ascertain stability. That said, I obviously don't want to kill it.


Realbench or X264/X265 encoding seems to be the most popular. An overnight session of encoding and an extra 0.02V on top should be pretty darn stable for any real world usages.


----------



## Kimir

If you want stability, Realbench's not gonna cut it completely. HWbot x265 benchmark @ 4k, overkill x2 and pmode will rule out vccin and vcore need, then occt a few hours should do to fine tune it.


----------



## ctepp

Would you add realbench on top of that? And w/OCCT, should I run it in linpack or regular mode?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> Would you add realbench on top of that? And w/OCCT, should I run it in linpack or regular mode?


realbench v2.44, x265 like kimir described, and the HCI memtest covers the system pretty well... getting the ram stable is really critical.
no need for linpac or IBT or p95 unless you do long-hard FPU stuff, and it will cost 200+ MHz in OC depending on your cooling.

and.. fold!
10 threads, 2 TitanXPs @ 2000... 2.6M PPD.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts on the best test(s) for stability on broadwell-e? The last time I overclocked was ivy bridge and I used P95, but I heard this might damage my CPU due to amperage(?!?).
> 
> Stability is very important to me, I'm probably in the upper bracket as far as the pain I am willing to inflict on my cpu to ascertain stability. That said, I obviously don't want to kill it.


If stability is a top priority, you can use Prime95 and it may well find errors that other tests may miss that could still be relevant, but you'll have to sacrifice at least a few hundred MHz of peak AVX clocks to remain safe.

If you aren't ok with sacrificing that sort of clock potential, don't run P95 or LINPACK.


----------



## mbze430

First - I personally do cinebench for quick CPU oc
Second - I do AIDA64 FPU or OCCT: Linpack to check how much of a headroom I have with my cooling system

then use realbench, HCI Memtest, and superpi for cache/memory stability+CPU.

Once I know those are pretty stable then I do an overnight OCCT: CPU.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If stability is a top priority, you can use Prime95 and it may well find errors that other tests may miss that could still be relevant, but you'll have to sacrifice at least a few hundred MHz of peak AVX clocks to remain safe.
> 
> If you aren't ok with sacrificing that sort of clock potential, don't run P95 or LINPACK.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> First - I personally do cinebench for quick CPU oc
> Second - I do AIDA64 FPU or OCCT: Linpack to check how much of a headroom I have with my cooling system
> 
> then use realbench, HCI Memtest, and superpi for cache/memory stability+CPU.
> 
> Once I know those are pretty stable then I do an overnight OCCT: CPU.


you guys really should try this benchmark (run as Kimir described) it's not whether the rig completes the problem, it's getting a correction factor as close to 1 as possible (<0.95 is not good).








5960x (6950x is folding tonight)


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you guys really should try this benchmark (run as Kimir described) it's not whether the rig completes the problem, it's getting a correction factor as close to 1 as possible (<0.95 is not good).


From July, on my primary signature system, using my 24/7 clocks and standard, every day OS install:










That's 1.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> From July, on my primary signature system, using my 24/7 clocks and standard, every day OS install:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's 1.


yeah bud, it works AVX, AVX2 etc pretty well.

(i just re-ran it on the 5960X since it is a rebuild)


----------



## mbze430

aight downloading the hwbot benchmark now


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah bud, it works AVX, AVX2 etc pretty well.
> 
> (i just re-ran it on the 5960X since it is a rebuild)


Yeah, the big encoder projects are usually early and aggressive adopters of new instruction sets.

Still, it's a little too real world for me to like it as an AVX2 stress test, as I actually transcode video using x264 and/or x265 about 50-60 hours a week.


----------



## mbze430

So how you supposed to get to 1? I got a "<.995"


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> So how you supposed to get to 1? I got a "<.995"
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


"Good enough." I certainly wouldn't fret over 0.995.


----------



## anarchoi

What's the max safe temperature for i7-6950x ?


----------



## Detrini1001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anarchoi*
> 
> What's the max safe temperature for i7-6950x ?


What's the default TJmax? Like 100C? That's under stock conditions though.

Nobody knows if there is a certain point where temperature become unsafe when overclocking. We do know the less heat the better. Less heat gives you more stability and a longer lifespan although I'd imagine these chips would make it 5+ years easily even if they do run at 100C 24/7.


----------



## xarot

Guys, need some thoughts.

Been running 4.2 / 3.5 / 3000 CL15-17-17-1T 1.35 V for around two months without any issues with the 6950X.

Yesterday I tried RealBench 2.44 and after 20-52 minutes I suddendly get "instability detected". Tried setting everything to bare stock - still the same. I tried disabling GPU from device manager - still the same. But, then I ran Prime95 27.9 for 6 hours straight without any issues.

When I get instability detected in RB, it seems Blender stops with the error: Blender:BLF_lang_init: 'locale' data path for translations not found, continuing but the log file doesn't give any hints.

Corrupted OS, a glitch in RB, incompabitility with another software or something else? I've never really liked RB too much, but I'd still like to get this figured out, this issue is annoying.

I cannot rule out the RAM without trying another kit, since I am unable to boot Linux with Titan X Pascal.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Guys, need some thoughts.
> 
> Been running 4.2 / 3.5 / 3000 CL15-17-17-1T 1.35 V for around two months without any issues with the 6950X.
> 
> Yesterday I tried RealBench 2.44 and after 20-52 minutes I suddendly get "instability detected". Tried setting everything to bare stock - still the same. I tried disabling GPU from device manager - still the same. But, then I ran Prime95 27.9 for 6 hours straight without any issues.
> 
> When I get instability detected in RB, it seems Blender stops with the error: Blender:BLF_lang_init: 'locale' data path for translations not found, continuing but the log file doesn't give any hints.
> 
> Corrupted OS, a glitch in RB, incompabitility with another software or something else? I've never really liked RB too much, but I'd still like to get this figured out, this issue is annoying.
> 
> I cannot rule out the RAM without trying another kit, since I am unable to boot Linux with Titan X Pascal.


How long did you run RB initially for when you established the OC?


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> How long did you run RB initially for when you established the OC?


One hour successfully. Now I cannot get one hour to pass even at stock. RAM at 2133 too.

Sigh...maybe a time to try a fresh OS install.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> One hour successfully. Now I cannot get one hour to pass even at stock. RAM at 2133 too.
> 
> Sigh...maybe a time to try a fresh OS install.


Try extracting the archive again, or redownloading RB.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Try extracting the archive again, or redownloading RB.


Tried it already. I am hoping it is only some path/access right issue.

Edit. My stock run settings were not really all stock. Memory settings weren't cleared for some reason. Now RAM is really at 2133. I was too hasty in the morning before work.









So far, 72 minutes in and still going strong. Not going to reinstall WIn 8.1 just now even though sfc /scannow logs some issues (probably related to a broken Windows Update as I've seen in the past)

Appreciate your help and not directly replying to you past this point but I'll just edit my post here instead of making a new one.

Do some memory kits require more or less VCCSA depending on ICs or is it just my CPU? I am strongly starting to believe this Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3000 4x8 GB kit doesn't play too well with any of my processors I've had (5960X, 6900K, 6950X). Maybe it's time trying to get it replaced. Also XMP has never worked with this kit...it will set VCCSA to 1.4 V on any processor, trying to kill them.

I would like to get an plug and play kit which requires minimal tuning. I hate tuning RAM but I like overclocking. However, RAM issues are somewhat tiresome to troubleshoot and I would like to have a kit which can be as easy as enabling XMP on 6950X and start going from there. 32/64 GB and preferably over 2666 MHz? Ideas?







I also prefer the looks of the Dominator series. How about Kingston HyperX Predator Black kits that were released specifically for BW-E? Or just go for G.Skill Trident Zs like everyone else? How's the XMP doing with those kits?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> So how you supposed to get to 1? I got a "<.995"


.995 is very close to 1 (ten times closer than 0.95) and completely normal.

Wide differences between completion times of each instance, assuming nothing excessive running in the background stealing cycles, is often indicative of a scheduler issue (Windows 7 will sometimes have difficulty at higher priority settings), or cache ECC, the later indicating subtle instability.

You aren't going to get a near perfect 1 unless absolutely nothing else is running. My main system is pretty stripped down and if it sits idle, nothing is going on, so it will push out near identical times per instance at normal priority settings.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> So how you supposed to get to 1? I got a "<.995"
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


good to go (*>* 0.95). did you note the package temps during the run?


----------



## Silent Scone

8-10 instances is a pig on Windows 10, too much background activity.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 8-10 instances is a pig on Windows 10, too much background activity.


yeah - windows 10 is busy little bugger.


----------



## ctepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If stability is a top priority, you can use Prime95 and it may well find errors that other tests may miss that could still be relevant, but you'll have to sacrifice at least a few hundred MHz of peak AVX clocks to remain safe.
> 
> If you aren't ok with sacrificing that sort of clock potential, don't run P95 or LINPACK.


I dunno, I use a lot of mathematica and matlab. I'm sort of leaning towards everything but AVX2 stable, but its hard to know, and better safe then sorry. I can comfortably get to 4.3ghz on my 6850k with AVX, but anything beyond that and them temps get ridiculous (>90) on 8k FFT. I just hope I am not damaging my machine from the current load...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> I dunno, I use a lot of mathematica and matlab. I'm sort of leaning towards everything but AVX2 stable, but its hard to know, and better safe then sorry. I can comfortably get to 4.3ghz on my 6850k with AVX, but anything beyond that and them temps get ridiculous (>90) on 8k FFT. I just hope I am not damaging my machine from the current load...


there's little chance that mathematica or matlab will load the cpu/fpu to the extent/duration that p95 will. Small FFTs really only place a logic stress on a limited portion of the cpu. Blend would be more appropriate. Also, Kreig Mathbench covers this fairly well, without hours of high current loading.

math_bench_extreme.zip 432k .zip file


no where near the burn of p95, but covers Sp and DP processing pretty well.


----------



## djgar

Here's my 'BOT results. I should try 8x next time.


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> .995 is very close to 1 (ten times closer than 0.95) and completely normal.
> 
> Wide differences between completion times of each instance, assuming nothing excessive running in the background stealing cycles, is often indicative of a scheduler issue (Windows 7 will sometimes have difficulty at higher priority settings), or cache ECC, the later indicating subtle instability.
> 
> You aren't going to get a near perfect 1 unless absolutely nothing else is running. My main system is pretty stripped down and if it sits idle, nothing is going on, so it will push out near identical times per instance at normal priority settings.


Ah ok, I wanted to know what it was actually what gave that result, as in what system functionality. This way I know in the future if I did get a large variance, then where I can start looking at.

Usually during these test I am doing something else, surfing the web and stuff. Nothing major to deviate a large load on the system

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> good to go (*>* 0.95). did you note the package temps during the run?


CPU package was low 80s... around 81-82, bouncing back and worth.

Other note:
think that benchmark needs to be updated so it uses TSC instead of HPET too.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Here's my 'BOT results. I should try 8x next time.


Nice!.. this is my 6950X with email/browser OC loaded.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Ah ok, I wanted to know what it was actually what gave that result, as in what system functionality. This way I know in the future if I did get a large variance, then where I can start looking at.
> 
> Usually during these test I am doing something else, surfing the web and stuff. Nothing major to deviate a large load on the system
> CPU package was low 80s... around 81-82, bouncing back and worth.
> Other note:
> think that benchmark needs to be updated so it uses TSC instead of HPET too.


HPET is required only to "discourage" folks from tampering with the RTC to hack a score - no really.


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> HPET is required only to "discourage" folks from tampering with the RTC to hack a score - no really.


I see! damn those cheaters! just pain in the butt enable/disabling hpet just to run one benchmark


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Nice!.. this is my 6950X with email/browser OC loaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HPET is required only to "discourage" folks from tampering with the RTC to hack a score - no really.


Even nicer! Those darned 10 cores!


----------



## xarot

I fixed my Realbench "instability detected" issues. Disabled screen saver..lol.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I fixed my Realbench "instability detected" issues. Disabled screen saver..lol.


lol, oh the simple things.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Even nicer! Those darned 10 cores!


lol - the 6900K does rignificantly better than the 5960X... advert for folks to upgrade.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I fixed my Realbench "instability detected" issues. Disabled screen saver..lol.


no - really? daaum easy fix!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I fixed my Realbench "instability detected" issues. Disabled screen saver..lol.


Yeah! That's the way to do it! Hours for nothing and your clicks for free!


----------



## outofmyheadyo

What would be my mitx motherboard choices for the 6800k? Do I need to go for the v3 boards or any mitx x99 should be good? If the mb compatibility says 6800k I should be good right? Lookin for m.2 slot, decent oc potential and a fair price.


----------



## Kimir

In Mini ITX? Isn't there is only the ASRock X99E-ITX/ac for consumer out there?
If you asked about Micro ATX, then you'd have more choices. Oh and 2011-v3 is only x99 anyway.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - the 6900K does rignificantly better than the 5960X... advert for folks to upgrade.


Here here, that's why in the end I went with one, wasn't that much more over a new 5960x.

Honestly with all the "issues" with my previous 5820k/Gaming 7 build I am over the moon with the 6900k/Strix build, saw a nice performance increase with the extra cores too..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Here here, that's why in the end I went with one, wasn't that much more over a new 5960x.
> 
> Honestly with all the "issues" with my previous 5820k/Gaming 7 build I am over the moon with the 6900k/Strix build, saw a nice performance increase with the extra cores too..


yeah man, the 6900K/Strix looks to be a sweetspot ATM.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Here here, that's why in the end I went with one, wasn't that much more over a new 5960x.
> 
> Honestly with all the "issues" with my previous 5820k/Gaming 7 build I am over the moon with the 6900k/Strix build, saw a nice performance increase with the extra cores too..


I would attribute 99.99% of that performance increase to the two extra cores.

I continue to check in on how @djgar is doing in his overclock as he seems to be pushing his 6900k to new levels every time I look at this thread. With that said, his 6900k, which seems to be an above average sample, and my 5960x could be confused for twins if one wasn't looking at clockspeeds.







I thought that HWE started out kind of slow, which is why I keep checking this thread for the latest BWE news.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> RAMPAGE V EDITION 10 BIOS 1003
> 1. Speed up boot time
> 2. Improve DDR4 memory compatibility
> 3. Improve system stability.


http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/LGA2011/RAMPAGE_V_EDITION_10/RAMPAGE-V-EDITION-10-ASUS-1003.zip


----------



## ctepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> there's little chance that mathematica or matlab will load the cpu/fpu to the extent/duration that p95 will. Small FFTs really only place a logic stress on a limited portion of the cpu. Blend would be more appropriate. Also, Kreig Mathbench covers this fairly well, without hours of high current loading.
> 
> math_bench_extreme.zip 432k .zip file
> 
> 
> no where near the burn of p95, but covers Sp and DP processing pretty well.


That's an awesome little stress test, thanks for that. On another note, I think I was putting the cart in front of the horse working on P95 stable. I tried running HWBot 12x and it crashed at 50%, turns out I was less stable then I thought. Its odd, I was rock stable, p95 and everything I could throw at it at 4.3ghz., but I can't seem to find what I need to change to get it any higher. Here are the settings @4.3ghz:

CPU: 6850k
MoBo: ASRock X99E/ITX
CPU Mult(All Core): 43
Cache Mult: Auto
Cache Min: 17
VCore (Adaptive): 1.3V
Cache (Adaptive): 1.26V
V LLC: Lvl 5
CPU Input V: 1.9V
CPU IO: 1.05V
Pll Trim: 15 (This was a default setting for some reason)

All other settings are default or Auto. To get to 4.4, I have tried VCore as high as 1.38, as well as pushing cache voltage a bit higher. Is there some high sensitivity setting I am missing?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I would attribute 99.99% of that performance increase to the two extra cores.
> 
> I continue to check in on how @djgar is doing in his overclock as he seems to be pushing his 6900k to new levels every time I look at this thread. With that said, his 6900k, which seems to be an above average sample, and my 5960x could be confused for twins if one wasn't looking at clockspeeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that HWE started out kind of slow, which is why I keep checking this thread for the latest BWE news.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


My long lost brother!


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> My long lost brother!


Your chip is technically smaller so I'll let you figure out which brother I am.

Couldn't resist.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> *Your chip is technically smaller* so I'll let you figure out which brother I am.
> 
> Couldn't resist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Yeah, I get that a lot


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I would attribute 99.99% of that performance increase to the two extra cores.
> 
> I continue to check in on how @djgar is doing in his overclock as he seems to be pushing his 6900k to new levels every time I look at this thread. With that said, his 6900k, which seems to be an above average sample, and my 5960x could be confused for twins if one wasn't looking at clockspeeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that HWE started out kind of slow, which is why I keep checking this thread for the latest BWE news.


lower core clock... tighter ram:

there's alot to be gained via ram settings.


----------



## Kimir

SHydro scrore is another kind of beast, 4.5Ghz, 3333Mhz ram, 8.81. damn. I can't even do that at 4.7Ghz either (getting hard to run 4.7 here anyway, require too much volt now). There is so little run on BW-E with that bench on the bot, I guess not rewarding point gives this no attraction, sigh.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lower core clock... tighter ram:
> 
> there's alot to be gained via ram settings.


Very nice. Are you giving the 6950x the week off?









Is setting _Priority_ within the the app the same as setting priority within _Task Manager_? If so, I'll have to bump it up to _Very High_ when I give the lower clock/tighter RAM a spin. Thanks bud!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Very nice. Are you giving the 6950x the week off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is setting _Priority_ within the the app the same as setting priority within _Task Manager_? If so, I'll have to bump it up to _Very High_ when I give the lower clock/tighter RAM a spin. Thanks bud!


no - no, everybody is working away...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> SHydro scrore is another kind of beast, 4.5Ghz, 3333Mhz ram, 8.81. damn. I can't even do that at 4.7Ghz either (getting hard to run 4.7 here anyway, require too much volt now). There is so little run on BW-E with that bench on the bot, I guess not rewarding point gives this no attraction, sigh.


yup - that one is the efficiency standard.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> SHydro scrore is another kind of beast, 4.5Ghz, 3333Mhz ram, 8.81. damn. I can't even do that at 4.7Ghz either (getting hard to run 4.7 here anyway, require too much volt now).


Yeah, that's a pretty impressive run. Seems to respond well to the memory.

Sucks to hear that your 5960x is starting to get tired. Mine is trucking along just fine, but I keep up to date with BWE just in case my 5960x starts to head south.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> There is so little run on BW-E with that bench on the bot, I guess not rewarding point gives this no attraction, sigh.


You don't see a lot of BWE subs, with the exception of the king (6950x) in the Cinebench threads either. I see 6950x R15 scores blasted all over the place, rightfully so. You have to hunt for a 6800k, 6850k, or 6900k score. @djgar has one of the only 6900k R15 scores I've seen.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no - no, everybody is working away...


I'd love to see your power bill especially mid summer when the AC and all those CPU and GPU cores are running full tilt.







Good for you man!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I'd love to see your power bill especially mid summer when the AC and all those CPU and GPU cores are running full tilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you man!


lol -= these thing pale in comparison to all the other stuff running at this house.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I'd love to see your power bill especially mid summer when the AC and all those CPU and GPU cores are running full tilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you man!


One good reason to go solar


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> One good reason to go solar


Good point. @Jpmboy would probably need a field full of panels just to run his office let alone all the other stuff he's got going on.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Good point. @Jpmboy would probably need a field full of panels just to run his office let alone all the other stuff he's got going on.


yeah, it's sad. I always wondered if I should try to get commercial power rates fo this place. Let me pout it this way.. the backup generator is a 3.8L V6, and it only does about 50% of the house and 100% of the stables..


----------



## pillowsack

Has anyone here successfully bought two kits of the 2x4GB DDR4 4000 modules and gave them a shot on their x99 board? Wondering if I should buy it


----------



## mbze430

I need some opinion....

on a 6900k how good of a IMC do you think you need to successfully run this kit? F4-3466C16Q2-64GTZKW 64GB DDR4-3466 at CL16-18-18-38-2T


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I need some opinion....
> 
> on a 6900k how good of a IMC do you think you need to successfully run this kit? F4-3466C16Q2-64GTZKW 64GB DDR4-3466 at CL16-18-18-38-2T


I think it should run 3400c16. if you are not adverse to running VDIMM in the 1.425 range, the 3200c14 TZ kit is running 3400c13 here. I do not think this 6950X has an exceptional IMC (at all - only 2T is stable, 1T boots and plays, but fails rigorous testing).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Has anyone here successfully bought two kits of the 2x4GB DDR4 4000 modules and gave them a shot on their x99 board? Wondering if I should buy it


]
the kit has difficulty running 4000 on some z170 boards. X99 is not gonna do 4000 without extraordinary conditions. lol - I have one of those kits I would sell at a discount.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, it's sad. I always wondered if I should try to get commercial power rates fo this place. Let me pout it this way.. the backup generator is a 3.8L V6, and it only does about 50% of the house and 100% of the stables..


Well, the oil has a kind of green tint to it









BTW, I can't really see you pouting


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I think it should run 3400c16. if you are not adverse to running VDIMM in the 1.425 range, the 3200c14 TZ kit is running 3400c13 here. I do not think this 6950X has an exceptional IMC (at all - only 2T is stable, 1T boots and plays, but fails rigorous testing).
> ]
> the kit has difficulty running 4000 on some z170 boards. X99 is not gonna do 4000 without extraordinary conditions. lol - I have one of those kits I would sell at a discount.


Would you say it's easier to run lower timings vs higher freq then?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Would you say it's easier to run lower timings vs higher freq then?


lower than 4000? yes. But neither is "easier" since itr all depends on the ram kit ya start with. for your 6800K and sabertooth... best to get the highest rated ram kit on the QVL. If that's not enough, then in general the gskill 3200c14 kits have provided the most success for folks here. the 3600c16 kits are basically the same Samsung ICs on the ram sticks... binned a bit higher.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lower than 4000? yes. But neither is "easier" since itr all depends on the ram kit ya start with. for your 6800K and sabertooth... best to get the highest rated ram kit on the QVL. If that's not enough, then in general the gskill 3200c14 kits have provided the most success for folks here. the 3600c16 kits are basically the same Samsung ICs on the ram sticks... binned a bit higher.


Thank you for answering so many of my dumb questions. You're pretty awesome bro

You're referring to the G.Skill TridentZ right?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Thank you for answering so many of my dumb questions. You're pretty awesome bro
> 
> You're referring to the G.Skill TridentZ right?


yes. the trident 3200c14s are real good (samsung B-die) 3600c16s are the same.


----------



## ctepp

I had some issues with the 3200c14 trident zs (not huge issues, 1 error per two passes of memtest 86) with 32gb (16 per stick). I either had to bump up vccio or drop it to c15. I originally rmaed the sticks and ended up with the same issue on the new sticks. Could be that my board is on the older side (as rock x99eitx) but its definitely worth testing.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> I had some issues with the 3200c14 trident zs (not huge issues, 1 error per two passes of memtest 86) with 32gb (16 per stick). I either had to bump up vccio or drop it to c15. I originally rmaed the sticks and ended up with the same issue on the new sticks. Could be that my board is on the older side (as rock x99eitx) but its definitely worth testing.


Have no experience with this board, so not sure what it is like with memory. Memtest86 is one of the less stringent tests to run on this platform. Running HCI for Windows, or Stress App in Linux will probably paint a clearer picture. You may need to bump VCCSA a little more than you are already on that board. I don't know of anyone using those speeds or memory with it.


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

I'm running 2 dual kit sets of the 3200 c14 Trident Z's in quad right now without any issues, only because I wanted the white/black colour which isn't offered in a quad set.

Haven't tried overclocking them further yet, but certainly no issues at rated speeds.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lon3Tr3k*
> 
> I'm running 2 dual kit sets of the 3200 c14 Trident Z's in quad right now without any issues, only because I wanted the white/black colour which isn't offered in a quad set.
> 
> Haven't tried overclocking them further yet, but certainly no issues at rated speeds.


that's good to know... test them and sub the results here


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes. the trident 3200c14s are real good (samsung B-die) 3600c16s are the same.


Hello

From my testing the 3600 CAS15 kits are slightly better than either the 3200 CAS14 or 3600 CAS16 kits. More expensive also though.


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's good to know... test them and sub the results here


Will do if I ever get the chance to play with them properly, most of my time spent on here is at work


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> From my testing the *3600 CAS15 kits are slightly better* than either the 3200 CAS14 or 3600 CAS16 kits. More expensive also though.


^^ true dat!


----------



## ctepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Have no experience with this board, so not sure what it is like with memory. Memtest86 is one of the less stringent tests to run on this platform. Running HCI for Windows, or Stress App in Linux will probably paint a clearer picture. You may need to bump VCCSA a little more than you are already on that board. I don't know of anyone using those speeds or memory with it.


Unfortunately, my options on VCCSA were 1.05 or 1.2. At 1.2 I failed to post, so I was stuck with 1.05.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> Unfortunately, my options on VCCSA were 1.05 or 1.2. At 1.2 I failed to post, so I was stuck with 1.05.


And between 1.05 and 1.2? Did you try 1.10 and 1.15? Maybe 1.13 and 1.17? Yes, it can be that sensitive.


----------



## ctepp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> And between 1.05 and 1.2? Did you try 1.10 and 1.15? Maybe 1.13 and 1.17? Yes, it can be that sensitive.


I guess I wasn't clear- I meant my board only supported those options - I had to pick one or the other.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> I guess I wasn't clear- I meant my board only supported those options - I had to pick one or the other.


You mean you can't use an offset to get a different value or specify a different manual value?


----------



## djgar

Here's my HWBOT for 8x overkill ...


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ctepp*
> 
> I guess I wasn't clear- I meant my board only supported those options - I had to pick one or the other.


Dear posters stop using ITX boards for X99 platform.


----------



## Silent Scone

Yeah, that board is a weird SKU. It obviously appeals for a small system that packs punch, but as ctepp is finding, it's at a cost. Junk.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Dear posters stop using ITX boards for X99 platform.


V12 in a VW lol...


----------



## ctepp

Outside of the VCCIO issue, I think the board has been great to work with. Tight water cooling loop with 2x280 radiators, 32gb of decently fast memory and a 6850k, with a 1tb SM961 M.2 means that its punchy for a medium-small box. Even if I never get it above 4.3ghz, its still running p95 AVX2 8k rock-steady. I certaintly wouldn't call it "junk."


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Here's my HWBOT for 8x overkill ...


Nice one... 1080P for memory reasons?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Nice one... 1080P for memory reasons?


No, 1080P for mental ******ation reasons! back to the drawing board ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> No, 1080P for mental ******ation reasons! back to the drawing board ...


nah bro - 1080P is a tough test also.








I'll give it a go with day-driver clocks on the 5960X.

4.6/4.1 3200c13


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nah bro - 1080P is a tough test also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give it a go with day-driver clocks on the 5960X.
> 
> 4.6/4.1 3200c13
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Well, running the 8x overkill @ 4K proved enlightening. As I was I BSOD'ed after 18%. To get a clean pass I either had to up the vcache from 1.30 to 1.35, or leave it at 1.30 but change the AVX setting from Auto to 1, which effectively lowered the speed from 4600 to 4500 most of the time. Either way I always had 1 or 2 cores running somewhat faster than the rest and got an improper run because of the time difference.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Well, running the 8x overkill @ 4K proved enlightening. As I was I BSOD'ed after 18%. To get a clean pass I either had to up the vcache from 1.30 to 1.35, or leave it at 1.30 but change the AVX setting from Auto to 1, which effectively lowered the speed from 4600 to 4500 most of the time. Either way I always had 1 or 2 cores running somewhat faster than the rest and got an improper run because of the time difference.


At least you exposed another point of failure. You can fix what you know about.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> At least you exposed another point of failure. You can fix what you know about.


Indeed. Looks like trimming some cores down a bit would do it







.


----------



## pillowsack

Any of you guys have your first couple cores clocked higher than the rest? I'm wondering if I should experiment. I think my core 1 and core 2 do 4.6ghz fine


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Any of you guys have your first couple cores clocked higher than the rest? I'm wondering if I should experiment. I think my core 1 and core 2 do 4.6ghz fine


For me it looks like 1 and 5 are somewhat quicker.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Indeed. Looks like trimming some cores down a bit would do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Consider using the TCT?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Consider using the TCT?


That would be the way - but in my case I don't do much AVX work, so probably not that critical but for the HWBOT benchmark







.


----------



## mbze430

essentially you can refine all the cores, I notice that my Core #3 and Core #5 uses a higher VID than the rest, so I can actually lower those 2 cores to a lower multiplier and raise the "good" core a few multipliers. Sounds like a lot of work though.


----------



## gorillacrackers

ASRock X99 Gaming Pro i7
32GB G.Skill 3200mhz CL 14
6850k is OCCT stable at 4.3ghz @ 1.38v, 73c on air. Thoughts on voltage vs speed vs. temp?


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gorillacrackers*
> 
> ASRock X99 Gaming Pro i7
> 32GB G.Skill 3200mhz CL 14
> 6850k is OCCT stable at 4.3ghz @ 1.38v, 73c on air. Thoughts on voltage vs speed vs. temp?


Is that the lowest vcore to achieve stability? 73C isn't bad, but maybe watch what it hits ingame. What are your other voltages?

Jealous of your ram though


----------



## Lon3Tr3k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gorillacrackers*
> 
> ASRock X99 Gaming Pro i7
> 32GB G.Skill 3200mhz CL 14
> 6850k is OCCT stable at 4.3ghz @ 1.38v, 73c on air. Thoughts on voltage vs speed vs. temp?


Your voltage seems high for 4.3. What are your package temps?


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gorillacrackers*
> 
> ASRock X99 Gaming Pro i7
> 32GB G.Skill 3200mhz CL 14
> 6850k is OCCT stable at 4.3ghz @ 1.38v, 73c on air. Thoughts on voltage vs speed vs. temp?


How did you get your ram working at CL14? I cant get mine stable on my 6850K its currently at CL15


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Well, running the 8x overkill @ 4K proved enlightening. As I was I BSOD'ed after 18%. To get a clean pass I either had to up the vcache from 1.30 to 1.35, or leave it at 1.30 but change the AVX setting from Auto to 1, which effectively lowered the speed from 4600 to 4500 most of the time. Either way I always had 1 or 2 cores running somewhat faster than the rest and got an improper run because of the time difference.


with this "stressmark"...







... many times unsynched processing is fixed with VCCIN and not vcore. Win10 tends to do this more than W7.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> with this "stressmark"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... many times unsynched processing is fixed with VCCIN and not vcore. Win10 tends to do this more than W7.


Indeed, higher vcore did nothing. I was surprised vcache did. I may check vccin which already I'm getting 1.98 @ 100% util and raise it to 1.2 which is getting dicey







.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Indeed, higher vcore did nothing. I was surprised vcache did. I may check vccin which already I'm getting 1.98 @ 100% util and raise it to 1.2 which is getting dicey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


cool...
you're running VCCIN @ 1.98V? Is that software or measured?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> cool...
> you're running VCCIN @ 1.98V? Is that software or measured?


In the BIOS I have it set to 1.95, which with LLC 9 gives me according to Aida 1.96 idling and 1.98 @ 100% stress.


----------



## Martin778

Ha, my order for the Kryonaut TIM has a bit of delay and since I already had another go with lapping the CPU the only TIM i had left was some dirt cheap Amasan T12 that I got for my amplifier.
I was surprised to see little to no difference vs BeQuiet's DC1.







So either lapping the 6950 again has helped, the T12 isn't that bad or the DC1 is









Gotta love the Nidec Servo fans, finally I found a good fan curve to keep the radiator cool under load and it's still pretty quiet.


----------



## djgar

Noctuas are really quiet and efficient.


----------



## Martin778

I have 2 Noctua's too, pulled from a D15 heatsink. One on the bottom of the case and second one on the back. The 3 120mm Servo's are mounted on the radiator.
The Nidecs have a more pleasant sound signature on higher RPM than the Noctua but they are smaller (120 vs 140mm).

I must say I am quite amazed by the lack of any significant differences between the BeQuiet DC1 and the Amasan T12 TIMs!
Bequiet is on the left.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> In the BIOS I have it set to 1.95, which with LLC 9 gives me according to Aida 1.96 idling and 1.98 @ 100% stress.


1.98Vccin, 1.395Vcore....You are a Killer


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 1.98Vccin, 1.395Vcore....You are a Killer


Naaah, more like age accelerator







. But I don't reach those voltages very often with adaptive. Amazon shopping is pretty light use


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Naaah, more like age accelerator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . But I don't reach those voltages very often with adaptive. Amazon shopping is pretty light use


Vccin is not adaptative


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> In the BIOS I have it set to 1.95, which with LLC 9 gives me according to Aida 1.96 idling and 1.98 @ 100% stress.


running with scissors... my kinda guy.


----------



## Fidelity21

Big lesson learned today. Apparently my RealFlight game controller doesn't play well with my computer. Previously, I thought my VCCSA or VCCIO settings were the problem because my computer failed to boot and presented a boot code error of 61 so I was forced to increase the values until the system was able to boot successfully. HOWEVER, it happened again tonight out of the blue and I couldn't figure out why. My VCCSA is 1.200 and my VCCIO is 1.150v...definitely high enough. So I checked around and decided (after my system failed to boot with error code 61 5 times in a row) that I would unplug the RealFlight game controller and it successfully boots! No more error code 61. I still need to figure out WHY that's happening because a USB game controller shouldn't be causing issues with booting into windows 10 .... but it is!

Hopefully this helps someone else working through some system bugs...make sure your USB devices aren't causing some sort of conflict. Now I have all of my game controllers on a externally powered USB plug so I can turn them on and off with the push of a button.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Vccin is not adaptative


True enough - but with my current settings it varies from 1.96 idle to 1.984 full blast. Adaptive vcore makes the speed vary so several others vary with the speed. The old transitive property


----------



## PowerK

Hi djgar,
is there any particular reason for using LLC9 ?
I ask because I've been sticking with LLC5 and have had no problems. And indeed as you're well aware, VCCIN is LLC dependent on X99 platform.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi djgar,
> is there any particular reason for using LLC9 ?
> I ask because I've been sticking with LLC5 and have had no problems. And indeed as you're well aware, VCCIN is LLC dependent on X99 platform.


I use it to get vccin from the 1.95 set to 1.984 at full speed. I need the 1.984 for full blast for stability at my OC but don't want it at low speeds, so LLC 9 makes it go up as the speed rises.


----------



## gorillacrackers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Is that the lowest vcore to achieve stability? 73C isn't bad, but maybe watch what it hits ingame. What are your other voltages?
> 
> Jealous of your ram though


It is. I initially followed Silicon Lottery specs at 1.344 (though don't know what else they do), and it passed ASUS ROG but failed OCCT until 1.38 Input voltage is 1.95, load line is set to 1 and IIRC everything else is auto with power saving states disabled. Memory is set to XMP profile. Gaming hits about mid 50s but at the same time I don't have variable fans and they run pretty low and quiet as it is.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lon3Tr3k*
> 
> Your voltage seems high for 4.3. What are your package temps?


I don't know what you mean by package temps









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> How did you get your ram working at CL14? I cant get mine stable on my 6850K its currently at CL15


XMP settings worked no problem. Kit is spec'd at CL 14.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232348


----------



## Martin778

I'm still waiting for my 32GB 3200 CL14 kit. By the way I can recommend the Kryonaut TIM, even with ambient temps higher by 3-4*C it managed to keep the temps a few degrees lower than DC1 and T12.
Good stuff to squeeze just that tiny little bit more performance out of your cooling.





Kryonaut on the right, obviously. Overall a nice 6-7*C drops except for the biggest hotspot on the CPU.


----------



## Fidelity21

After discovering the incompatibility issue
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I wish there was a clear cut answer about the proper VCCSA Voltage but it seems to depend on several factors and changes for everyone. I thought I was rock solid with an offset of 0.200 (1.150v) but apparently that was causing me to have random Boot error codes of 61. I ignored it until my system refused to boot and presented an error code of 91. Now, the only change I've made is going up to VCCSA (0.250 offset) 1.200v. That might be a fairly large jump (0.200 to 0.250) but the total value is still far lower than the AUTO settings.


Turns out it wasn't the VCCSA value causing my Boot code error 61 issues! It was the RealFlight USB game controller that apparently my computer doesn't like being connected while booting. I've tested this several times and finally removed it completely and ran Realbench for 8 hours with the original VCCSA value of .20 offset for 1.15v and VCCIO of 1.100v and everything appears to be running well. Prior to this, I thought VCCSA had to be at 1.200v and VCCIO was at 1.150v. I'm tempted to go even lower on VCCSA and VCCIO to see what I can to work, but the 8 hour stress test running my 6850k CPU at 4.3ghz never exceeded 80C so I'm happy to leave things be unless someone here things those values are still to high???


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> After discovering the incompatibility issue
> Turns out it wasn't the VCCSA value causing my Boot code error 61 issues! It was the RealFlight USB game controller that apparently my computer doesn't like being connected while booting. I've tested this several times and finally removed it completely and ran Realbench for 8 hours with the original VCCSA value of .20 offset for 1.15v and VCCIO of 1.100v and everything appears to be running well. Prior to this, I thought VCCSA had to be at 1.200v and VCCIO was at 1.150v. I'm tempted to go even lower on VCCSA and VCCIO to see what I can to work, but the 8 hour stress test running my 6850k CPU at 4.3ghz never exceeded 80C so I'm happy to leave things be unless someone here things those values are still to high???


Technically it's error code "b1" not "61", (the way they show the b really does makes it look like a 6, SO confusing lol) and yeah it's a USB issue. Rampage boards are especially prone to these b1 code problems seemingly. My original Rampage V Extreme had it, my new Rampage V Edition 10 has it etc.. people often think it's a RAM error since b1 used to indicate RAM issues that you need to use MEMok etc.. to clear on like the old Rampage IV Black Edition; but on these boards you get the b1 from having too many or a certain kind of USB device plugged in. I've had it reject my SupremeFX Hi-Fi that came with the board lol. Only way to boot was to unplug the USB cable that runs to the DAC (although it isn't doing that anymore, still can't get the damn Hi-Fi DAC to show up in my audio devices for CRAP though...almost gave up on it by this point)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I'm still waiting for my 32GB 3200 CL14 kit. By the way I can recommend the Kryonaut TIM, even with ambient temps higher by 3-4*C it managed to keep the temps a few degrees lower than DC1 and T12.
> Good stuff to squeeze just that tiny little bit more performance out of your cooling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kryonaut on the right, obviously. Overall a nice 6-7*C drops except for the biggest hotspot on the CPU.


So temps in the high 70's or ~80C on full load are normal for you then? (at least on the hotter cores?) I was thinking that there had to be something wrong when my water loop gave me ~80C on four or five of my cores and have been trying everything under the sun to normalize them. I always kinda wondered in the back of my head if the 6950X was just plain hotter than my old 5960X and 6800K due to the extra cores etc.. and BW-E nature.

I'm using the same Kryonaut TIM and have tried spreading it like in the product videos, tried line method etc.. without much change really.

What core voltage are you running btw? I have mine at 1.369v at 4.4ghz and when i first fill my loop i get temps similar to yours but then after flipping it around to remove bubbles etc.. the temps get HIGHER for some reason, leading to me currently getting those four hot cores hovering up to *90C(!!)* when running Cinebench.

I'm just real curious what other people with overclocked/overvolted 6950X's on custom water are getting for temps


----------



## Martin778

I run 4.3GHz at 1.305V. The temps won't get any better than this on a single 360 rad.
The 6950X has a hotspot around core 2-5, it's just how it's made. The average temps are good.
It's a shame because it kills any higher OC potential as you are bottlenecked by that hotspot. Seriously I'd say back to the drawing board Intel, this is an Extreme Edition CPU that's meant for OC and should be free of such 'bugs'.

Also, these are RealBench 1h temps. Under normal use all cores barely ever reach 60*C, it's only when you push current through it the temps go bananas.
Yet it seems that it doesn't matter anymore if it runs 1,305 or 1,358V. No idea why?? The temps are roughly the same but on the long run the block starts to heat up which is no good as all cores will start going up in temp.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I run 4.3GHz at 1.305V. The temps won't get any better than this on a single 360 rad.
> The 6950X has a hotspot around core 2-5, it's just how it's made. The average temps are good.
> It's a shame because it kills any higher OC potential as you are bottlenecked by that hotspot. Seriously I'd say back to the drawing board Intel, this is an Extreme Edition CPU that's meant for OC and should be free of such 'bugs'.
> 
> Also, these are RealBench 1h temps. Under normal use all cores barely ever reach 60*C, it's only when you push current through it the temps go bananas.
> Yet it seems that it doesn't matter anymore if it runs 1,305 or 1,358V. No idea why?? The temps are roughly the same but on the long run the block starts to heat up which is no good as all cores will start going up in temp.


What do you mean by "normal use" though?

How high does a single run of cinebench push your temps?

After running cinebench my temps peak at around this (see pic) when the test is almost finished (i just screenshot it when the test is nearing completion) And i'm using a 480mm rad and a 360mm rad currently (i did have a 3rd radiator, a 420mm one, but i took it out in case it was causing more bubble formation due to the large nature of it and position etc..)



Do these temps seem normal to you?


----------



## djgar

^^^ They seem definitely on the hot side to me ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> What do you mean by "normal use" though?
> 
> How high does a single run of cinebench push your temps?
> 
> After running cinebench my temps peak at around this (see pic) when the test is almost finished (i just screenshot it when the test is nearing completion) And i'm using a 480mm rad and a 360mm rad currently (i did have a 3rd radiator, a 420mm one, but i took it out in case it was causing more bubble formation due to the large nature of it and position etc..)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do these temps seem normal to you?


yes they do seem high... but really need to see the voltages in play.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes they do seem high... but really need to see the voltages in play.


I'm running the 6950X at 4.4ghz on all cores (sync core mode) with 1.368v on VCORE, i have VCCIN and VCCSA on Auto,i have LLC at level 6, and i have Cache Voltage at 1.32 with cache running at 3.6ghz. And i have long and short duration package time limit set to the max 4095 to enhance stability during load scenarios.

When i first put water in the loop (freshly drained and re-filled) i get temps like those, and then after messing with flipping the case around and trying to remove bubbles it goes higher and higher till the four "hotspot" cores (cores 2,3,4, and 5) will go into the mid 80's or low 90's with the rest sitting in the mid 70's.

Can corrosion in a water block cause these kinda temps? I had a problem with my Supremacy EVO where it was getting gunk in it and some fittings seemed to corrode too; won't be able to replace the block for a while so i'm curious if that is the issue. Some of the nickel plating peeled and i removed it as best as i could but the fins inside the block were impossible to clean fully, and i wonder if that is raising the temps.


----------



## Martin778

No, these temps are on the edge of thermal throttling. If you hit 90s with a single Cinebench run, then you can be sure this CPU will absolutely cook under RealBench.
My normal use is GTA Online, Armored Warfare, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc.

My single Cinebench R15 run:



The trick to keep my loop bubble free is is running the pump on max rpm all the time. I also have the Supremacy EVO (Elite version) but I'd rather not look at the innards as long as it works well. The only problem is my coolant, I bought black Feser One and this junk leaves a residue in the tubes and probably also in the rad and the block.
I won't be dismantling the loop for now as I'm planning to upgrade to wider tubes in the future.

Do your temps shoot in <5 seconds to 90 degrees or do they gradually increase until 90? If they skyrocket to 90 then you have a bad contact between the block and the CPU or your IHS is bad.


----------



## opt33

^^ yeah, something wrong either inside the block or with mount, If pins are gunked up badly, that would cause it. My 6900k (only 8 cores so will run a little cooler), with duplicating your 1.368v core and 4.4ghz, and 1.32 cache v. with 36....max temps were 64C in cinebench with 25C ambients. If I run my 24/7 4.4ghz 1.362v, 35 cache with 1.17v, max is 62C. Running prime 95 (large ffts) wasnt as high as your CB temps.


----------



## Martin778

It's because 6950X has an issue with core / component placement inside the die that causes it to have 20*C difference between cores.

+
P95 without AVX, of course?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> No, these temps are on the edge of thermal throttling. If you hit 90s with a single Cinebench run, then you can be sure this CPU will absolutely cook under RealBench.
> My normal use is GTA Online, Armored Warfare, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc.
> 
> My single Cinebench R15 run:
> 
> 
> 
> The trick to keep my loop bubble free is is running the pump on max rpm all the time. I also have the Supremacy EVO (Elite version) but I'd rather not look at the innards as long as it works well. The only problem is my coolant, I bought black Feser One and this junk leaves a residue in the tubes and probably also in the rad and the block.
> I won't be dismantling the loop for now as I'm planning to upgrade to wider tubes in the future.
> 
> Do your temps shoot in <5 seconds to 90 degrees or do they gradually increase until 90? If they skyrocket to 90 then you have a bad contact between the block and the CPU or your IHS is bad.


When i first start Cinebnech it goes up to about 80C on the four hot cores with the rest at ~70-75C, and then after 3-4 seconds it raise to mid 80's then after 3-4 more seconds it hits high 80's etc.. and by the end of the run it gets to about 90-91 (although currently it's only topping at ~88C)

And i don't think it can be the IHS as my 6800K and two 6950X's were all having temperature issues. And i've remounted the block damn near 100 times, so i can't figure out how that would possibly be the problem. I've tried light mounting pressure, all the way tight mounting pressure, medium mounting pressure etc.. with no difference.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opt33*
> 
> ^^ yeah, something wrong either inside the block or with mount, If pins are gunked up badly, that would cause it. My 6900k (only 8 cores so will run a little cooler), with duplicating your 1.368v core and 4.4ghz, and 1.32 cache v. with 36....max temps were 64C in cinebench with 25C ambients. If I run my 24/7 4.4ghz 1.362v, 35 cache with 1.17v, max is 62C. Running prime 95 (large ffts) wasnt as high as your CB temps.


When you say pins you mean the fin array inside the block right? I have a bunch of gunk or corrosion (unsure which) on the fins that i couldn't scrub clean no matter what i did; do you have any idea how to clean it? Using Vinegar, Rubbing Alcohol etc.. just causes the nickel plating to peel so i can't really clean it without damaging the block more...


----------



## Martin778

Do you have any warranty left for your block? Even if not, I'd still send the pics to EK.


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> When you say pins you mean the fin array inside the block right? I have a bunch of gunk or corrosion (unsure which) on the fins that i couldn't scrub clean no matter what i did; do you have any idea how to clean it? Using Vinegar, Rubbing Alcohol etc.. just causes the nickel plating to peel so i can't really clean it without damaging the block more...


If you mounted it several times and got same temps, then probably block internals and yes I mean fins. Gunk/oxidation will clean off with vinegar/salt in a few minutes. If its badly corroded it may not clean.


----------



## Martin778

There you go, 10 minutes of P95 with no AVX:



Block, tubes and the rad are barely warm.

+
Yet I can hardly believe a processor can maintain 20*C core difference after an hour of sustained load, the temperature of the cores and the IHS should equalize itself pretty quick but yet it doesn't.
Maybe the temp sensor is a lie?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> There you go, 10 minutes of P95 with no AVX:
> 
> 
> 
> Block, tubes and the rad are barely warm.


So really weird but interesting thing. I pulled out my old Power Supply (EVGA SuperNova G2 1000w 80+ gold) and unplugged my MCP655-B (no variable speed always on speed 4) from the EVGA Supernova GS 1050w that i'm currently using, and just plugged ONLY the pump into the Supernova G2.

My Cinebench run temps on the "hotspot" cores went from ~88C max to only hitting ~79-80C!!



What the flying heck?!?!?! Any ideas on this? I also noticed that my Reservoir has a bunch of tiny "carbonation style" bubbles forming on the sides recently, and the water has a vague like 7-up type smell when i opened it just now. Just ridiculously weird, but unsure if it has anything to do with the temps or if it's just the Biocide Extreme i put in it a little over a day ago that's making it bubble and smell.


----------



## Martin778

The tubes would've been hot if your coolant was about to cook.

Now your temps look almost identical to mine.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The tubes would've been hot if your coolant was about to cook.


Is the bubbles in the reservoir supposed to be an indication of that or something? Overheated fluid i mean? (i'm using pure distilled btw)

And any ideas about why a different PSU connected just to the pump would lower temps by nearly 10C?


----------



## Martin778

Well I almost boiled my Feser coolant once when I was trying to apply some metal TIM. It did start to bubble indeed but I did turn off the pump to reflow the TIM








Can't really imagine cooking the coolant in a 360 and 420 rad.
In your case it can be the anti bacterial stuff you added having a good fight.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Well I almost boiled my Feser coolant once when I was trying to apply some metal TIM. It did start to bubble indeed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your case it can be the anti bacterial stuff you added having a good fight.


Meaning there's a lot of bio-growth in the loop i presume? Would that effect temps much? I suppose it could explain why temps are better when i first fill the loop but get worse eventually perhaps. I'm just trying to figure out some way of getting the temps as optimal as possible so i can properly test the max OC on the three chips i'm testing. With temps like this it's hard to tell if i'm really at my max OC or if the temps are holding it back etc.. (i've personally seen this happen before actually; when i first got my i7 6800K the temps were high like this meaning i could only hit 4.4ghz at ~1.36v and couldn't hit 4.5 at all; but after getting a bunch of bubbles out by flipping the large SMA8 case the temps went down to about what yours are and i could achieve 4.4ghz at ~1.3v and 4.5ghz at 1.4v and almost even get 4.6ghz stable at 1.5v! So i can't help but think that i might find a 100-150mhz difference in max OC by fixing this temp issue; and having a stable 4.5ghz 6950X at ~1.4v or less would be great. That's why i'm planning to delid and lap it eventually, as well as get a monoblock etc.. to help the VRM's and so forth.)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I'm running the 6950X at 4.4ghz on all cores (sync core mode) with 1.368v on VCORE, i have VCCIN and VCCSA on Auto,i have LLC at level 6, and i have Cache Voltage at 1.32 with cache running at 3.6ghz. And i have long and short duration package time limit set to the max 4095 to enhance stability during load scenarios.
> 
> When i first put water in the loop (freshly drained and re-filled) i get temps like those, and then after messing with flipping the case around and trying to remove bubbles it goes higher and higher till the four "hotspot" cores (cores 2,3,4, and 5) will go into the mid 80's or low 90's with the rest sitting in the mid 70's.
> 
> Can corrosion in a water block cause these kinda temps? I had a problem with my Supremacy EVO where it was getting gunk in it and some fittings seemed to corrode too; won't be able to replace the block for a while so i'm curious if that is the issue. Some of the nickel plating peeled and i removed it as best as i could but the fins inside the block were impossible to clean fully, and i wonder if that is raising the temps.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> So really weird but interesting thing. I pulled out my old Power Supply (EVGA SuperNova G2 1000w 80+ gold) and unplugged my MCP655-B (no variable speed always on speed 4) from the EVGA Supernova GS 1050w that i'm currently using, and just plugged ONLY the pump into the Supernova G2.
> 
> My Cinebench run temps on the "hotspot" cores went from ~88C max to only hitting ~79-80C!!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the flying heck?!?!?! Any ideas on this? I also noticed that my Reservoir has a bunch of tiny "carbonation style" bubbles forming on the sides recently, and the water has a vague like 7-up type smell when i opened it just now. Just ridiculously weird, but unsure if it has anything to do with the temps or if it's just the Biocide Extreme i put in it a little over a day ago that's making it bubble and smell.


unless the block mount needs fixing, looks like you sorted most of this out.. the "bubbles" are from de-gassing of the coolant has it undergoes thermal cycling. The wierd thing is that when you tipped the rig to remove air from the loop, it seems like the pump did not deaerate. If you have a flow meter, check it. In the worst case you'll need to backflush the loop... use a second pump to just run it backwards with real dilute, fully dissolved laundry detergent or plain ole Borax (filter thu a coffee filter if necessary) before using DW from a clean source to a waste bucket to rinse it... you'll be amazed what crap will come out. I'd avoid this nonsense about using dilute vinegar or any acid. Continue backflushing for a couple of galllons. DO NOT hook the loop up to a house faucet!

r15, 44a43c38m3400c13 - 16C difference between cores. I;m pretty sure the block mount is fine - this spread is just the way BWE is when running these voltages.


5960X is a little tighter on the temp spread: 47c40m3200c13


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> looks like you sorted most of this out.. the "bubbles" are from de-gassing of the coolant has it undergoes thermal cycling. The wierd thing is that when you tipped the rig to remove air from the loop, it seems like the pump did not deaerate. If you have a flow meter, check it. In the worst case you'll need to backflush the loop... use a second pump to just run it backwards with real dilute, fully dissolved laundry detergent or plain ole Borax (filter thu a coffee filter if necessary) before using DW from a clean source to a waste bucket to rinse it... you'll be amazed what crap will come out. I'd avoid this nonsense about using dilute vinegar or any acid. Continue backflushing for a couple of galllons. DO NOT hook the loop up to a house faucet!


I'm not so sure i sorted anything out.

Doesn't it seem strange that using a different PSU to power the pump results in different temps? Not sure what you mean about tipping the rig to remove air, as i haven't done that for a couple days; but after i did do it back then the temps got higher for some reason.

Unfortunately i don't have a flow meter so i can't tell if the flow is bad, but i did test the pump flow by removing a cpu block tubing and putting a container under it with the pump running and it seemed to pump out at least fairly decent. I also don't have a 2nd pump to do the backflush you mentioned; are you thinking that i have something stuck in the pump? I took the pump apart the last time i drained it a couple days ago and checked it, didn't notice anything gunking it up, although the rubber piece on the impeller did appear to have a couple "cuts" in it around the outer edge, not sure if that's an issue or not.

My temps seem to have gone down a bit after using the new PSU, but i'm still awful high with 4 cores sitting at ~78-80C during cinebench runs and the cores outside the hotspot sitting at around ~72-76C; which is very high even compared to Martin's setup (he's getting ~60-65C on his hotspot cores and ~55C on the rest and he only has a single 360 rad, whereas i'm using a 480mm XSPC EX480 and a 360mm Black Ice GTX)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I'm not so sure i sorted anything out.
> 
> Doesn't it seem strange that using a different PSU to power the pump results in different temps? Not sure what you mean about tipping the rig to remove air, as i haven't done that for a couple days; but after i did do it back then the temps got higher for some reason.
> 
> Unfortunately i don't have a flow meter so i can't tell if the flow is bad, but i did test the pump flow by removing a cpu block tubing and putting a container under it with the pump running and it seemed to pump out at least fairly decent. I also don't have a 2nd pump to do the backflush you mentioned; are you thinking that i have something stuck in the pump? I took the pump apart the last time i drained it a couple days ago and checked it, didn't notice anything gunking it up, although the rubber piece on the impeller did appear to have a couple "cuts" in it around the outer edge, not sure if that's an issue or not.
> 
> My temps seem to have gone down a bit after using the new PSU, but i'm still awful high with 4 cores sitting at ~78-80C during cinebench runs and the cores outside the hotspot sitting at around ~72-76C; which is very high even compared to Martin's setup (he's getting ~60-65C on his hotspot cores and ~55C on the rest and he only has a single 360 rad, whereas i'm using a 480mm XSPC EX480 and a 360mm Black Ice GTX)


yeah - the psu change is hard to explain unless the first on is failing (unlikely). best thing to do it make sure the block is mounted well (not too tigyht) and that the TIM is good quality.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - the psu change is hard to explain unless the first on is failing (unlikely). best thing to do it make sure the block is mounted well (not too tigyht) and that the TIM is good quality.


The reason i got the new EVGA GS 1050w (Seasonic based 80+ gold unit) was to replace the EVGA G2 1000w (Superflower 80+ Gold unit) that i've had for a couple years that was bought used already. I was having kernal power issues popping up in event viewer and random crashes etc.. and changing to the new PSU was my attempt at fixing it, assuming the old G2 unit was going bad. The new unit did seem to limit the kernal power crashes, although i have been getting a few OCP/OVP trips lately where the PC will shut off and say that it detected a surge etc.. (i'm plugged into a surge protector) but i've read that those can often be false alarms. I also changed Motherboards (to the new RV Edition 10) and changed CPUs (to the 6800K and the 6950X) and re-installed windows 10 etc..etc.. and nothing seemed to completely stop those issues; so bar the RAM being a problem i'm unsure of what would be causing it.

Overall though i'm unsure of what to think regarding the PSU. It's a brand new unit, is a very high quality product etc.. so i have a hard time believing it's going out; but on the other hand the surge warnings/shut downs and the fact that switching to the other PSU seems to be effecting pump flow or something causing temp drops; all seems to make me think that there MAY be a problem with the PSU.

I can't afford to be replacing parts left and right for a couple weeks till i get more money, so i'd really like to pinpoint the issue. My only guesses are that it's A) The EK Supremacy EVO block being gunked up or corroded etc.. (meaning a new block is in order, and i can't afford a monoblock now so i'd end up having to purchase a completely redundant 2nd block and then ALSO end up buying the monoblock a week or two later, which would be a waste). B) The Pump going bad (meaning a new pump purchase, an ~$80 USD purchase) or maybe just clogged. or C) The PSU is bad, meaning an RMA and the need to purchase another PSU which is a ~$150 purchase.

Sigh...i hate when this happens.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> The reason i got the new EVGA GS 1050w (Seasonic based 80+ gold unit) was to replace the EVGA G2 1000w (Superflower 80+ Gold unit) that i've had for a couple years that was bought used already. I was having kernal power issues popping up in event viewer and random crashes etc.. and changing to the new PSU was my attempt at fixing it, assuming the old G2 unit was going bad. The new unit did seem to limit the kernal power crashes, although i have been getting a few OCP/OVP trips lately where the PC will shut off and say that it detected a surge etc.. (i'm plugged into a surge protector) but i've read that those can often be false alarms. I also changed Motherboards (to the new RV Edition 10) and changed CPUs (to the 6800K and the 6950X) and re-installed windows 10 etc..etc.. and nothing seemed to completely stop those issues; so bar the RAM being a problem i'm unsure of what would be causing it.
> 
> Overall though i'm unsure of what to think regarding the PSU. It's a brand new unit, is a very high quality product etc.. so i have a hard time believing it's going out; but on the other hand the surge warnings/shut downs and the fact that switching to the other PSU seems to be effecting pump flow or something causing temp drops; all seems to make me think that there MAY be a problem with the PSU.
> 
> I can't afford to be replacing parts left and right for a couple weeks till i get more money, so i'd really like to pinpoint the issue. My only guesses are that it's A) The EK Supremacy EVO block being gunked up or corroded etc.. (meaning a new block is in order, and i can't afford a monoblock now so i'd end up having to purchase a completely redundant 2nd block and then ALSO end up buying the monoblock a week or two later, which would be a waste). B) The Pump going bad (meaning a new pump purchase, an ~$80 USD purchase) or maybe just clogged. or C) The PSU is bad, meaning an RMA and the need to purchase another PSU which is a ~$150 purchase.
> 
> Sigh...i hate when this happens.


just remove the block, open it and clean it if necessary... work on eliminating one point of "failure" at a time.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> just remove the block, open it and clean it if necessary... work on eliminating one point of "failure" at a time.


Well....that's great. Ran cinebench one more time and it's back to mid or high 80's again for no reason. I give up, i swear....

Any tips on how to get corrosion or algae (not sure which it is) off of the fins in the supremacy evo block? I tried scrubbing it with microfiber cloths, paper towels, regular towels, etc..etc.. and nothing gets the gunk off; and when i tried 50% isopropyl alcohol mixed with a little distilled water it started to peel the nickel plating even worse. So i don't know what to use to get the corrosion and gunk off the fins without damaging the block worse. I managed to clean the rest of the block already (as much as possible anyway) but the fins are a problem i can't seem to solve.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Well....that's great. Ran cinebench one more time and it's back to mid or high 80's again for no reason. I give up, i swear....
> 
> Any tips on how to get corrosion or algae (not sure which it is) off of the fins in the supremacy evo block? I tried scrubbing it with microfiber cloths, paper towels, regular towels, etc..etc.. and nothing gets the gunk off; and when i tried 50% isopropyl alcohol mixed with a little distilled water it started to peel the nickel plating even worse. So i don't know what to use to get the corrosion and gunk off the fins without damaging the block worse. I managed to clean the rest of the block already (as much as possible anyway) but the fins are a problem i can't seem to solve.


whoa - if you are actually seeing the nickel plate come off, the block is shot.. and may have plating loose in the loop. What was the pH of the coolant you were using?? That mayhem's stuff? That's usually the end result using it too.









anyway, best to soak the metal parts of the block in Borax overnight and then use a toothbrush to clean the fins and plate. It is really important to make sure the pH of the loop liquid is not lower than 7.0.. better towards 7.4. Algae really can't survive in a loop if there is any plain copper present (rad tubes are usually copper). And if you have nickel plated blocks... no silver coil. Just use grocery store DW and a stabilizer (20% premix or better yet - redline water wetter, a capful in a gallon is all ya need).


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> whoa - if you are actually seeing the nickel plate come off, the block is shot.. and may have plating loose in the loop. What was the pH of the coolant you were using?? That mayhem's stuff? That's usually the end result using it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway, best to soak the metal parts of the block in Borax overnight and then use a toothbrush to clean the fins and plate. It is really important to make sure the pH of the loop liquid is not lower than 7.0.. better towards 7.4. Algae really can't survive in a loop if there is any plain copper present (rad tubes are usually copper). And if you have nickel plated blocks... no silver coil. Just use grocery store DW and a stabilizer (20% premix or better yet - redline water wetter, a capful in a gallon is all ya need).


When the plating came off i made sure to scrub all the loose chunks off and rinse it etc.. so i don't think there's plating loose although i guess it's always possible.

Could the corrosion be the cause of these temps? If so then i'll try to scrape up enough to get a replacement block piece, just don't want to spend money on something i'll never use since i'm planning to get a monoblock as soon as i get paid in a week or two (meaning if i buy this extra block piece it'd end up being a waste in the long run)

And no i'm not using mayhem's coolant, if that's what you mean. i'm using pure distilled water with Biocide Extreme to prevent algae. And no i have no silver kill coil, just pure distilled and biocide.

What do you mean by stabilizer btw? 20% premix of what?


----------



## Silent Scone

If the plating has degenerated that badly just replace the block already...


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> If the plating has degenerated that badly just replace the block already...


Well like i said before, i don't have a lot of money at the moment; so if i buy a new block and it turns out that the problem was actually the pump or the power supply or something else etc.. then i'd have no recourse for a couple weeks till i get paid again.

The only reason i haven't already bought a new block was that i was planning to get the Monoblock, so buying a new CPU block now would be pointless in the long run as it would just end up being replaced by the monoblock in a week or two anyway. With that said, its a weekend so the block wouldn't ship till monday anyway even if i ordered it right now, so i figured i'd try to find out whether the block was actually the problem or not in the meantime; and maybe save myself a redundant purchase if it turned out to be something else.

I'm just trying to verify what is causing the actual thermal issue here, that's all.


----------



## Silent Scone

How old is the block? EK blocks that had chronic nickel plating issues would be 5 or 6 years old at this point.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> How old is the block? EK blocks that had chronic nickel plating issues would be 5 or 6 years old at this point.


It's only a year and a half old roughly. It was purchased in winter of 2014-2015 (January i think)


----------



## Silent Scone

I'd considering switching coolant also. EC6 here, have never had any issues.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'd considering switching coolant also. EC6 here, have never had any issues.


Yeah i'm just using distilled water with biocide currently; just as a temporary fluid till i get this issue fixed and install the monoblock and TITAN XP blocks that i haven't ordered yet etc.. since it would be stupid to waste the significantly more expensive (compared to distilled anyway) fluid i plan to get once everything is set up; especially since i've been needing to drain and re-fill the loop alot lately to try to test the pump, block etc.. to see what the problem is.


----------



## Martin778

Mind you It's not just a 360 rad I'm using, it's double the thickness of a normal one: http://www.xs-pc.com/radiators-rx-series/rx360-triple-fan-radiator-v2
Anyway if the rad is barely warm under load it's sufficient, just the block / cpu itself that can't get rid of it's of heat fast enough.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Yeah i'm just using distilled water with biocide currently; just as a temporary fluid till i get this issue fixed and install the monoblock and TITAN XP blocks that i haven't ordered yet etc.. since it would be stupid to waste the significantly more expensive (compared to distilled anyway) fluid i plan to get once everything is set up; especially since i've been needing to drain and re-fill the loop alot lately to try to test the pump, block etc.. to see what the problem is.


Distilled+Biocide...is that biocide copper sulphate based? My EK's 780 TI blocks were nickel plated and the plating came off in a few months due to few drops of Mayhems biocide usage. After that, actually never used EK nickel blocks again and never will. Pure copper only now. Also, switched coolant to EK's own but that's up to the user.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Well like i said before, i don't have a lot of money at the moment; so if i buy a new block and it turns out that the problem was actually the pump or the power supply or something else etc.. then i'd have no recourse for a couple weeks till i get paid again.
> 
> The only reason i haven't already bought a new block was that i was planning to get the Monoblock, so buying a new CPU block now would be pointless in the long run as it would just end up being replaced by the monoblock in a week or two anyway. With that said, its a weekend so the block wouldn't ship till monday anyway even if i ordered it right now, so i figured i'd try to find out whether the block was actually the problem or not in the meantime; and maybe save myself a redundant purchase if it turned out to be something else.
> 
> I'm just trying to verify what is causing the actual thermal issue here, that's all.


like scone said - get a different block.. and IMO, going to a monoblock is not the best way to keep these rigs tamed. A waste of money.
If the block did flake nickel and plating got loose in the loop, if you do not have any filter/screen in-line (I use the koolance in-line filter at the last rad outlet) it is possible for the flakes to foul the pump, flow meters and any other "moving parts in the loop... FOD. Back flush the entire loop.


----------



## Jpmboy

if anyone is interested: http://www.overclock.net/t/1611567/september-2016-foldathon-monday-26th-28th-12-noon-est-4pm-utc/0_20


----------



## Deceiver777

Hello to all, really need help.

I buy 6950x 3 mons ago, when i first install, my idle vid in windows 10 was 0.745 and max load 1.069.

Processor runs on easy workloads - no overclocking.

1 mons ago i saw on cou-z and hwinfo64 that,s vid in idle becomes dinamicaly change from 0.745 to 0.749.

Today i see thats my vid runs 0.749 and 0.753 and never go low to 0.745. - Degradation?

Under 100 % load it,s the same as when first install 1.069.

try clear CMOS try reinstall windows, try new bios, but to no avail.

Psu voltage the same as first install.

time to open ticket? and change this processor?

please any help?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deceiver777*
> 
> Hello to all, really need help.
> 
> I buy 6950x 3 mons ago, when i first install, my idle vid in windows 10 was 0.745 and max load 1.069.
> 
> Processor runs on easy workloads - no overclocking.
> 
> 1 mons ago i saw on cou-z and hwinfo64 that,s vid in idle becomes dinamicaly change from 0.745 to 0.749.
> 
> Today i see thats my vid runs 0.749 and 0.753 and never go low to 0.745. - Degradation?
> 
> Under 100 % load it,s the same as when first install 1.069.
> 
> try clear CMOS try reinstall windows, try new bios, but to no avail.
> 
> Psu voltage the same as first install.
> 
> time to open ticket? and change this processor?
> 
> please any help?


Hello

Seriously? People really need to study what they are writing before posting such questions. 0.745V to 0.749V is only four-one thousand of a volt. Motherboards are not designed to measure/report at this accuracy or resolution. And obviously when someone asks such a question they also do not have the equipment on hand to make such measurements. Use the system and save the worrying for things important.


----------



## gravemynd575

Hello guys,

First time posting in the Intel threads, anyway, just got and set up my new Intel rig and was wondering about the temp targets,



not sure if the screenshot is readable but temps and voltages where, Package: 67C max, Highest core: 68C max, lowest core 59C max and VID at 1.326 V Max. this is after 20 minutes in Aida 64, temps seemed pretty stable from abou 13 mins onward. I should probably run longer tests but didn't have time this morning, Are these temps good for an everyday overclock?

Specs:

i7-6800k @ 4.2 Ghz
Noctua NH-D14
ASUS X99-AII Mobo
Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 Mhz 32 Gb (4 x 8)
EVGA GTX 1080 FTW
Rosewill Photon 850w 80+ Gold


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'd considering switching coolant also. EC6 here, have never had any issues.


Clear EC6 for me - never had a problem either!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gravemynd575*
> 
> Hello guys,
> 
> First time posting in the Intel threads, anyway, just got and set up my new Intel rig and was wondering about the temp targets,
> 
> 
> 
> not sure if the screenshot is readable but temps and voltages where, Package: 67C max, Highest core: 68C max, lowest core 59C max and VID at 1.326 V Max. this is after 20 minutes in Aida 64, temps seemed pretty stable from abou 13 mins onward. I should probably run longer tests but didn't have time this morning, *Are these temps good for an everyday overclock?*
> 
> Specs:
> 
> i7-6800k @ 4.2 Ghz
> Noctua NH-D14
> ASUS X99-AII Mobo
> Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 Mhz 32 Gb (4 x 8)
> EVGA GTX 1080 FTW
> Rosewill Photon 850w 80+ Gold


yes, but AID64 is not a really good "final" test for system stability. It's good, but not the one and only to use.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Clear EC6 for me - never had a problem either!


okay... what is EC6 (I obviously don't use premix.. .except some AQ clear or koolance clear on occasion (diluted further).


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ...
> okay... what is EC6 (I obviously don't use premix.. .except some AQ clear or koolance clear on occasion (diluted further).


ec6 coolant clear


----------



## opt33

EC6 is 90% distilled water, and rest vegetable extracts (non-toxic additive for inhibitor solubility) with corrosion inhibitors. Since I use nickel plated blocks, I use similar...though I just use concentrated inhibitors either ec6 clear concentrated or one of concentrated inhibitors in glycol and add to distilled. Even after couple years without changing fluid, havent had any nickel flaking with inhibitors.


----------



## Jpmboy

thanks guys. yeah - I've never seen any staining or corrosion in any loop here (3 running atm). one hasn't been flushed and filled in a couple of years.. only topped off. That one has Aquacomputer clear in it. The others are just using DW and Redline.


----------



## gravemynd575

Quote:


> yes, but AID64 is not a really good "final" test for system stability. It's good, but not the one and only to use.


Thanks! Which test would you recommend for stability testing?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> like scone said - get a different block.. and IMO, going to a monoblock is not the best way to keep these rigs tamed. A waste of money.
> If the block did flake nickel and plating got loose in the loop, if you do not have any filter/screen in-line (I use the koolance in-line filter at the last rad outlet) it is possible for the flakes to foul the pump, flow meters and any other "moving parts in the loop... FOD. Back flush the entire loop.


I'm not buying a monoblock to "tame" the rig, it's to cool the VRM's etc.. without putting more restriction in the loop by adding extra blocks on top of a CPU block.

And like i said i only have one pump so i don't think i can backflush it at all, unless there's something i'm missing here? Another way to backflush it?


----------



## Martin778

I'm extremely happy with the Kryonaut, it seems to have cured a bit mode and today even after 1h of RealBench I wasn't able to hit 80*C on any of the cores!
So far it's stable at 4.4GHz @ 1.365V.


----------



## mbze430

I run Redline.... in my rotary engine


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gravemynd575*
> 
> Thanks! Which test would you recommend for stability testing?


really need to use a couple: ASUS realbenchv2.44 (1h+), HCI memtest (500% +) and if you really need a high current suicide stress test, something like OCCT. I like to use HWBOT x265 (4K, p-mode, 2-8x) as a good final test of "tuning".








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> I'm not buying a monoblock to "tame" the rig, it's to cool the VRM's etc.. without putting more restriction in the loop by adding extra blocks on top of a CPU block.
> And like i said i only have one pump so i don't think i can backflush it at all, unless there's something i'm missing here? Another way to backflush it?


yeah well, hopefully the monoblock does better than component cooling, and does not get borked up since you can't flush the loop. good luck.
btw - the vrms really do not need to be water cooled.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I run Redline.... in my rotary engine


lol - that ****'l probably could use it.


----------



## Martin778

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I run Redline.... in my rotary engine


When I was buying my first car I was looking at the RX-8 but the bad reviews about the steering, traction and reliability of the rotor engine put me off, most cars I saw on the net already had engine issues.
I went with a 2.2 Brera instead that likes to redline too with it's VVT


----------



## mbze430

Rotary for Life here


----------



## cookiesowns

Here's my run of X265 in daily driver mode. 6950X on RVE10. 64GB TZ 3200C14, stock XMP with some tighter seconds/thirts. Chrome tabs and all my usual BG processes open along with Spotify.

4.4Ghz 4.2AVX2. 1.328V @ 4.4Ghz, 1.285-1.31V AVX2 VID. Cache @ 3.5 1.15V. VCCIN 1.88-1.9? don't remember exact numbers. LLC 5 VRM temps >56C, water temps roughly 32-34C. Package temps max at 75C.

Loop consists of 2x EK PE360 rads and a single EK XE480. Single loop with D5 @ 100%, EK Supremacy EVO mounted in the usual orientation ( non goofy/ non rotated ), and 2x Titan XP's with Uniblocks. All with Thermal Grizzly.

Variation is a bit bad probably due to some more tuning I'd have to do on VCCIN and other things, but for now system has been running great for my usual workloads so I'm not going to bother..



Dual E5-2676V3 and Dual E5-2683V3 running the same workloads.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> really need to use a couple: ASUS realbenchv2.44 (1h+), HCI memtest (500% +) and if you really need a high current suicide stress test, something like OCCT. I like to use HWBOT x265 (4K, p-mode, 2-8x) as a good final test of "tuning".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah well, hopefully the monoblock does better than component cooling, and does not get borked up since you can't flush the loop. good luck.
> btw - the vrms really do not need to be water cooled.
> lol - that ****'l probably could use it.


Well once i can afford to i'm going to buy a new pump anyway as i was wanting to run two D5 in serial for redundancy and to counteract the effect of having 1280mm of rad space, 2 TITAN X GPU blocks, and a monoblock etc..

Unfortunately my money has been in limbo for some time; one of the multiple CPUs i bought to bin for max OC had a different chip in the box so i returned it but amazon is making excuses about how long before they refund me; and i didn't want to sell the 2nd 6950X i had yet till i could verify that the one i currently have running is fast enough for my needs (which is impossible with it sitting at ~80C since i can never tell whether the chip will clock higher on lower temps until i actually GET lower temps if you see what i mean)

Until then i can't afford to buy another pump or the monoblock etc..

I can just barely afford to get a replacement block base, which of course would become pointless once the monoblock is purchased.

I guess my dilemma is just one of patience...if i wait till amazon refunds me or someone buys the extra 6950X etc.. i'd have plenty of money to buy all the parts i'm getting (the monoblock, 2nd pump, proper anti-corrosive coolant, new fittings that aren't corroded, new RAM, the 2nde GPU block i haven't gotten yet etc..) It's just that i'm so impatient and hate having high temps like this so it's hard to wait lol.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Rotary for Life here


lol - I got ***** ed for typing ****el? Anyway - rotary's are a blast!


----------



## Martin778

The last letter matters









Anyway, here is my x265 run, no downlocking @ AVX or thermal blabla tools.











I've noticed that the time elapsed is way off on our benchmarks, why?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Here's my run of X265 in daily driver mode. 6950X on RVE10. 64GB TZ 3200C14, stock XMP with some tighter seconds/thirts. Chrome tabs and all my usual BG processes open along with Spotify.
> 
> 4.4Ghz 4.2AVX2. 1.328V @ 4.4Ghz, 1.285-1.31V AVX2 VID. Cache @ 3.5 1.15V. VCCIN 1.88-1.9? don't remember exact numbers. LLC 5 VRM temps >56C, water temps roughly 32-34C. Package temps max at 75C.
> 
> Loop consists of 2x EK PE360 rads and a single EK XE480. Single loop with D5 @ 100%, EK Supremacy EVO mounted in the usual orientation ( non goofy/ non rotated ), and 2x Titan XP's with Uniblocks. All with Thermal Grizzly.
> 
> Variation is a bit bad probably due to some more tuning I'd have to do on VCCIN and other things, but for now system has been running great for my usual workloads so I'm not going to bother..
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dual E5-2676V3 and Dual E5-2683V3 running the same workloads.


ahhh - those 48 thread chips are just sick!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The last letter matters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, here is my x265 run, no downlocking @ AVX or thermal blabla tools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the time elapsed is way off on our benchmarks, why?


Nice! ... but where the h3lll is the vcore in all that sensor data? (lol - burried somewhere I'm sure).









PS.. now fold for a few days: http://www.overclock.net/t/1611567/september-2016-foldathon-monday-26th-28th-12-noon-est-4pm-utc/0_20


----------



## Martin778

Upper left part of HWInfo. It shows separate voltage for each core.

I decided to part with CoreTemp, it conflicts with some other software and sometimes when i start CT my gpu crashes - the screen goes black and you can see that the GPU rebooting itself.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *ahhh - those 48 thread chips are just sick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Nice! ... but where the h3lll is the vcore in all that sensor data? (lol - burried somewhere I'm sure).


Agreed, definitely a nice setup!









You gotta admit that the 6950X keeps up pretty darn well though! The Dual E5 2683 V3 setup even with 28 cores / 56 threads at 3ghz is only 35% faster in the results than the 4.4ghz 6950X (12.8fps vs 9.44fps = ~35.5% difference)

Honestly the main thing that tempted me to go dual socket is the extra PCI-e lanes; You could have a full 4 way GPU setup with x16 bandwidth on all four cards and still have enough 3.0 lanes left for an NVMe based RAID array, a 10Gb NIC, etc..etc.. Boards like the Z10PE-D8 are great for that kinda thing, has M.2 Support so you could pop in one of the new 1TB/2TB M.2 NVMe drives then run a RAID'ed setup with two 1.2TB 750 Series in the slots and still have enough lanes for another x4 3.0 card.

In the end though i couldn't bring myself to go dual socket BW-EP when Skylake-X and Skylake-EP are only a year-ish ahead; although i'm a little miffed at the latest rumors saying the 48 pci-e lane rumor is false and we're limited to 44 now; was hoping for full 3 way x16 capability on single socket.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Upper left part of HWInfo. It shows separate voltage for each core.
> 
> I decided to part with CoreTemp, it conflicts with some other software and sometimes when i start CT my gpu crashes - the screen goes black and you can see that the GPU rebooting itself.


yeah - saw that... just FYI, it is reporting the VID, not vcore. anyway, warming up some rigs... 2 more to set up

5960x (6 threads) + 2 TX(M)s on the OEM Bios:


6950X (8 threads) + 2 TX(P)s :


that's ~ 4M ppd... there's another ~1.3M PPD laying around here.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Agreed, definitely a nice setup Cookies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta admit that the 6950X keeps up pretty darn well though! The Dual E5 2683 V3 setup even with 28 cores / 56 threads at 3ghz is only 35% faster in the results than the 4.4ghz 6950X (12.8fps vs 9.44fps = ~35.5% difference)
> 
> Honestly the main thing that tempted me to go dual socket is the extra PCI-e lanes; You could have a full 4 way GPU setup with x16 bandwidth on all four cards and still have enough 3.0 lanes left for an NVMe based RAID array, a 10Gb NIC, etc..etc.. Boards like the Z10PE-D8 are great for that kinda thing, has M.2 Support so you could pop in one of the new 1TB/2TB M.2 NVMe drives then run a RAID'ed setup with two 1.2TB 750 Series in the slots and still have enough lanes for another x4 3.0 card.
> 
> In the end though i couldn't bring myself to go dual socket BW-EP when Skylake-X and Skylake-EP are only a year-ish ahead; although i'm a little miffed at the latest rumors saying the 48 pci-e lane rumor is false and we're limited to 44 now; was hoping for full 3 way x16 capability on single socket.


It really, really depends on your usage.

I have big cpu/memory apps I crunch through many times a day that even limited to 10 threads my 2x2690 setup topping out at 3.2GHz all-core matches or exceeds the performance of my 6950x at 4.4GHz. If I open up the whole can and give it all cores, then it slaps the 6950x around.

One big difference is ~120GB/s+ memory bandwidth of 2xXeon chips vs 60/70/80GB/s of a BWE chip with an awesome memory tune.

That said, if I want to plow through a database with one thread, then 4.4GHz on a BWE is the way to go.

As always the answer to "which one?" is "yes!"


----------



## Martin778

CPUZ Reports the same core voltage - 1.367.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Agreed, definitely a nice setup Cookies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta admit that the 6950X keeps up pretty darn well though! The Dual E5 2683 V3 setup even with 28 cores / 56 threads at 3ghz is only 35% faster in the results than the 4.4ghz 6950X (12.8fps vs 9.44fps = ~35.5% difference)
> 
> Honestly the main thing that tempted me to go dual socket is the extra PCI-e lanes; You could have a full 4 way GPU setup with x16 bandwidth on all four cards and still have enough 3.0 lanes left for an NVMe based RAID array, a 10Gb NIC, etc..etc.. Boards like the Z10PE-D8 are great for that kinda thing, has M.2 Support so you could pop in one of the new 1TB/2TB M.2 NVMe drives then run a RAID'ed setup with two 1.2TB 750 Series in the slots and still have enough lanes for another x4 3.0 card.
> 
> In the end though i couldn't bring myself to go dual socket BW-EP when Skylake-X and Skylake-EP are only a year-ish ahead; although i'm a little miffed at the latest rumors saying the 48 pci-e lane rumor is false and we're limited to 44 now; was hoping for full 3 way x16 capability on single socket.


Honestly in most cases I think the 6950X will slap these dual CPU nodes around. Two of them were supposed to go towards remote Adobe rendering, but I think they will just get re-purposed into VM hosts, not having GPU's really suck. That said, as VM hosts, these are amazing. Only pulling roughly 350watts under full load, these supermicro fattwin nodes are extremely efficient. Only 12V coming from the power backplane, and the 5V/3.3V conversion is handled all on each node individually.

The downside of a dual CPU system is NUMA awareness. It's really important to place your lanes & devices on the right CPU depending on your workload. While the CPU -> CPU bandwidth with QPI & DMI 2.0 isn't that bad, the latency hit for certain applications is still noticeable.

For example the X265 benchmark isn't full NUMA aware it seems like. The 2nd CPU seems to get much less load than the first CPU in certain cases. Really need to dig down into this and see if I can maybe squeeze a few more MHZ out of it, the memory latency hit is also there as well. I'm not on a Z10 or Supermicro Hyper-drive board.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> CPUZ Reports the same core voltage - 1.367.


on x99 cpuZ reports VID, not vcore. Use AID 64.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Honestly in most cases I think the 6950X will slap these dual CPU nodes around. Two of them were supposed to go towards remote Adobe rendering, but I think they will just get re-purposed into VM hosts, not having GPU's really suck. That said, as VM hosts, these are amazing. Only pulling roughly 350watts under full load, these supermicro fattwin nodes are extremely efficient. Only 12V coming from the power backplane, and the 5V/3.3V conversion is handled all on each node individually.
> 
> The downside of a dual CPU system is NUMA awareness. It's really important to place your lanes & devices on the right CPU depending on your workload. While the CPU -> CPU bandwidth with QPI & DMI 2.0 isn't that bad, the latency hit for certain applications is still noticeable.
> 
> For example the X265 benchmark isn't full NUMA aware it seems like. The 2nd CPU seems to get much less load than the first CPU in certain cases. Really need to dig down into this and see if I can maybe squeeze a few more MHZ out of it, the memory latency hit is also there as well. I'm not on a Z10 or Supermicro Hyper-drive board.


Yeah, all true. NUMA problems, along with being (seemingly purposely) stuck with a gimped 2.0 DMI where Z170 runs wild with 3.0 etc.. are the downfall of dual socket setups (well that and the possible necessity of being forced onto Server 2012 instead of Linux or Win7/8.1/10 on some of the higher core count setups)

I've actually seen some interesting things that can come from dual socket setups though; for example, through careful management of what devices are on which CPU like you said, you can actually trick the drivers and OS etc.. in some cases, into letting restrictions down. Like having four way SLI Pascal GPU's is "impossible" except for benchmarking right? Wrong. With a dual socket setup you can have four GPU's in SLI with a four way bridge (has to be one of the hard LED ones with shielded SLI connectors) but with the first two cards in slots controlled by CPU 0 and the 3rd + 4th GPU in slots controlled by CPU 1. This makes it especially easy to bypass the Nvidia driver warning in NV contgrol panel on Pascal cards that says "a higher performing bridge could give better performance" etc.. (thus why you use a hard LED bridge, which in combination with these tweaks tricks the Nvidia drivers into fully "unlocking" SLI functionality by making the system think your 3 or 4 way normal bridge is just TWO "high bandwidth" bridges connecting two SETS of cards. In other words it thinks you have two way SLI of card 1 and 2 on CPU0 and two way SLI of card 3 and 4 on CPU1 and thus unlocks all limitations, but since CPU0 and CPU1 can still talk to each other you get true 4 way SLI on pascal, despite Nvidia claiming that 4 way SLI was impossible...it isn't, they just locked it away with drivers for some odd reason).

The same can seemingly be done on a single socket, as Baasha managed to do it, but he's being a bit uptight and refusing to share how he did it lol. All i know is that you have to do a lot of tinkering with custom SLI profiles from scratch and editing drivers etc.. overall though a dual socket setup is best not only for the ease of getting it to work but the fact that four way TITAN XP setups (or even 4 way 1080 to some degree) just really REQUIRE x16 lanes per card to be at their full potential with all the power being put out. I've seen setups like that with 4 way TITAN XP giving games like BF4 getting NEARLY THREE HUNDRED FPS at 4K resolution on a dual E5 2699 V4 setup despite only running at a ~3ghz speed; whereas on a single socket i7 there was a fairly significant drop in GPU usage on the 3rd and 4th card and in turn significantly lower fps (closer to 200) so again, those 80 PCI-e lanes can definitely come in handy at times!

There's also interesting tweaks to specifically allocate (more like force i suppose) more than the typical max of 4-6 cores to games, which is also easier to achieve on dual socket boards

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> It really, really depends on your usage.
> 
> I have big cpu/memory apps I crunch through many times a day that even limited to 10 threads my 2x2690 setup topping out at 3.2GHz all-core matches or exceeds the performance of my 6950x at 4.4GHz. If I open up the whole can and give it all cores, then it slaps the 6950x around.
> 
> One big difference is ~120GB/s+ memory bandwidth of 2xXeon chips vs 60/70/80GB/s of a BWE chip with an awesome memory tune.
> 
> That said, if I want to plow through a database with one thread, then 4.4GHz on a BWE is the way to go.
> 
> As always the answer to "which one?" is "yes!"


Well yeah, if you have a legitimate need for massive memory bandwidth then a dual chip setup will STOMP anything a single socket can provide with ease. Hell, i've seen a few specific cases where one of the recently popular budget dual E5 2670 V1 Setups on an ASUS Z9PE-D8 (That's two 8 core 16 thread Sandy Bridge-EP chips used for only ~$70 a piece, and you can throw in the C600 chipset board and ~128GB of ECC DDR3 with a compatible case for only ~$500 TOTAL cost) actually ties or BEATS out a 6950X (mostly specific Transcoding, Encoding, etc.. loads that either A) Take advantage of the ~90GB/s bandwidth that a dual socket setup with quad channel DDR3 provides. and/or B) Has proper NUMA support that you can efficiently and quickly use pretty much all 16 cores, with the 2nd socket performing near or at the level of the first etc..

In many cases it was either ~10-15% ahead of a 6950X, roughly tied with it, or ~10-15% behind the 6950X (although i think the 6950X in this case was at maybe 3.8 - 4ghz at most, if that. Still impressive though)

The workloads that i'm working with are mostly things like training Deep Neural Nets, general video editing and encoding, etc.. and moderate/heavy gaming and web browsing and so forth in spare time. Which is why i ultimately have leaned towards just using the 6950X overclocked as high as i can get it, on the Rampage V Edition 10, with 64GB of high speed DDR4 instead of going for a dual socket C612 setup with two 10-12 core Xeons, and 128GB of slower speed ~2133-2400mhz ECC Reg. or something.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Yeah, all true. NUMA problems, along with being (seemingly purposely) stuck with a gimped 2.0 DMI where Z170 runs wild with 3.0 etc.. are the downfall of dual socket setups (well that and the possible necessity of being forced onto Server 2012 instead of Linux or Win7/8.1/10 on some of the higher core count setups)
> 
> I've actually seen some interesting things that can come from dual socket setups though; for example, through careful management of what devices are on which CPU like you said, you can actually trick the drivers and OS etc.. in some cases, into letting restrictions down. Like having four way SLI Pascal GPU's is "impossible" except for benchmarking right? Wrong. With a dual socket setup you can have four GPU's in SLI with a four way bridge (has to be one of the hard LED ones with shielded SLI connectors) but with the first two cards in slots controlled by CPU 0 and the 3rd + 4th GPU in slots controlled by CPU 1. This makes it especially easy to bypass the Nvidia driver warning in NV contgrol panel on Pascal cards that says "a higher performing bridge could give better performance" etc.. (thus why you use a hard LED bridge, which in combination with these tweaks tricks the Nvidia drivers into fully "unlocking" SLI functionality by making the system think your 3 or 4 way normal bridge is just TWO "high bandwidth" bridges connecting two SETS of cards. In other words it thinks you have two way SLI of card 1 and 2 on CPU0 and two way SLI of card 3 and 4 on CPU1 and thus unlocks all limitations, but since CPU0 and CPU1 can still talk to each other you get true 4 way SLI on pascal, despite Nvidia claiming that 4 way SLI was impossible...it isn't, they just locked it away with drivers for some odd reason).
> 
> The same can seemingly be done on a single socket, as Baasha managed to do it, but he's being a bit uptight and refusing to share how he did it lol. All i know is that you have to do a lot of tinkering with custom SLI profiles from scratch and editing drivers etc.. overall though a dual socket setup is best not only for the ease of getting it to work but the fact that four way TITAN XP setups (or even 4 way 1080 to some degree) just really REQUIRE x16 lanes per card to be at their full potential with all the power being put out. I've seen setups like that with 4 way TITAN XP giving games like BF4 getting NEARLY THREE HUNDRED FPS at 4K resolution on a dual E5 2699 V4 setup despite only running at a ~3ghz speed; whereas on a single socket i7 there was a fairly significant drop in GPU usage on the 3rd and 4th card and in turn significantly lower fps (closer to 200) so again, those 80 PCI-e lanes can definitely come in handy at times!
> 
> There's also interesting tweaks to specifically allocate (more like force i suppose) more than the typical max of 4-6 cores to games, which is also easier to achieve on dual socket boards
> Well yeah, if you have a legitimate need for massive memory bandwidth then a dual chip setup will STOMP anything a single socket can provide with ease. Hell, i've seen a few specific cases where one of the recently popular budget dual E5 2670 V1 Setups on an ASUS Z9PE-D8 (That's two 8 core 16 thread Sandy Bridge-EP chips used for only ~$70 a piece, and you can throw in the C600 chipset board and ~128GB of ECC DDR3 with a compatible case for only ~$500 TOTAL cost) actually ties or BEATS out a 6950X (mostly specific Transcoding, Encoding, etc.. loads that either A) Take advantage of the ~90GB/s bandwidth that a dual socket setup with quad channel DDR3 provides. and/or B) Has proper NUMA support that you can efficiently and quickly use pretty much all 16 cores, with the 2nd socket performing near or at the level of the first etc..
> 
> In many cases it was either ~10-15% ahead of a 6950X, roughly tied with it, or ~10-15% behind the 6950X (although i think the 6950X in this case was at maybe 3.8 - 4ghz at most, if that. Still impressive though)
> 
> The workloads that i'm working with are mostly things like training Deep Neural Nets, general video editing and encoding, etc.. and moderate/heavy gaming and web browsing and so forth in spare time. Which is why i ultimately have leaned towards just using the 6950X overclocked as high as i can get it, on the Rampage V Edition 10, with 64GB of high speed DDR4 instead of going for a dual socket C612 setup with two 10-12 core Xeons, and 128GB of slower speed ~2133-2400mhz ECC Reg. or something.


Figure out what's wrong with your system yet?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Figure out what's wrong with your system yet?


Nope









I was wanting to avoid buying a new block since it would go to waste when i eventually buy the monoblock; but since i have no damn clue when Amazon will decide to finally refund my money and i won't get paid for another couple weeks i may have to buy one just to be able to properly use the system. Unfortunately there's no guarantee that a new block would fix anything either though; as it could very well be something else like the pump etc..

I managed to get my temps a LITTLE lower, with the max core temp during Cinebench sitting around ~83-84C instead of ~87-88C like it was before; and sometimes after booting from cold it'll stay down to ~79C or something for max but overall it's still a problem.

I took the block apart again and noticed that i had forgotten to put the insert back in so that likely explains the ~4-5C max temp drop though; plus i scrubbed it again to try and clean out any more gunk i could find. I managed to clean all but some oxidation on the fins and i'm not sure if that square inch or so of oxidation could actually be causing that big of a temperature problem or not. I'm thinking of trying to vinegar flush the loop, but with a nickel block you're apparently not supposed to do that so i'm at a loss here of what to do really. I can't backflush the loop since i only have one pump too! ugh....


----------



## Martin778

Finally got my new RAM kit today - 4x8GB TridentZ 3200MHz CL14. Currently running @ 1,38V and CR1. Seems like RAM doens't do much for x265.
My score now raised to 10.14FPS.


----------



## rioja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ahhh - those 48 thread chips are just sick!


How about 64?










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Finally got my new RAM kit today - 4x8GB TridentZ 3200MHz CL14. Currently running @ 1,38V and CR1. Seems like RAM doens't do much for x265.
> My score now raised to 10.14FPS.


Can you run memory higher than 3200? I got Corsair Dominators rated at 3466, but my 6850 cant run it higher than 3200


----------



## Martin778

3400MHz @ 14-14-14-14 @ 1,39V crashed within 2 minutes of RB. No problems with XMP settings ([email protected]) though, passed 1h RB with no problems.

They doesn't seem to like CR1 though.


----------



## Raghar

If that's 8 stick kit, then it NEEDS CR2 unless you are lucky. CR2 means two sticks per channel.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rioja*
> 
> *How about 64*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you run memory higher than 3200? I got Corsair Dominators rated at 3466, but my 6850 cant run it higher than 3200


how about 128








anyway, 3400 on that kit should be possible. I run 3400c13 on GS 3200c14... check in AID64 SPD to see if they are Samsung ICs,
64GB, 3400c13


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> 3400MHz @ 14-14-14-*14* @ 1,39V crashed within 2 minutes of RB. No problems with XMP settings ([email protected]) though, passed 1h RB with no problems.
> 
> They doesn't seem to like CR1 though.


Was that last one a 14, or 34? Try 13-15-14-34CR1, you may need to raise vdimm a bit, maybe not..


----------



## DarkIdeals

Hey Martin, how are you doing the TIM spread on your Kryonaut? Do you do the spread with the fancy rubber brush like shown in the video? Or just typical X, line, Pea etc.. method?

Strangely my past is just WAY thicker than it appears in this video...it's like its a totally different product!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRytGgmdeQM

Because of that it seems to have an awfully hard time getting a good spread. Doubt it has much effect on temps but figured i'd ask.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> CR2 means two sticks per channel.


Hello

Hopefully this was posted as a joke?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Hopefully this was posted as a joke?


had to be - right?









_____________________________________

hey guys - put those BWEs to work for a few days:
*
http://www.overclock.net/t/1611567/september-2016-foldathon-monday-26th-28th-12-noon-est-4pm-utc/0_20*


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> had to be - right?


Hello

One would hope so.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Hopefully this was posted as a joke?


Maybe badly phrased, as in two sticks per channel tend to need CR2? Or maybe as you say having fun with words


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *had to be - right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]*


My multiple personalities have all come together and thoroughly discussed the issue...







...and have come to the conclusion that we welcome this new level of logic to our great Unity; and hereby declare that CR2 stands for Channel Raghar 2 in honor of this great revelation bestowed upon the Collective


----------



## Jpmboy




----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> My multiple personalities have all come together and thoroughly discussed the issue...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and have come to the conclusion that we welcome this new level of logic to our great Unity; and hereby declare that CR2 stands for Channel Raghar 2 in honor of this great revelation bestowed upon the Collective


Do you get that channel via satellite or cable? I couldn't find it in DirecTV


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Hopefully this was posted as a joke?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Maybe badly phrased, as in two sticks per channel tend to need CR2? Or maybe as you say having fun with words


Yes it was badly phrased. Two sticks per channel typically need Command Rate 2. (Actually I never seen 8 stick RAM kit which could run at CR1 without extensive tinkering.)


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Do you get that channel via satellite or cable? I couldn't find it in DirecTV


I get great reception with my 2 megawatt ion engine i stole from a DARPA facility connected to my Tin Foil Hat via Fiber network and a 10GB NIC...


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> Yes. There is no need for it to be that high. I mean, there might be, but, all it will do is produce more heat for maybe more oc stability and that's a big maybe. Voltages will check just fine with it not so high, almost all those Digi+ settings. Check the vrm temps


K.... you don't know what you're talking about.

I've seen this multiple times on here and I NEED to clear it up.

Extreme = More Phases, More Phases = Power Load Spread across all Phases, Power Load Spread across all phases = Lower temperatures. Period.

Not debatable.

Having all possible Phases enabled is OBVIOUSLY the best way to run ANY system you are overclocking. If anyone has anything to say to the contrary... save it.

This is proven. It's a little thing called physics...


----------



## Martin778

Geez i must stop posting late at night, of course it was 14-14-14-34 as per XMP timings but with CR1.

I ran a 4h RB test (now CR2, stock XMP settings) and it crashed after 232 minutes, 8 minutes before the end







The temps are hovering in high 70s under RB so it could've been a random temp related hiccup.

Regarding the Kryonaut - yes it's quite sticky stuff but it should spread nicely when you use the rubber applicator.
Putting a small drop in the middle on the CPU should've worked too providing that you have enough pressure.

I run my block overtight (end of the threading) all the time because those plastic rings that are under the caps went MIA some time ago.


----------



## Kimir

You should never overtight your block, washers or not.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> K.... you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> I've seen this multiple times on here and I NEED to clear it up.
> 
> Extreme = More Phases, More Phases = Power Load Spread across all Phases, Power Load Spread across all phases = Lower temperatures. Period.
> 
> Not debatable.
> 
> Having all possible Phases enabled is OBVIOUSLY the best way to run ANY system you are overclocking. If anyone has anything to say to the contrary... save it.
> 
> This is proven. It's a little thing called physics...


This can be happily left on standard if using offset or adaptive settings. Extreme shouldn't be necessary for most overclocks, and will possibly increase VRM temperatures as (obviously) more phases are active for a given setting (for instance even at idle). It's also obviously dependent on the platform and VRM.


----------



## pillowsack

How hot are your guys VRM's on average?

I'm gonna jump the gun and order a Asus x99 monoblock when they're instock again. They're sooooo pretty looking


----------



## Martin778

After 3 hours of RealBench they are too hot to keep your finger on it for longer than 3 seconds. I guess around 60c.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> How hot are your guys VRM's on average?
> 
> I'm gonna jump the gun and order a Asus x99 monoblock when they're instock again. They're sooooo pretty looking


max I've ever seen the VRMs on an R5E or R5E-10 is mid 40s. Normally in the mid 30s. (via AID64 report)


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> max I've ever seen the VRMs on an R5E or R5E-10 is mid 40s. Normally in the mid 30s. (via AID64 report)


Same on Deluxe II with a low RPM fan blowing on that area


----------



## Martin778

My mobo temps under full load after 3h, not sure which sensor is which, the 92*C is gibberish:


----------



## Kimir

I recall I've seen higher than that when disabling VRM spread spectrum on the R5E. As high as 56°c, put it back on enabled with optimized phase control and it's back in the mid 40°c.


----------



## Martin778

Finally, passed 4h RB on 4.4 GHz







Great success.











I lowered the uncore freq. a bit and bumped the vCore to 1,375V.
I still need to track down which one gave it stability, was it lowering the uncore or raising the voltage.

By the way, what is the maximum RAM voltage you guys use on BW-E for 24/7 use?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> How hot are your guys VRM's on average?
> 
> I'm gonna jump the gun and order a Asus x99 monoblock when they're instock again. They're sooooo pretty looking


I get to high 50's by the end of a stress test, normally low 40's.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Finally, passed 4h RB on 4.4 GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lowered the uncore freq. a bit and bumped the vCore to 1,375V.
> I still need to track down which one gave it stability, was it lowering the uncore or raising the voltage.
> 
> By the way, what is the maximum RAM voltage you guys use on BW-E for 24/7 use?


I've been doing 1.44v in BIOS which Aida reports at around 1.43, I'm on the high side ...


----------



## nexxusty

Ugh... my new 6800k just got a nice SA voltage of 1.392 on bootup with all auto.... Are you kidding me Asus?

Absolutely ridiculous.

I doubt I'll buy another Asus board because of this. 1.4v is WAYYYY too much. Not surprised if it degraded the CPU a little.

Pathetic really....


----------



## Martin778

Noooo, that Digi+ VRM thingy has is quite, well....******ed so to say. I don't trust it at all, when I loaded XMP profile only it gave the CPU 1.3 vcore already.
I really prefer to get rid of any "auto" voltage settings now.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Noooo, that Digi+ VRM thingy has is quite, well....******ed so to say. I don't trust it at all, when I loaded XMP profile only it gave the CPU 1.3 vcore already.
> I really prefer to get rid of any "auto" voltage settings now.


Realistically, you'd only be back moaning you couldn't get the system stable if we took that statement literally


----------



## DarkIdeals

Well i ordered a bunch of new parts to upgrade my cooling.

EK RVE-10 Monoblock (Nickel/Plexi)

Primochill Revolver XS Fittings x 12

4 packs of 4 x 36" PETG Tubing

Monsoon Pro Bending Kit (Jigs for 90 degree + 180 degree etc.. bending. Heat Gun, Silicone Insert, Hack Saw, Champfer etc..)

VPP655 Pump to replace the MCP655-B that could be going bad possibly.

EK-FC TITAN XP Waterblock for the 2nd TITAN.

EK Terminal (Triple Parallel + Blank)

Hopefully this should fix the problems; a new block, new pump, new tubing, new fittings etc.. will rule out corroded fittings, corroded block, pump failure, and Algae in the tubing etc.. as possible causes of temp hikes.

Only thing that could still foul up my day is if the radiators are somehow causing problems. I ran a vinegar/water mix through them with the pump though and then did a manual vinegar/water flush and the shake dance etc.. so it "should" be good to go.

I noticed that when putting the Supremacy EVO block under water i would see dozens of little metal flakes from the nickel plating shining from between the fins etc.. so i'm honestly thinking that's the issue. I had ordered a replacement nickel block but as i figured it became redundant when i ended ordering the monoblock and everything else.

One thing that sucks is that after spending so damn much on this stuff i might not be able to afford the 2TB 960 Pro i planned to eventually buy. The final two touches to my build were going to be 64GB of 3466mhz Dom Plats (planned to run 3400mhz C14 1T if possible) and the 2TB NVMe drive; might go for a 1TB instead, should be plenty anyway.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Ugh... my new 6800k just got a nice SA voltage of 1.392 on bootup with all auto.... Are you kidding me Asus?
> 
> Absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> I doubt I'll buy another Asus board because of this. 1.4v is WAYYYY too much. Not surprised if it degraded the CPU a little.
> 
> Pathetic really....


Sorry man. Sucks, i know.







Had the same/similar happen to my rig before.

I kept warning people about the possibility of these things. For some reason high end ASUS boards are sometimes susceptible to this when left on AUTO settings. There was a fairly large number of reports on both the Rampage IV Black Edition and the Rampage V Extreme when they came out complaining about 4960X and 5960X etc.. $1000 chips being ruined by AUTO voltage raising vcore to absurd numbers like ~1.6v - 1.7v etc.. when first booting. Or sometimes it would do something like raising vccin to 1.99 - 2.0v which was a problem for those with level high level of LLC. Or sometimes it'd muck with vccsa like you experienced.

Although a lot of those cases were due to the "CPU Level Up" feature (that leaves everything on auto basically) either being intentionally turned on by user or automatically turned on by the board somehow; so it "is" a tad surprising that it gave such a high system agent with a manual mode set in BIOS.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Sorry man. Sucks, i know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had the same/similar happen to my rig before.
> 
> I kept warning people about the possibility of these things. For some reason high end ASUS boards are sometimes susceptible to this when left on AUTO settings. There was a fairly large number of reports on both the Rampage IV Black Edition and the Rampage V Extreme when they came out complaining about 4960X and 5960X etc.. $1000 chips being ruined by AUTO voltage raising vcore to absurd numbers like ~1.6v - 1.7v etc.. when first booting. Or sometimes it would do something like raising vccin to 1.99 - 2.0v which was a problem for those with level high level of LLC. Or sometimes it'd muck with vccsa like you experienced.
> 
> Although a lot of those cases were due to the "CPU Level Up" feature (that leaves everything on auto basically) either being intentionally turned on by user or automatically turned on by the board somehow; *so it "is" a tad surprising that it gave such a high system agent with a manual mode set in BIOS*.


yeah, that would be, but it's not what he claims happened... i was set to auto.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, that would be, but it's not what he claims happened... i was set to auto.


I was talking about the overall "auto, manual, XMP" setting at the top of the page. You can obviously have that on manual but still have system agent voltage set to auto.


----------



## nexxusty

This was after setting XMP yeah. Rebooted and noticed within less than a minute.....

Hopefully no damage was done..... I really doubt it however. CPU was at 27c though...

0.912v stock to 1.392v doesn't bode well...

How can this even be possible? How can they not be responsible?

XMP I'd guess, still.... their board did this. I would have NEVER set an SA voltage of 1.392v.

I looked at it for a second and thought it was an error. I immediately cleared cmos and rebooted.... Very sour over this.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> This was after setting XMP yeah. Rebooted and noticed within less than a minute.....
> 
> Hopefully no damage was done..... I really doubt it however. CPU was at 27c though...
> 
> 0.912v stock to 1.392v doesn't bode well...
> 
> How can this even be possible? How can they not be responsible?
> 
> XMP I'd guess, still.... their board did this. I would have NEVER set an SA voltage of 1.392v.
> 
> I looked at it for a second and thought it was an error. I immediately cleared cmos and rebooted.... Very sour over this.


Nobody really knows why ASUS doesn't take responsibility; probably a mix of rarity and lack of definitive "proof" that would stand up in a court. Something about their AUTO algorithm just decides that voltages should be way higher than normal in rare instances. It's not a super common occurance by any means, which is why i still buy ASUS boards (that and the fact that there's just no board from the competition that genuinely competes with a Rampage. You have ones that get relatively close like the MSI Godlike Carbon and the Gigabyte SOC Champion etc.. and in terms of reliability the EVGA X99 Classified is a great choice; but overall these boards get trumped in all categories by at least a little bit; Overclocking and Features is a win for the Rampage V Edition 10 and RV Extreme, and reliability of the X99 Classy is trumped by the X99-E WS with it's 12K rated IC's etc.. and general redundancy and sturdiness...hell even the X99 Sabertooth has some great reliability).

However, no matter how good the boards are and how rare the issue is; i definitely agree that it's an unacceptable thing. They've managed to improve upon it, with RVE having slightly less instances than the Rampage IV Black, and the Rampage V Edition 10 seeming to trump the RVE in turn, as well....but it's still unacceptable to risk destroying a $1750 chip due to asinine AUTO voltage management.


----------



## Silent Scone

Condense your posts, wall of text syndrome won't win you any friends









All vendors use similar principles with auto scaling, including auto tune software. Never seen it set that rail that high and likely never will, but it's not likely to have caused any damage.

Problem we have here is too much metacognition about the unknown from the unknowing.1.4v on this rail at UEFI level or for short periods is not likely going to do anything.

I'd focus your energy on getting your loop working!


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Ugh... my new 6800k just got a nice SA voltage of 1.392 on bootup with all auto.... Are you kidding me Asus?
> 
> Absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> I doubt I'll buy another Asus board because of this. 1.4v is WAYYYY too much. Not surprised if it degraded the CPU a little.
> 
> Pathetic really....


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> This was after setting XMP yeah. Rebooted and noticed within less than a minute.....
> 
> Hopefully no damage was done..... I really doubt it however. CPU was at 27c though...
> 
> 0.912v stock to 1.392v doesn't bode well...
> 
> How can this even be possible? How can they not be responsible?
> 
> XMP I'd guess, still.... their board did this. I would have NEVER set an SA voltage of 1.392v.
> 
> I looked at it for a second and thought it was an error. I immediately cleared cmos and rebooted.... Very sour over this.


I saw this with a 6900K and my Dominator Platinum DDR4-3000 32 GB kit. Even ran some *hours* of stress testing before noticing SA was at 1.408V. It still ran like new after that though. After this I've been a lot more careful with XMP - in fact, XMP never worked (booted) with this kit on RVE+BW-E. On RVE10+BW-E, after latest BIOS update it seems the XMP started working with this kit and SA was set to 0.87V on my 6950X. Still, it's best to be careful and set SA manually as in the past, SA voltage has been a real chip killer...


----------



## Silent Scone

Corsair have a habit of adding high System Agent values to their XMP profiles, which would explain why some are seeing it and others aren't. Which is also why I suggested to DarkIdeals not to invest so much energy in such things and jumping the gun.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> This was after setting XMP yeah. Rebooted and noticed within less than a minute.....
> 
> Hopefully no damage was done..... I really doubt it however. CPU was at 27c though...
> 
> 0.912v stock to 1.392v doesn't bode well...
> 
> How can this even be possible? How can they not be responsible?
> 
> XMP I'd guess, still.... their board did this. I would have NEVER set an SA voltage of 1.392v.
> 
> I looked at it for a second and thought it was an error. I immediately cleared cmos and rebooted.... Very sour over this.


XMp says it all. Not that you shouldn;t use XMP, but once you select it, ALWAYS make sure to then manually set voltages (and don't let the ram vendor do it for you)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Corsair have a habit of *adding high System Agent values to their XMP profiles*, which would explain why some are seeing it and others aren't. Which is also why I suggested to DarkIdeals not to invest so much energy in such things and jumping the gun.


^^ this. and not just Corsair. folks select the ram vendor profile and blame the MB.


----------



## pillowsack

My HyperX 3000's did similar. I think SA was at 1.35 when I did XMP.

What can you do though, other than setting everything manually. I just wanted to make sure the board/cpu would boot my ram at it's speeds but did not expect such high SA either. Nothing got hurt though









On a side note. I don't know if CPU Power Phase control is better off on Extreme, Optimized, or Standard for better VRM temps. I put my LLC at 5 and it seems to be holding up. Also put my phase control at Optimized for the time being testing out. I took that tacky looking armor off my motherboard, tried to paint it red but it came out a salmon red







. Figured I'd see how the board performs temp wise with no "Thermal Armor". Absolutely no difference with(the little fan installed too) or without it....

It would idle at about 52-55C depending on room temp, and did the same no armor. With my phase at optimized and LLC at 5 though, it will now scale down to about 48C if idle.

*I'd would like your guys opinion on this:*

Should I be comfortable with these VRM temps?

Should I buy the X99 EKWB monoblock and slap it on this board?

Should I just stick as many of these copper memory sinks on there as I can fit? ( They are perfect sized, I have a pack of the heatsinks sitting right here )


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> My HyperX 3000's did similar. I think SA was at 1.35 when I did XMP.
> 
> What can you do though, other than setting everything manually. I just wanted to make sure the board/cpu would boot my ram at it's speeds but did not expect such high SA either. Nothing got hurt though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note. I don't know if CPU Power Phase control is better off on Extreme, Optimized, or Standard for better VRM temps. I put my LLC at 5 and it seems to be holding up. Also put my phase control at Optimized for the time being testing out. I took that tacky looking armor off my motherboard, tried to paint it red but it came out a salmon red
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Figured I'd see how the board performs temp wise with no "Thermal Armor". Absolutely no difference with(the little fan installed too) or without it....
> 
> It would idle at about 52-55C depending on room temp, and did the same no armor. With my phase at optimized and LLC at 5 though, it will now scale down to about 48C if idle.
> 
> *I'd would like your guys opinion on this:*
> 
> Should I be comfortable with these VRM temps?
> 
> Should I buy the X99 EKWB monoblock and slap it on this board?
> 
> Should I just stick as many of these copper memory sinks on there as I can fit? ( They are perfect sized, I have a pack of the heatsinks sitting right here )
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


what vccin are you running - 50C idle temp for the vrm array seems pretty high to me. What is the load temp? mid 70s?


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what vccin are you running - 50C idle temp for the vrm array seems pretty high to me. What is the load temp? mid 70s?


It has never gone above 56C. Which is what blows my mind.

Right now the mobo reports 48C, and if I should my thermal gun:

Heatsink is at 40.6c, the black part of heatsink 35.6c, and the the center most choke is 50.2c


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> It has never gone above 56C. Which is what blows my mind.
> 
> Right now the mobo reports 48C, and if I should my thermal gun:
> 
> Heatsink is at 40.6c, the black part of heatsink 35.6c, and the the center most choke is 50.2c


I was getting 50-65C for VRM temps until I enabled "VRM Spread Spectrum" last night, then it dropped to 30 - 45C. This reading is from software though, as I don't have a thermal gun.


----------



## Darius510

Looking forward to getting my 6900K tomorrow, got a pretty sweet deal on it with an Intel employee discount. Was so close to buying the 6950X but even with the discount it's still not worth it.

Anyway....I browsed through the thread but didn't see much info on this. Anyone have any luck squeezing a few extra MHz out by disabling hyperthreading? My rig is primarily for gaming and with 8 real cores I suspect HT will do more harm than good for games. Particularly when looking at stuff like this:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pcworld.com/article/3039552/hardware/tested-how-many-cpu-cores-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.amp.html?client=safari

It's a small win but at 8 cores HT seems to drag it down a bit, and I figure if I can squeeze another 100mhz out of it with HT off then it'll be a clear win. Anyone here tried to OC with HT off?


----------



## pillowsack

I personally don't use HT. I don't have much use for it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> It has never gone above 56C. Which is what blows my mind.
> 
> Right now the mobo reports 48C, and if I should my thermal gun:
> 
> Heatsink is at 40.6c, the black part of heatsink 35.6c, and the the center most choke is 50.2c


yeah - that is strange. if the peak temps are that low, you're good to go. Do you have speedstep (EIST) disabled? is your system down clocking and down volting at idle?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> I personally don't use HT. I don't have much use for it.


disabling HT on a BWE? really?


----------



## mbze430

uhmm my VRM is at 60c when it is loaded up... I'll have to look in to the VRM Spread Spectrum


----------



## Kimir

Actually, you can disable spread spectrum and then enable active frequency mode which shows right beneath, it will hide spread spectrum and the temp will be just as cool.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - that is strange. if the peak temps are that low, you're good to go. Do you have speedstep (EIST) disabled? is your system down clocking and down volting at idle?
> disabling HT on a BWE? really?


I have speedstep and everything to do with downclocking enabled but it never happens. Do I have to have turbo boost enabled to do so?? I never got around to that and I would like to... It was really hard to get that working right on my UD3P and 5820K and it would hardly ever downclock, the voltage would go down a lot though.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> disabling HT on a BWE? really?


That 3FPS matters


----------



## mbze430

uhmm my VRM Spread Strum is Enabled... ***... VCCIN is 1.830v it's not like I have crazy OC


----------



## DarkIdeals

Ugh....i feel like destroying something right about now.

Stuck the brand new block on my system, installed a brand new D5 pump etc.. and it's STILL giving super high temps...

Only thing i can try now is to bend and install the PETG tubing and rigid fittings and hope that it SOMEHOW fixes something. Only other thing i can possibly think of is the radiators causing it for some reason which would cost a crap ton to replace on top of hundreds i've spent already...

Anyone have any other ideas?


----------



## glnn_23

Stress testing my 6950X at the moment. Here's a RB 2 hrs @ 4.3 . Memory @ 3470 C14

HCI memtest next.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

sorry my post is a bit irrelevant, i want some serious advice about the new Asus V Rampage edition 10, the board is absolutely beautiful as i plan to buy it with an 6850k but unfortunately i read tons of reviews about it having many issues the ram not Overclocking properly, DAC failing on Win10 and drivers issues, i would be very much pleased and thankful to get someones input in the broadwell community if you have heard anything about this board, should i take a risk of buying it or not...


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> uhmm my VRM Spread Strum is Enabled... ***... VCCIN is 1.830v it's not like I have crazy OC


Your VCCIN is lower than mine, you have VRM Spread enabled, what is your LLC at? If you download AI Suite 3 you can play with that stuff in windows.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Ugh....i feel like destroying something right about now.
> 
> Stuck the brand new block on my system, installed a brand new D5 pump etc.. and it's STILL giving super high temps...
> 
> Only thing i can try now is to bend and install the PETG tubing and rigid fittings and hope that it SOMEHOW fixes something. Only other thing i can possibly think of is the radiators causing it for some reason which would cost a crap ton to replace on top of hundreds i've spent already...
> 
> Anyone have any other ideas?


I don't think PETG tubing and fittings would fix anything other than it's appearance (it's on my own wish list







).

With how much rad space you have, I can only assume you have a very small delta rise in water temps. Do you have CLU liquid metal installed right now? I mean if you went that far have you lapped the CPU? You might not be getting good contact/paste spread. CLU was not worth my experience, I had none leak, I had lost 2c maybe (maybe lapping it did the trick), and it REALLY doesn't like to go on evenly, even if you coat both things nicely.

What are your temps are, what pump speed/fan speeds are we looking at? How old are the blocks, you ever open them and clean them? Is the CPU before the GPU in the loop? I really can't imagine your temps being all that bad









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> sorry my post is a bit irrelevant, i want some serious advice about the new Asus V Rampage edition 10, the board is absolutely beautiful as i plan to buy it with an 6850k but unfortunately i read tons of reviews about it having many issues the ram not Overclocking properly, DAC failing on Win10 and drivers issues, i would be very much pleased and thankful to get someones input in the broadwell community if you have heard anything about this board, should i take a risk of buying it or not...


Reviews are reviews, and could be written by someone setting up their very first PC. RAM OCing and whatnot could be related to bios issues.

As for the DAC being finicky, I could imagine. ASUS doesn't like to hold up well to NEW audio products they release. The Xonar sound card series has a REALLY bad rep because of this. Hence the project Uni Xonar Drivers have come into existence.

Tweaktown has a nice review of that motherboard where they tear everything apart and you can have a looksy.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7764/asus-rog-rampage-edition-10-intel-x99-motherboard-review/index3.html

The external/internal DAC: 

The Xonar STX: 

Instead of that DAC i'd rather have a Xonar STX for some reasons....
1. The Xonar STX is compatible with UNI Xonar drivers
2. The STX is $200~ and you could get a $400 Mobo and not worry about the driver functionality.
3. STX will have the exact same audio quality (or even better if you want to play with the opamps to your liking) as they both feature LM4562's opamps and a TI TPA6120A2 amplifier from the box.
4. STX has 7.1 for in the future if you are going to get some crazy speaker set up to impress the ladies


I think the biggest difference (if any) will be the Burr Brown 1792A DAC vs the ESS SABRE DAC. Mostly what comes after the DAC will affect the sound more, and DAC's are just used for the marketing scheme mainly. I actually just bought a Xonar DX to screw around with and changed the capacitors and opamp tonight. It sounds a hell of a lot better with the capacitors being switched to some high end Nichicon Gold and Muse series capacitors. I also added some of the Wimo caps in parallel.

That only matters if you care about audio quality/DAC feature of the motherboard. I think it's kinda iffy to buy something like that especially if it's USB and has latency added on top of it.


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Your VCCIN is lower than mine, you have VRM Spread enabled, what is your LLC at? If you download AI Suite 3 you can play with that stuff in windows.
> I don't think PETG tubing and fittings would fix anything other than it's appearance (it's on my own wish list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> With how much rad space you have, I can only assume you have a very small delta rise in water temps. Do you have CLU liquid metal installed right now? I mean if you went that far have you lapped the CPU? You might not be getting good contact/paste spread. CLU was not worth my experience, I had none leak, I had lost 2c maybe (maybe lapping it did the trick), and it REALLY doesn't like to go on evenly, even if you coat both things nicely.
> 
> What are your temps are, what pump speed/fan speeds are we looking at? How old are the blocks, you ever open them and clean them? Is the CPU before the GPU in the loop? I really can't imagine your temps being all that bad


Like i said in the comment it's a brand new block (EK Monoblock), and a brand new D5 pump (the alphacool VPP655 version). My old block had corrosion with nickel plating flaking etc.. so i took that one out and put the new block on and got the new pump in case the old one was going out. But my temps haven't gone down at all. And yes they can be quite high, they go to 75-80C during load, whereas other people with same voltages are showing temps no more than 65C under full Prime95 type loads, and i get 75-80C with a single run of Cinebench. The reason i thought of the tubing was the possibility of there being bacterial growth in the tubing or something; or i guess it could be the rads but i washed them out as good as possible with a vinegar/water rinse etc.. and shook them up nice (did it a couple times actually). My rad space is currently a 480mm and a 360mm, i have a 420mm one that i'm not using at the moment though; that's because my GPUs aren't water cooled yet, (just bought the blocks for them today and haven't installed yet, so it's just my CPU being cooled)


----------



## pillowsack

That is strange indeed. Any pics of the set up? You could try running vinegar and whatnot to clean crud out.

You have any way to measure the water temp?


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Actually, you can disable spread spectrum and then enable active frequency mode which shows right beneath, it will hide spread spectrum and the temp will be just as cool.


With this option, the temperatures are cooler for VRM (in load I suppose, not seen difference in idle) ?
I noticed that if this option is enabled, the spread spectrum option disappears, but remains in "disabled" ?

Thanks


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Your VCCIN is lower than mine, you have VRM Spread enabled, what is your LLC at? If you download AI Suite 3 you can play with that stuff in windows.


LLC at 5


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> With this option, the temperatures are cooler for VRM (in load I suppose, not seen difference in idle) ?
> I noticed that if this option is enabled, the spread spectrum option disappears, but remains in "disabled" ?
> 
> Thanks


It is also cooler at IDLE, by the same margin as it is during load.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> LLC at 5


If the 60C you saw was at load, then I'd expect that. The mobo just has a single heatsink(and probably a back piece behind the mobo). Most of our motherboards have a heat pipe and another heatsink to dissipate more heat. You just have a single piece heatsink with no heat pipe. You have the same chokes as my board so I'm going to assume with the other parts as well, just not the extra cooling.

I think you're fine as long as you don't ride 60C+ when gaming. The only other thing I could think of is the Asus x99 Mono block from EKWB or maybe more airflow over that VRM heatsink.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> It is also cooler at IDLE, by the same margin as it is during load.


Okay thanks, I have not seen any difference in idle (same temperature)


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> That is strange indeed. Any pics of the set up? You could try running vinegar and whatnot to clean crud out.
> 
> You have any way to measure the water temp?


I can get some pics in the morning of the rig. I already tried flushing vinegar/water mixture through the loop and washed out the rads with it etc.. I don't think i have a way to measure the actual water temps; i might be able to get a thermometer that can do that though, it'd have to measure at the reservoir though i guess.

Oh and btw, i'm not using CLU or anything like that. I'm using Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut TIM.


----------



## webmi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glnn_23*
> 
> Stress testing my 6950X at the moment. Here's a RB 2 hrs @ 4.3 . Memory @ 3470 C14
> 
> HCI memtest next.


very nice CPU


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> I have speedstep and everything to do with *downclocking enabled but it never happens.* Do I have to have turbo boost enabled to do so?? I never got around to that and I would like to... It was really hard to get that working right on my UD3P and 5820K and it would hardly ever downclock, the voltage would go down a lot though.
> That 3FPS matters


you need turbo boost in order to use turbo multipliers. check windows advanced power setings and verify that min proc state = 0%.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> sorry my post is a bit irrelevant, i want some serious advice about the new Asus V Rampage edition 10, the board is absolutely beautiful as i plan to buy it with an 6850k but unfortunately i read tons of reviews about it having many issues the ram not Overclocking properly, DAC failing on Win10 and drivers issues, i would be very much pleased and thankful to get someones input in the broadwell community if you have heard anything about this board, should i take a risk of buying it or not...


you are not reading " tons" of reviews stating this. And most are pilot error. It's a fantastic MB. get one.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> sorry my post is a bit irrelevant, i want some serious advice about the new Asus V Rampage edition 10, the board is absolutely beautiful as i plan to buy it with an 6850k but unfortunately i read tons of reviews about it having many issues the ram not Overclocking properly


Hello

With a capable CPU and quality ram up to 3400MHz memory speed is pretty much plug n' play. Any site that states otherwise need to check that the components they are using are up to the task or start reviewing toasters instead.


----------



## nexxusty

Thanks for the responses guys. Feel a bit better about that SA voltage spike.

At 4.4ghz with my 6800k. It's not going higher. At 1.425v core and 1.980 VCCIN with it now. REAL big difference with these 14nm chips cooling wise.

Chip never goes over 69c on the highest core and package temp never exceeds 74c.

Seems fine... however. 1.425v for 14nm? Anyone killed a 6800k with that kind of voltage? Silicon Lottery sells Broadwell-E's up to 1.44v so I assume it's fine.

Seems like my board is the limiting factor with RAM. Can't seem to do 3400mhz RAM. Pretty sure my E-Die can do it. Any tips on that?


----------



## Martin778

@Jpmboy,

Was 13-14-14-29 the best your G.Skill Tridents do? I copied the RAM timings from the screenshots you uploaded and my 4x8 3200CL14 kit seems to be happy with them too.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Thanks for the responses guys. Feel a bit better about that SA voltage spike.
> 
> At 4.4ghz with my 6800k. It's not going higher. At 1.425v core and 1.980 VCCIN with it now. REAL big difference with these 14nm chips cooling wise.
> 
> Chip never goes over 69c on the highest core and package temp never exceeds 74c.
> 
> Seems fine... however. 1.425v for 14nm? Anyone killed a 6800k with that kind of voltage? Silicon Lottery sells Broadwell-E's up to 1.44v so I assume it's fine.
> 
> Seems like my board is the limiting factor with RAM. Can't seem to do 3400mhz RAM. Pretty sure my E-Die can do it. Any tips on that?


Are you using a phase change cooler? How the hell do your temps stay that low on 1.425 and 1.98 vccin...

I'd just keep it below 1.4v to play it safe....


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Are you using a phase change cooler? How the hell do your temps stay that low on 1.425 and 1.98 vccin...
> 
> I'd just keep it below 1.4v to play it safe....


I'm staying under 72C across my cores with 1.45V on a 6800K under X264 with an H100i.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Are you using a phase change cooler? How the hell do your temps stay that low on 1.425 and 1.98 vccin...
> 
> I'd just keep it below 1.4v to play it safe....


Naw just plain water. It's a killer loop though. Guessing it's a decent chip transistor leak wise.

I'll see if I can get under 1.4v. Doubt it though.

Getting a tuning plan anyway. Not accepting anything under 4.4ghz so... rock in a hard place here. Anything less than 4.4ghz would be a side grade from my 4.4ghz 5930k.

I'm only seeing 10% increases as it is.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Naw just plain water. It's a killer loop though. Guessing it's a decent chip transistor leak wise.
> 
> I'll see if I can get under 1.4v. Doubt it though.
> 
> Getting a tuning plan anyway. Not accepting anything under 4.4ghz so... rock in a hard place here. Anything less than 4.4ghz would be a side grade from my 4.4ghz 5930k.
> 
> I'm only seeing 10% increases as it is.


I guess the tuning plan will save you from any burnout. Do what you gotta do I guess. I ran a 4690K at 1.43V for a month at 4.9ghz before it said good bye.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> It is also cooler at IDLE, by the same margin as it is during load.


Tested in load and VRM are cooler of 2°
Strange that nobody talks about this option









Thanks


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> I'm staying under 72C across my cores with 1.45V on a 6800K under X264 with an H100i.


How long have you had it at 1.45v?

Again... I'm not really worried as Silicon Lottery sells Broadwell-E's @ 1.44v.

This definitely needs to be mentioned. Why would they sell chips that would die in a month? Or even at all because of excess voltage.

I dunno... seems like a safe bet because of this.

1.4v+ killed a chip for someone yet? Not seeing any replies on that one. Don't really expect to either.


----------



## Silent Scone

That's too much for that cooler to dissipate, rather you than me...

No reports I'd pay attention to of confirmed degradation, depends on what you're using the CPU for.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> How long have you had it at 1.45v?
> 
> Again... I'm not really worried as Silicon Lottery sells Broadwell-E's @ 1.44v.
> 
> This definitely needs to be mentioned. Why would they sell chips that would die in a month? Or even at all because of excess voltage.
> 
> I dunno... seems like a safe bet because of this.
> 
> 1.4v+ killed a chip for someone yet? Not seeing any replies on that one. Don't really expect to either.


Some people buy from the lottery so they have a high binned chip to do some suicide runs/LN2 runs.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> How long have you had it at 1.45v?
> 
> Again... I'm not really worried as Silicon Lottery sells Broadwell-E's @ 1.44v.
> 
> This definitely needs to be mentioned. Why would they sell chips that would die in a month? Or even at all because of excess voltage.
> 
> I dunno... seems like a safe bet because of this.
> 
> 1.4v+ killed a chip for someone yet? Not seeing any replies on that one. Don't really expect to either.


None of us can really know the long term effects of any voltage on these chips. That being said, Intel's 14nm node seems very resilient to degradation. Just as with Haswell-E, I'd be more concerned about excessive SA/cache voltage than core voltage.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> *That's too much for that cooler to dissipate, rather you than me...*
> 
> No reports I'd pay attention to of confirmed degradation, depends on what you're using the CPU for.


These 6 core chips run surprising much cooler compared to their 8 and 10 core brothers. A much larger difference than Haswell-E. 1.4V is a walk in the park for encoding level workloads on an AIO, but a 6950X would be thermal throttling like a mad man.


----------



## Martin778

It surely would. Maybe I can pass encoding @ 1.4V without throttling but the temps would've been in high 80's territory for sure. 1.36V-1.37V is already about 230-250W power draw under load.
If I poked it just a little bit with an AVX instruction like that, it would most probably shut down


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> None of us can really know the long term effects of any voltage on these chips. That being said, Intel's 14nm node seems very resilient to degradation. Just as with Haswell-E, I'd be more concerned about excessive SA/cache voltage than core voltage.
> These 6 core chips run surprising much cooler compared to their 8 and 10 core brothers. A much larger difference than Haswell-E. 1.4V is a walk in the park for encoding level workloads on an AIO, but a 6950X would be thermal throttling like a mad man.


You should be fine, just all a bit too casual on the cooling spectrum, yet balls deep with the overclock







.

Try 6 instances at 4K with the HWBOT benchmark


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> @Jpmboy,
> 
> Was 13-14-14-29 the best your G.Skill Tridents do? I copied the RAM timings from the screenshots you uploaded and my 4x8 3200CL14 kit seems to be happy with them too.


those timings werewith 8x8GB TZs... I haven;t run 32GB on BWE, but with a 5960X 32GB TZ is running:


and yes, the FAW value is out of wack... I later changed tRRD to 4 and all was still right with the world.









on another note: this just arrived today: http://openbenchtable.com/


----------



## Martin778

Asrock Rampage V Extreme, well thats new








I'm running 13-13-13-29 now @ 1.4V, seems to work just fine.

Do I see a nice little script for HCI memtest there?









I think I've found out what to do with all that computing power, I started mining Ethereum. Makes me wonder what the profit could be if a single OC'ed 1080 does ~21MH/s and nanopool shows 36MH/s


----------



## Kimir

Some of us use the Asrock tool because it's easier to read what we are looking for on that one rather than on the ASUS one.
The HCI script it a simple stuff like that:

Code:



Code:


start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768
start memTestPro.exe /t768

That's for 8 cores, 16 threads CPU with 16GB of ram. Adjust the number of instances you want depending on the cpu you use and the ram amount per instance. Paste that in a txt file and change the extension to bat. Enjoy.


----------



## Martin778

Thanks! So if I understood correctly - 10 cores, 20 threads = 30 lines and ~1092.26MB per instance, correct?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Thanks! So if I understood correctly - 10 cores, 20 threads = 30 lines and ~1092.26MB per instance, correct?


20 lines
leave 2-5GB of ram for the OS.


----------



## nexxusty

So... regarding cache and voltage on a 6800k.

Not planning on going higher than 1.280v.

Enough usually for 3.8ghz or is 3.8ghz not easy to obtain? At 1.240 now, 3.6ghz.

Any thoughts?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> So... regarding cache and voltage on a 6800k.
> 
> Not planning on going higher than 1.280v.
> 
> Enough usually for 3.8ghz or is 3.8ghz not easy to obtain? At 1.240 now, 3.6ghz.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Mileage varies, but 3.8 on BWE seems to be at or beyond the knee for a lot of chips. So, if you are putting a hard cap on the voltage you will accept, then don't plan on 3.8, but rather plug in the volts and see what it will do.

My sample of one is a 6950x @4.4 core but 3.8 cache stable requires 1.35... Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent. 1.37 is 1.29, so that's where it lives.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> So... regarding cache and voltage on a 6800k.
> 
> Not planning on going higher than 1.280v.
> 
> Enough usually for 3.8ghz or is 3.8ghz not easy to obtain? At 1.240 now, 3.6ghz.
> 
> Any thoughts?


At my current timings, I'm using 1.3v vcache for 3800 in my 6900K which has turned out relatively nice so far.


----------



## tistou77

I do not remember







1.30, 1.32v for Cache is safe in h24 ?

Thanks


----------



## djgar

IIRC 1.3 is highest recommended, 1.35 is viewed as not so good - I may be mistaken.


----------



## tistou77

Ok thanks djgar








must 1.30, 1.31v for 3700, I will stay in 3600 I think (especially that the difference is minimal for bandwidth, etc...)


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> What is the stock turbo behavior of a 6850K/1650v4 supposed to be. With my system I've never seen any clock other than 3.8GHz (under load) with turbo enabled. It doesn't matter whether one core is loaded or all six, it's always 3.8GHz. *Multicore enhancement is disabled*. peak turbo is supposed to be 4GHz, but I've certainly never seen that. Board is Asus X99-M WS


It's difficult to make windows use only one core. Something you could try, disable all but one core in the bios and see if you still only see a 3.8 turbo. You might need the Intel turbo 3.0 driver installed as well.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Ok thanks djgar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> must 1.30, 1.31v for 3700, I will stay in 3600 I think (especially that the difference is minimal for bandwidth, etc...)


Yeah, I run at 3.7 GHz with 1.26V. But uncore frequency has negligible impact on performance, you're not missing out much (if at all) leaving uncore at stock from what I've seen.


----------



## JoshM813

Hey,
I'm new here and was just reading over some of the previous comments about some of the 6800k overclocks and now I'm wondering if my particular chip is a freak or something is wrong. I was able to get a stable overclock at 4.368Ghz, even have seen it boost to 4.37 (I know not much of a difference) but I haven't even touched the voltage. Voltage is sitting at 1.287V. Temps stay in the 40s for the most part, occasionally hitting 50C when under stress testing for extended periods (over 15 mins).

Parts:
i7-6800k
NZXT Kraken X61
ASRock Fatality Professional Gaming i7


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoshM813*
> 
> Hey,
> I'm new here and was just reading over some of the previous comments about some of the 6800k overclocks and now I'm wondering if my particular chip is a freak or something is wrong. I was able to get a stable overclock at 4.368Ghz, even have seen it boost to 4.37 (I know not much of a difference) but I haven't even touched the voltage. Voltage is sitting at 1.287V. Temps stay in the 40s for the most part, occasionally hitting 50C when under stress testing for extended periods (over 15 mins).
> 
> Parts:
> i7-6800k
> NZXT Kraken X61
> ASRock Fatality Professional Gaming i7


Yay another good 6800K!

Aim for 4.5ghz. See what 1.35vcore will net you with


----------



## JoshM813

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Yay another good 6800K!
> 
> Aim for 4.5ghz. See what 1.35vcore will net you with


I'll probably try that tomorrow since it's my day off. If it's stable then I may leave it.


----------



## Timmaigh!

I have 2 questions:

the overclocking sockets with additional pins on some boards, in my case Gigabyte X99P SLI, is it safe to use it? And is it any useful for standard overclocking (by that meant no LN2, DICE etc...,rather standard 24/7 clocks, 4,5GHz top, if possible)

The other thing, the pre-applied paste on the Corsair H105, should i use that or another aftermarket TIM? Specifically, i was given for free with the CPU Arctic MX-4. Which one to use?

Thanks


----------



## Kimir

Of course they are safe to use, otherwise they wouldn't even be sold. All high end one from ASUS has the OC socket since HW-E release and it's useful for cache overclock. But on BW-E, it doesn't seems to help much in that regard.
Best TIMs to use right now are Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut, Gelid Solutions GC-Extreme and, if you don't want to spend alot, Noctua NT-H1, it does the job. There are some other good ones out there, I've tried those 3 hence the fact I can recommend them.


----------



## Timmaigh!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Of course they are safe to use, otherwise they wouldn't even be sold. All high end one from ASUS has the OC socket since HW-E release and it's useful for cache overclock. But on BW-E, it doesn't seems to help much in that regard.
> Best TIMs to use right now are Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut, Gelid Solutions GC-Extreme and, if you don't want to spend alot, Noctua NT-H1, it does the job. There are some other good ones out there, I've tried those 3 hence the fact I can recommend them.


Thanks

Per the link i found now while googling, the pre-applied paste is apparently on par with the Noctua NT-H1 u mentioned...so i guess, i just stick to it.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

I Recently Upgraded to a 6850k and an Asus Rampage V edition 10 mobo .. Although i had my reservations as the board had many bad reviews, fortunately its issues have been resolved in the latest BIOS. first thing i did was flash the bios, reinstall win10 and updated the chipset version... i only turned on the XMP profile, rest everything is on stock .. these are my screenshots of CPUz, timespy and firestrike scores .i Plan to OC my CPU but do not know where to start and what voltages to put







, as i have heard stories of people burning there broadwell chips by giving them to much voltages


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoshM813*
> 
> Hey,
> I'm new here and was just reading over some of the previous comments about some of the 6800k overclocks and now I'm wondering if my particular chip is a freak or something is wrong. I was able to get a stable overclock at 4.368Ghz, even have seen it boost to 4.37 (I know not much of a difference) but I haven't even touched the voltage. Voltage is sitting at 1.287V. Temps stay in the 40s for the most part, occasionally hitting 50C when under stress testing for extended periods (over 15 mins).
> 
> Parts:
> i7-6800k
> NZXT Kraken X61
> ASRock Fatality Professional Gaming i7


That's a quite good sample, but nothing is wrong with it. My 6800K i used before switching to a 6950X could hit 4.4ghz at 1.3v and could hit 4.5ghz at around 1.4v.

So yours appears to be pretty similar to mine that i had which was one of the best of the best (bought it as a 4.4ghz bin from silicon lottery, he said it was one of the best he had seen so far) considering you're "only" using a Kraken X61 cooler and i'm using a full water cooling setup with both a 480mm and a 360mm radiator, i imagine if you were to move up to a bigger cooling setup you would easily be able to get the same 4.4ghz at 1.30v that i could.


----------



## JoshM813

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> That's a quite good sample, but nothing is wrong with it. My 6800K i used before switching to a 6950X could hit 4.4ghz at 1.3v and could hit 4.5ghz at around 1.4v.
> 
> So yours appears to be pretty similar to mine that i had which was one of the best of the best (bought it as a 4.4ghz bin from silicon lottery, he said it was one of the best he had seen so far) considering you're "only" using a Kraken X61 cooler and i'm using a full water cooling setup with both a 480mm and a 360mm radiator, i imagine if you were to move up to a bigger cooling setup you would easily be able to get the same 4.4ghz at 1.30v that i could.


Custom loop is in the future. As of right now, the Kraken actually keeps it pretty cool. I'll see how it handles upping the vcore and clock speed. In all honesty, this is my first ever build and I'm really happy with it. Not completely new to overclocking though as I used to overclock my phone's processor on my previous phones.


----------



## DarkIdeals

So have any of you guys had experience with using a water chiller on Broadwell-E? (specifically 6900K and 6950X's that put out more heat etc..?)

I've managed to get the cinebench temps on my rig down to ~72-75C on the hotter cores (Realbench seems to stay around the same, not going over maybe ~77-78C or so) and i'm about to add my GPU's to the loop and put my 420 rad back in the compensate for that etc.. but i'm kinda considering picking up a decent chiller like the Hailea 790 watt 1/2HP one.

I know JPM has his Koolance 800 watt one; i'm kinda curious of how much of an improvement a decent chiller would provide over standard custom water in my system. Trying to decide between enhancing my water loop with more rads etc.. or just getting a chiller. I currently have an XSPC EX 480mm rad, a Black Ice GTX 360mm rad, and the EK XTC 420mm rad that i'm about to stick back in the loop; but i'm considering either swapping the 420 rad for a new 560, or maybe getting a MO RA3 or something: or just getting a chiller like i said. Not really sure if it'd be worth if for me though...


----------



## SauronTheGreat

can someone help me out, which is the best benchmark software to check the 8/12 hour stability of my CPU overclock ? previously on Skylake and ivy bridge i used Prime95


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> can someone help me out, which is the best benchmark software to check the 8/12 hour stability of my CPU overclock ? previously on Skylake and ivy bridge i used Prime95


Realbench can run for up to 8 hours and is a great stability test imo (it runs multipler rendering, editing, encoding etc.. heavy load programs simultaneously to put a quite heavy load on your CPU so it pegs at 100% even on a 6950X; but it doesn't cause the same insane heat that Prim95 AVX w/ small FFT etc.. would cause)

OCCT is pretty popular nowadays too but as far as i know it's just a modified version of Prime95.

Overall for a 6850K i'd recommend trying Realbench personally.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> So have any of you guys had experience with using a water chiller on Broadwell-E? (specifically 6900K and 6950X's that put out more heat etc..?)
> 
> I've managed to get the cinebench temps on my rig down to ~72-75C on the hotter cores (Realbench seems to stay around the same, not going over maybe ~77-78C or so) and i'm about to add my GPU's to the loop and put my 420 rad back in the compensate for that etc.. but i'm kinda considering picking up a decent chiller like the Hailea 790 watt 1/2HP one.
> 
> I know JPM has his Koolance 800 watt one; i'm kinda curious of how much of an improvement a decent chiller would provide over standard custom water in my system. Trying to decide between enhancing my water loop with more rads etc.. or just getting a chiller. I currently have an XSPC EX 480mm rad, a Black Ice GTX 360mm rad, and the EK XTC 420mm rad that i'm about to stick back in the loop; but i'm considering either swapping the 420 rad for a new 560, or maybe getting a MO RA3 or something: or just getting a chiller like i said. Not really sure if it'd be worth if for me though...


I think you could probably gain enough to warrant adding rad space, in truth. Also how would you rig the chiller up to the desk build?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> So have any of you guys had experience with using a water chiller on Broadwell-E? (specifically 6900K and 6950X's that put out more heat etc..?)
> 
> I've managed to get the cinebench temps on my rig down to ~72-75C on the hotter cores (Realbench seems to stay around the same, not going over maybe ~77-78C or so) and i'm about to add my GPU's to the loop and put my 420 rad back in the compensate for that etc.. but i'm kinda considering picking up a decent chiller like the Hailea 790 watt 1/2HP one.
> 
> I know JPM has his Koolance 800 watt one; i'm kinda curious of how much of an improvement a decent chiller would provide over standard custom water in my system. Trying to decide between enhancing my water loop with more rads etc.. or just getting a chiller. I currently have an XSPC EX 480mm rad, a Black Ice GTX 360mm rad, and the EK XTC 420mm rad that i'm about to stick back in the loop; but i'm considering either swapping the 420 rad for a new 560, or maybe getting a MO RA3 or something: or just getting a chiller like i said. Not really sure if it'd be worth if for me though...


RealBench is really a good test for overall stability.
OCCT is really to be used if you want to reach "Golden" stability without generating power and heat as with P95 v28.xx.
OCCT is much more tough to pass than Realbench.


----------



## Menthol

I have the Hailea, use it for benching only not for daily use, no point in that, if you run it in series with rads you turn the fans off otherwise it will increase the temp, it is really the next step from rads on the way to SS and more extreme, as an example you *may* get another 100mhz with chiller, another 100mhz with SS = better scores on the BOT but for daily use not practical, even if you have the floor space it adds the noise of a refrigeration unit. If your semi serious about benching then it is the next step in a long expensive journey, I used a rad in an ice chest before I got the chiller, GPU's and CPU's created more heat a couple generations ago, Keepler and especially Pascal reduced the need, less heat produced and less headroom to overclock, keeping ambient temps down is a better solution, binning CPU's or buying a binned CPU can be a big benefit, chiller or not as you reach the limit of what your silicon can do before what your cooling can do


----------



## pillowsack

So this happened, finally I guess.

After rocking the 6800K for a couple weeks at 4.5ghz and 1.33v some funky stuff happened. I swapped soundcards to test another one out, and I was getting bluescreens in game (cs:go). I thought huh, weird. Did all drivers and whatnot, seemed to do nothing.

I lowered my OC to 4.4ghz, cache 3.7ghz, and ram to 3000. Stable.... Weird, right?

I raised JUST my cpu to 4.5ghz and same symptoms.... I guess the two week burn in finally happened.... Considering it ran OCCT for 6 hours straight one night at those settings.

Now i'm at 1.35Vcore 4.5ghz though and I have no problem


----------



## Silent Scone

Not weird. Not stable.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Not weird. Not stable.


I agree. This also is why I always add a few mv on top after I'm done stressing to help prevent being on just the "edge of stability." I would bump it up to 1.375V @pillowsack.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> RealBench is really a good test for overall stability.
> OCCT is really to be used if you want to reach "Golden" stability without generating power and heat as with P95 v28.xx.
> OCCT is much more tough to pass than Realbench.


LOL since when?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> So this happened, finally I guess.
> 
> After rocking the 6800K for a couple weeks at 4.5ghz and 1.33v some funky stuff happened. I swapped soundcards to test another one out, and I was getting bluescreens in game (cs:go). I thought huh, weird. Did all drivers and whatnot, seemed to do nothing.
> 
> I lowered my OC to 4.4ghz, cache 3.7ghz, and ram to 3000. Stable.... Weird, right?
> 
> I raised JUST my cpu to 4.5ghz and same symptoms.... I guess the two week burn in finally happened.... Considering it ran OCCT for 6 hours straight one night at those settings.
> 
> Now i'm at 1.35Vcore 4.5ghz though and I have no problem


Bahahaha. Point proven.

OCCT sucks. Always has.

The only software from the Era of OCCT, P95, AIDA and oh what was that other one... made special for dual cores.... is P95 and AIDA for its cache test.

That's it. They have ALL been completely superceded by Real Bench. It's what we all use.

I've NEVER had a CPU be unstable after passing 8 hours of Realbench with Max ram usage.


----------



## pillowsack

Well i've been running OCCT fine now for the passed uhhh about hour.

To the guy who said it wasn't stable, it passed OCCT, realbench, and AIDA at 4.5ghz 1.33vcore, but it just decided to burn itself in finally. Seems to be good at 1.35V now though, need be I can always go up a little more.









I'll have to bump my ram back up to 3200 and cache 3.8ghz after this has run for 5 more hours and then run it again once all is done and said. I had my cache voltage at 1.275 to get the 3.8ghz.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Well i've been running OCCT fine now for the passed uhhh about hour.
> 
> To the guy who said it wasn't stable, it passed OCCT, realbench, and AIDA at 4.5ghz 1.33vcore, but it just decided to burn itself in finally. Seems to be good at 1.35V now though, need be I can always go up a little more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to bump my ram back up to 3200 and cache 3.8ghz after this has run for 5 more hours and then run it again once all is done and said. I had my cache voltage at 1.275 to get the 3.8ghz.


Regardless.... you have a good chip there man.

Ya bastard.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Regardless.... you have a good chip there man.
> 
> Ya bastard.


When did you buy yours? I'm starting to think the later ones made are a little more refined on the overclocking, since someone else here mentioned they got a good clocking one.

I got mine at the microcenter in NJ/Paterson if anyone is interested


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> When did you buy yours? I'm starting to think the later ones made are a little more refined on the overclocking, since someone else here mentioned they got a good clocking one.
> 
> I got mine at the microcenter in NJ/Paterson if anyone is interested


Some dude on Kijiji two weeks ago. Could have had it for awhile who knows.

Got it for $600 CDN which is a good deal.

Made sure it wasn't a Intel Retail Edge chip too. Had bad luck with those OC wise.

It does 4.4ghz/3.7ghz. It's not horrible... just not a golden chip.


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Some dude on Kijiji two weeks ago. Could have had it for awhile who knows.
> 
> Got it for $600 CDN which is a good deal.
> 
> Made sure it wasn't a Intel Retail Edge chip too. Had bad luck with those OC wise.
> 
> It does 4.4ghz/3.7ghz. It's not horrible... just not a golden chip.


At least you got the cooling to push the sucker hard. Think of the people who get a turd and can only get 4.2ghz


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> LOL since when?


Since you test it.
If you are Realbench stable and OCCT stable with same settings, it means you had a lot of margin with your settings for Realbench and you could optimise them.

But if you do an optimized stable overclock with Realbench, means just on the razor's edge of stability with Realbench (Not too much margin), then, if you run OCCT,you will probably crash in a few seconds or minutes.

OCCT requires roughly 30mV more on Vcore than Realbench (this is what I observed).

A lot of people here will tell you the same.

And if you are several hours OCCT stable, it is useless to run Realbench.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> At least you got the cooling to push the sucker hard. Think of the people who get a turd and can only get 4.2ghz


True. Contingency plans are your friend when it comes to cooling. I can't even believe I used to air cool.

There are some sweet Noctuas though. I'll give them that. Still. Too big.

Really surprised that this thing doesn't go over 69c at 1.425v. Broadwell-E's are pretty tight. Definitely happy I upgraded from my 5930k. Paragon seems to like it too.

Love that game.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Since you test it.
> If you are Realbench stable and OCCT stable with same settings, it means you had a lot of margin with your settings for Realbench and you could optimise them.
> 
> But if you do an optimized stable overclock with Realbench, means just on the razor's edge of stability with Realbench (Not too much margin), then, if you run OCCT,you will probably crash in a few seconds or minutes.
> 
> OCCT requires roughly 30mV more on Vcore than Realbench (this is what I observed).
> 
> A lot of people here will tell you the same.
> 
> And if you are several hours OCCT stable, it is useless to run Realbench.


Well that means OCCT isn't the joke it once was....

So you're saying, without fail a Realbench stable OC will require 30mv more to be stable with OCCT?

I'm definitely going to try to call your bluff on this. If this was true... OCCT would be the only program worth using.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Well that means OCCT isn't the joke it once was....
> 
> So you're saying, without fail a Realbench stable OC will require 30mv more to be stable with OCCT?
> 
> I'm definitely going to try to call your bluff on this. If this was true... OCCT would be the only program worth using.


A lot of people use OCCT here.
i don't use it anymore at the moment as it is a lot of power induced in motherboard and CPU.

Maybe, if you are realbench stable, you will be OCCT stable for several hours with same settings.
but it means that your Realbench overclock has a lot of margin.

I give you an exemple : here is my Relabench stable overclock for my i7-5930K :
http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16100409554717369814535219.png

It is set for Vcore=1.23V adaptative and I never crash in Realbench with it.
If i decrease to 1.21Vadaptative, I crash in Realbench. So my overclock is optimised, with not too much margin.

If I run OCCT with the same settings, I crash in 30 seconds (I tried).


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> A lot of people use OCCT here.
> i don't use it anymore at the moment as it is a lot of power induced in motherboard and CPU.
> 
> Maybe, if you are realbench stable, you will be OCCT stable for several hours with same settings.
> but it means that your Realbench overclock has a lot of margin.
> 
> I give you an exemple : here is my Relabench stable overclock for my i7-5930K :
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16100409554717369814535219.png
> 
> 
> 
> It is set for Vcore=1.23V adaptative and I never crash in Realbench with it.
> If i decrease to 1.21Vadaptative, I crash in Realbench. So my overclock is optimised, with not too much margin.
> 
> If I run OCCT with the same settings, I crash in 30 seconds (I tried).


Nice. As a precaution, you should only use one sensor polling app at a time to avoid conflicts.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> A lot of people use OCCT here.
> i don't use it anymore at the moment as it is a lot of power induced in motherboard and CPU.
> 
> Maybe, if you are realbench stable, you will be OCCT stable for several hours with same settings.
> but it means that your Realbench overclock has a lot of margin.
> 
> I give you an exemple : here is my Relabench stable overclock for my i7-5930K :
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16100409554717369814535219.png
> 
> It is set for Vcore=1.23V adaptative and I never crash in Realbench with it.
> If i decrease to 1.21Vadaptative, I crash in Realbench. So my overclock is optimised, with not too much margin.
> 
> If I run OCCT with the same settings, I crash in 30 seconds (I tried).


Stability doesn't work that way.... you're still unstable at 1.23v. Just not as unstable as 1.21v. Essentially all overclocks are unstable to some degree. Compared to stock.

This is why you can undervolt a CPU usually quite substantially at stock and it will still run "stable". Have it running 100% 24/7 and it will crash. Guaranteed. So... not stable. Intel understands this so they throw extra voltage at it to keep it stable. Any Intel CPU should be able to run stock 24/7 at 100% load.

Try running Prime95 for weeks. I have. It always fails after a week or two.

Not stock though.

If I were in your shoes I'd have it at 1.25v for mental reassurance.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Stability doesn't work that way.... you're still unstable at 1.23v. Just not as unstable as 1.21v. Essentially all overclocks are unstable to some degree. Compared to stock.
> 
> This is why you can undervolt a CPU usually quite substantially at stock and it will still run "stable". Have it running 100% 24/7 and it will crash. Guaranteed. So... not stable. Intel understands this so they throw extra voltage at it to keep it stable. Any Intel CPU should be able to run stock 24/7 at 100% load.
> 
> Try running Prime95 for weeks. I have. It always fails after a week or two.
> 
> Not stock though.
> 
> If I were in your shoes I'd have it at 1.25v for mental reassurance.


We are just talking about OCCT and Realbench here.
Of course all overclokcs are unstable.

I just tell you that I have a Realbench overclock which has never failed (Yet) in Realbench (Hours and hours of session) : this same overclock fails constantly in OCCT in less than 1 minute.
That's it.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Well that means OCCT isn't the joke it once was....
> 
> So you're saying, without fail a Realbench stable OC will require 30mv more to be stable with OCCT?
> 
> I'm definitely going to try to call your bluff on this. If this was true... OCCT would be the only program worth using.


Yes, OCCT requires more voltages than RealBench (and also AIDA64)


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Nice. As a precaution, you should only use one sensor polling app at a time to avoid conflicts.


Yes, but I never had conflicts until now








Maybe I am going to remount my golden i7-5930K, which is doing Core=4.6GHz core/Cache=4.5GHz in Realbench at 1.21Vcore / Vccin=1.8V / Vcache=1.2V


----------



## GRABibus

I am also thinking upgrading from i7-5930K to i7-6850K.

Except Memory bandwidth, I will not have more performances than the i7-5930K, right ?

With a Noctua NH-D15, which average overclock should I expect If the chip is not too bad ? (Core and Cache)


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I am also thinking upgrading from i7-5930K to i7-6850K.
> 
> Except Memory bandwidth, I will not have more performances than the i7-5930K, right ?
> 
> With a Noctua NH-D15, which average overclock should I expect If the chip is not too bad ? (Core and Cache)


Really depends... I'd say broadwell-e handles memory overclocking a lot better, but cache typically doesn't go as high. Dunno how much of an improvement cache overclocking yields on broadwell E though.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> So have any of you guys had experience with using a water chiller on Broadwell-E? (specifically 6900K and 6950X's that put out more heat etc..?)
> 
> I've managed to get the cinebench temps on my rig down to ~72-75C on the hotter cores (Realbench seems to stay around the same, not going over maybe ~77-78C or so) and i'm about to add my GPU's to the loop and put my 420 rad back in the compensate for that etc.. but i'm kinda considering picking up a decent chiller like the Hailea 790 watt 1/2HP one.
> 
> I know JPM has his Koolance 800 watt one; i'm kinda curious of how much of an improvement a decent chiller would provide over standard custom water in my system. Trying to decide between enhancing my water loop with more rads etc.. or just getting a chiller. I currently have an XSPC EX 480mm rad, a Black Ice GTX 360mm rad, and the EK XTC 420mm rad that i'm about to stick back in the loop; but i'm considering either swapping the 420 rad for a new 560, or maybe getting a MO RA3 or something: or just getting a chiller like i said. Not really sure if it'd be worth if for me though...


If the rad system you describe is not cooling the system enough you either need better fans or lower ambient temps... it should be plenty of rad space. For example, I have a 5960X(4.7) and 2 TitanX maxwells running with 2 360 rads only... and the system can fold 6 cores with the cards at 1500 (for 2 days). Loop temp never went above 38C according to the datalog in aquasuite. but I had to get cool air into the room. (3 other rigs folding also).

A chiller is just that, it extracts heat from the loop at a rate an ambient rad cannot... unless the rad is sitting in snow.








I have the EK EXC-800 and a AquaEuro aquarium chiller, and as Menthol said, any chiller is a refrigeration unit - it's a noisy compressor. If you can put it in a closet or run the loop into the basement with the chiller there (the EK can be set to remote start) it could be a 24/7 thing, otherwise, I use it for those times when ambient is high and I need loop temps below what ambient can do (and a chiller in the room will raise the room temp a lot, so it really needs to be in a separate room). The EK is capable of 0-5C (and maybe below depending on ambient), my aquarium chiller can do about 9C (it is meant for a fish tank).
I would not recommend a chiller for a gaming rig for everyday use. I have used the EK for a few hours during July when a few nephews were here for the Holiday and wanted to game one night.. worked great, but they were using NC headphones and in-ear monitors.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I am also thinking upgrading from i7-5930K to i7-6850K.
> 
> Except Memory bandwidth, I will not have more performances than the i7-5930K, right ?
> 
> With a Noctua NH-D15, which average overclock should I expect If the chip is not too bad ? (Core and Cache)


Some IPC upgrade and memory frequency, but unless you go for more cores, it is a side grade overall IMO. Just clock that 5930K a bit higher and you won;t miss a thing.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## JoshM813

So I was able to get my cpu stable at 4.4GHZ with 1.300v...now having trouble with the cache...I've only been able to bump it up to 3.4GHZ 1.250v tried pushing to 3.7GHz with 1.300v and it would just blue screen when running a benchmark or stress test. I'll probably try to push the cpu to 4.5 but I want to get this cache dialed in.

Btw, I've had xmp on? Would it help if I tried to overclock the cache with it off?


----------



## DarkIdeals

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I think you could probably gain enough to warrant adding rad space, in truth. Also how would you rig the chiller up to the desk build?


Desk build? Not sure if you're referring to "desktop" or if you thought i had one of the inside of a desk PC's or something. Anyway, it's a Caselabs SMA8 i'm using. I would basically just either take the lower back chamber panel off and run tubing across my house to the next room where i'd place the chiller; or drill a couple holes for the tubing with the same placement for the chiller (around 7-8 feet from where i sit; around 10 feet from the PC)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> If the rad system you describe is not cooling the system enough you either need better fans or lower ambient temps... it should be plenty of rad space. For example, I have a 5960X(4.7) and 2 TitanX maxwells running with 2 360 rads only... and the system can fold 6 cores with the cards at 1500 (for 2 days). Loop temp never went above 38C according to the datalog in aquasuite. but I had to get cool air into the room. (3 other rigs folding also).
> 
> A chiller is just that, it extracts heat from the loop at a rate an ambient rad cannot... unless the rad is sitting in snow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the EK EXC-800 and a AquaEuro aquarium chiller, and as Menthol said, any chiller is a refrigeration unit - it's a noisy compressor. If you can put it in a closet or run the loop into the basement with the chiller there (the EK can be set to remote start) it could be a 24/7 thing, otherwise, I use it for those times when ambient is high and I need loop temps below what ambient can do (and a chiller in the room will raise the room temp a lot, so it really needs to be in a separate room). The EK is capable of 0-5C (and maybe below depending on ambient), my aquarium chiller can do about 9C (it is meant for a fish tank).
> I would not recommend a chiller for a gaming rig for everyday use. I have used the EK for a few hours during July when a few nephews were here for the Holiday and wanted to game one night.. worked great, but they were using NC headphones and in-ear monitors.
> Some IPC upgrade and memory frequency, but unless you go for more cores, it is a side grade overall IMO. Just clock that 5930K a bit higher and you won;t miss a thing.


I just can't seem to get enough info stating what the average person is getting in temps on water with the 6950X's at this voltage etc.. i see guys like Martin and You saying your temps are lower; then i get guys in other forums who say that my temps of ~75-78C under load during cinebench are perfectly fine, so i literally have no clue what to think. I've tried EVERYTHING under the sun to reduce temps; new pump, new block etc.. i double checked tightening of the new monoblock, i cleaned and drained the loop a dozen times. Nothing seems to work. I just re-added the 420 rad back in, still need to get some fans for it (i can never find screws for the EK XTC rads, nobody seems to sell them anymore and i'm unsure what size they are) and i put the new hardline tubing in, but accidentally ordered 12 Primochill Revolver SX Fittings instead of 14 so i'm short a couple; have to wait to load it up with the hard tubing. I also cleaned out the monoblock and saw some algae growth, so i'm thinking the new clean tubing combined with anti-corrosive pre-mixed coolant could help a bit assuming algae growth could be effecting temps.

Kinda thinking of getting a dual pump top for serial D5's too, not sure if that'd really help either though. I'm at the point where i don't know whether to give up and accept the temps or to keep trying..


----------



## SauronTheGreat

which is the maximum safest operating voltage 24/7 on a i7-6850K chip, i have a corsair H115i 280mm rad AIO cooler ?


----------



## Silent Scone

Those temps are fine, but they're by no means good. Hence why I said you'd be better off investing in rad space, or finding out why your temps aren't where they maybe should be in the first place. For Cinebench, they seem high.

Also, because you have a desk build in your avatar?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Nice. As a precaution, you should only use one sensor polling app at a time to avoid conflicts.


Hi djgar.
We all use more than one sensor polling app. For example, I use AIDA64 and MSI AfterBurner(RTSS).
It's my understanding that as long as those monitoring softwares support synchronizations, there is no conflict.
https://forums.aida64.com/topic/1375-any-conflict-between-two-monitoring-softwares-running-together/


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkIdeals*
> 
> Desk build? Not sure if you're referring to "desktop" or if you thought i had one of the inside of a desk PC's or something. Anyway, it's a Caselabs SMA8 i'm using. I would basically just either take the lower back chamber panel off and run tubing across my house to the next room where i'd place the chiller; or drill a couple holes for the tubing with the same placement for the chiller (around 7-8 feet from where i sit; around 10 feet from the PC)
> I just can't seem to get enough info stating what the average person is getting in temps on water with the 6950X's at this voltage etc.. i see guys like Martin and You saying your temps are lower; then i get guys in other forums who say that my temps of ~75-78C under load during cinebench are perfectly fine, so i literally have no clue what to think. I've tried EVERYTHING under the sun to reduce temps; new pump, new block etc.. i double checked tightening of the new monoblock, i cleaned and drained the loop a dozen times. Nothing seems to work. I just re-added the 420 rad back in, still need to get some fans for it (i can never find screws for the EK XTC rads, nobody seems to sell them anymore and i'm unsure what size they are) and i put the new hardline tubing in, but accidentally ordered 12 Primochill Revolver SX Fittings instead of 14 so i'm short a couple; have to wait to load it up with the hard tubing. I also cleaned out the monoblock and saw some algae growth, so i'm thinking the new clean tubing combined with anti-corrosive pre-mixed coolant could help a bit assuming algae growth could be effecting temps.
> 
> Kinda thinking of getting a dual pump top for serial D5's too, not sure if that'd really help either though. I'm at the point where i don't know whether to give up and accept the temps or to keep trying..


yeah sorry but, what clocks, voltage and temps are you getting with r15 ( i know you posted it some days ago)? And remember, r15 is a short duration event, rad space is irrelevant, loop temp and the water block capability determine temps seen in r15. Rad space/fans really only comes into play with much longer periods.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi djgar.
> We all use more than one sensor polling app. For example, I use AIDA64 and MSI AfterBurner(RTSS).
> It's my understanding that as long as those monitoring softwares support synchronizations, there is no conflict.
> https://forums.aida64.com/topic/1375-any-conflict-between-two-monitoring-softwares-running-together/


Thanks for the link and clarification. Well, not all - I don't







. It's like too many people yelling at the same time


----------



## Darius510

So just getting started OCing the 6900K. Focusing on gaming performance first, so HT is disabled and I'm not using AVX stress tests, so mostly OCCT linpack non-AVX and lyra2re altcoin mining on the CPU while the GPUs heat everything up mining at the same time.

As of right now I can push 4.3 on all cores at 1.275...not bad, I guess? 4.4 was unstable as high as 1.35, and I'm not really willing to go above that so 4.3 it is.

I gotta say though, this AVX offset is the best thing ever. I can set the offset to 4 (3 is unstable) and it'll magically downclock and survive heavy encoding and stress tests. With haswell/skylake I'd have to tune my OC to survive AVX stress tests just to cover the occasional random AVX workload. With the offset I can just shrug it off and focus on tuning for what I actually do 99% of the time.

Also the temperature differential between broadwell-e and skylake is still shocking. On the same h115i, would hover at 90C encoding at 1.35V, pushing only like 100W through the CPU. The 6900K doesn't even break 60C while it's pushing 150W+ through the CPU. I knew the mainstream TIM was bad, but damn its such an extreme difference. It's way cooler than even my old 5820K, even with 33% more cores.

Gonna see what I can squeeze out of per-core OCing next.


----------



## Kimir

That's why many delid their skylake cpu.


----------



## mbze430

I ran my haswell-dt naked, it was daaaa best!


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Thanks for the link and clarification. Well, not all - I don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . It's like too many people yelling at the same time


I apologize.







I thought MSI AfterBurner and/or EVGA Precision X were de facto standard for gamers here.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought MSI AfterBurner and/or EVGA Precision X were de facto standard for gamers here.


In large part it probably is.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darius510*
> 
> So just getting started OCing the 6900K. Focusing on gaming performance first, so HT is disabled and I'm not using AVX stress tests, so mostly OCCT linpack non-AVX and lyra2re altcoin mining on the CPU while the GPUs heat everything up mining at the same time.
> 
> As of right now I can push 4.3 on all cores at 1.275...not bad, I guess? 4.4 was unstable as high as 1.35, and I'm not really willing to go above that so 4.3 it is.
> 
> I gotta say though, this AVX offset is the best thing ever. I can set the offset to 4 (3 is unstable) and it'll magically downclock and survive heavy encoding and stress tests. With haswell/skylake I'd have to tune my OC to survive AVX stress tests just to cover the occasional random AVX workload. With the offset I can just shrug it off and focus on tuning for what I actually do 99% of the time.
> 
> Also the temperature differential between broadwell-e and skylake is still shocking. On the same h115i, would hover at 90C encoding at 1.35V, pushing only like 100W through the CPU. The 6900K doesn't even break 60C while it's pushing 150W+ through the CPU. I knew the mainstream TIM was bad, but damn its such an extreme difference. It's way cooler than even my old 5820K, even with 33% more cores.
> 
> Gonna see what I can squeeze out of per-core OCing next.


Broadwell- e has bigger die. Bigger die is more easy to cool. That is why gpu is easy to cool


----------



## Darius510

So I settled on 4.3/1.28V for non-AVX. Now while encoding 4K x265, the max AVX offset I can stay stable at is 4X, which bumps me down to 3.9ghz and about 1.2V. That seems a little bit low, doesn't it? 3x bumps it up to 4ghz/1.22V and that's apparently not enough for stability. I'm sure I could get it all up to 4.4 non-AVX and at least 4.0 AVX if was willing to push 1.35V+, but after two 5820Ks dying on me I'm hesitant to redline it like that again. Haven't touched the memory or VCSSA voltages or anything like that yet....but what about VCCIN? What are you guys running on that?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought MSI AfterBurner and/or EVGA Precision X were de facto standard for gamers here.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> In large part it probably is.


No problem. Like Scone said, in large part, me not being part. Last game I played was Tomb Raider without Steam, but in a steamy costume


----------



## Coree

I got my E5-2690 V4 ES, it's a beast! Boosts to 3ghz with all 14 cores and 28 threads. Cost me only 500€, and this is equal at stock with the 6950X when it's OC'd, beats the 6950X when it's stock. The 3ghz clock is fine for gaming too.
http://valid.x86.fr/jgk1q0


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coree*
> 
> I got my E5-2690 V4 ES, it's a beast! Boosts to 3ghz with all 14 cores and 28 threads. Cost me only 500€, and this is equal at stock with the 6950X when it's OC'd, beats the 6950X when it's stock. The 3ghz clock is fine for gaming too.
> http://valid.x86.fr/jgk1q0


It's a fine chip - I liked it so much, I bought 2 and put them in the same system. I'm afraid I don't have the luxury of buying ES parts, so it was a tad more...

I thew 2 1080's in there and it games like a champ (temporary measure, I don't usually keep a winXX drive in there at all, it runs linux).

Keep in mind though, a single 2600 will have lower memory bandwidth than a single 69xxx chip owing to 2400CAS17 timing of the memory vs 3200-3400 CAS15-16 abilities of the 69xxx.

A single, even a dual 2690 setup won't best a 6960x in most benchmarks as those benchmarks scale poorly to many cores. So, when you say "beats", that assertion comes with a lot of caveats...

Frankly, my 6950x struggles to best one of my exceptional 5960x (4.8GHz capable) chip owing to the 3.8GHz cache limit of the BW system. They score similarly in RB for example, but the difference is the BW-E does so in "daily-driver" trim where 4.8GHz 5960x is running at its ragged edge heat/voltage-wise.

I will say anything that can actually use 10 cores will do better with the 2690, even more so with a 2 chip system owing to memory throughput (2 chips = ~125GB/s effective throughput IF your application can make use of it).

The cool thing about the 6950x is "having it all", single core and 10 core performance comes in handy for software devel/testing, though a parallel build of a large app on 28 cores is a thing of beauty...


----------



## Coree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> It's a fine chip - I liked it so much, I bought 2 and put them in the same system. I'm afraid I don't have the luxury of buying ES parts, so it was a tad more...
> 
> I thew 2 1080's in there and it games like a champ (temporary measure, I don't usually keep a winXX drive in there at all, it runs linux).
> 
> Keep in mind though, a single 2600 will have lower memory bandwidth than a single 69xxx chip owing to 2400CAS17 timing of the memory vs 3200-3400 CAS15-16 abilities of the 69xxx.
> 
> A single, even a dual 2960 setup won't best a 6960x in most benchmarks as those benchmarks scale poorly to many cores. So, when you say "beats", that assertion comes with a lot of caveats...
> 
> Frankly, my 6950x struggles to best one of my exceptional 5960x (4.8GHz capable) chip owing to the 3.8GHz cache limit of the BW system. They score similarly in RB for example, but the difference is the BW-E does so in "daily-driver" trim where 4.8GHz 5960x is running at its ragged edge heat/voltage-wise.
> 
> I will say anything that can actually use 10 cores will do better with the 2690, even more so with a 2 chip system owing to memory throughput (2 chips = ~125GB/s effective throughput IF your application can make use of it).
> 
> The cool thing about the 6950x is "having it all", single core and 10 core performance comes in handy for software devel/testing, though a parallel build of a large app on 28 cores is a thing of beauty...


Yeah, the single core performance is better with the 6950X no doubt, but if it's an application that can utilize all cores, the 2690 V4 ES and 6950X can be really close to each other..








It's a shame though that the memory can't be OC'd with the 2690, currently running at the max speed what it supports: 2400mhz.
Btw, can you put a CPU validator link of your dual 2690's and 1080's here, would be really nice to see


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coree*
> 
> Yeah, the single core performance is better with the 6950X no doubt, but if it's an application that can utilize all cores, the 2690 V4 ES and 6950X can be really close to each other..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame though that the memory can't be OC'd with the 2690, currently running at the max speed what it supports: 2400mhz.
> Btw, can you put a CPU validator link of your dual 2690's and 1080's here, would be really nice to see


Sorry, as I mentioned, it was a temporary measure, I don't usually have a windows drive in that (this) machine at all. I just checked the win10 drive (now back in its home) that I used and I didn't do any screen-grabs. If I do have that drive in there for experimentation in the near future, I'll make sure to do so.

This will have to do for now


----------



## Coree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Sorry, as I mentioned, it was a temporary measure, I don't usually have a windows drive in that (this) machine at all. I just checked the win10 drive (now back in its home) that I used and I didn't do any screen-grabs. If I do have that drive in there for experimentation in the near future, I'll make sure to do so.
> 
> This will have to do for now


Okay








Beastly looking PC, is that an Asrock Dual socket MB?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coree*
> 
> Okay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beastly looking PC, is that an Asrock Dual socket MB?


Asus Z10PE-d16WS


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darius510*
> 
> So just getting started OCing the 6900K. Focusing on gaming performance first, so HT is disabled and I'm not using AVX stress tests, so mostly OCCT linpack non-AVX and lyra2re altcoin mining on the CPU while the GPUs heat everything up mining at the same time.
> 
> As of right now I can push 4.3 on all cores at 1.275...not bad, I guess? 4.4 was unstable as high as 1.35, and I'm not really willing to go above that so 4.3 it is.
> 
> I gotta say though, this AVX offset is the best thing ever. I can set the offset to 4 (3 is unstable) and it'll magically downclock and survive heavy encoding and stress tests. With haswell/skylake I'd have to tune my OC to survive AVX stress tests just to cover the occasional random AVX workload. With the offset I can just shrug it off and focus on tuning for what I actually do 99% of the time.
> 
> Also the temperature differential between broadwell-e and skylake is still shocking. On the same h115i, would hover at 90C encoding at 1.35V, pushing only like 100W through the CPU. The 6900K doesn't even break 60C while it's pushing 150W+ through the CPU. I knew the mainstream TIM was bad, but damn its such an extreme difference. It's way cooler than even my old 5820K, even with 33% more cores.
> 
> Gonna see what I can squeeze out of per-core OCing next.


Have you tried the Asus thermal control tool instead of using the AVX offset?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Some IPC upgrade and memory frequency, but unless you go for more cores, it is a side grade overall IMO. Just clock that 5930K a bit higher and you won;t miss a thing.


To avoid the temptation to buy a 6850K, I have reseated my old i7-5930K.
I am on the way to stabilize (Realbench) Core=4.6Ghz/Cache=4.6GHz with :
Vccin=1.65V !
Vcore=1.17V adaptative
Vcache=1.24V (+0.362mV offset)

3 hours Realbench passed.

i will launch the whole RealBench test this night (8hours) + HCI MemTest 8hours and Aida64 "Cache" 4 hours in the next days.
Hope Realbench will pass this night


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> To avoid the temptation to buy a 6850K, I have reseated my old i7-5930K.
> I am on the way to stabilize (Realbench) Core=4.6Ghz/Cache=4.6GHz with :
> Vccin=1.65V !
> Vcore=1.17V adaptative
> Vcache=1.24V (+0.362mV offset)
> 
> 3 hours Realbench passed.
> 
> i will launch the whole RealBench test this night (8hours) + HCI MemTest 8hours and Aida64 "Cache" 4 hours in the next days.
> Hope Realbench will pass this night


Overclock that more..... really.

Oh yeah you're still back in 1995 with air cooling aren't you?

Man get custom water and that thing will do 4.8ghz-5.0ghz. 4.8 for sure.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Overclock that more..... really.
> 
> Oh yeah you're still back in 1995 with air cooling aren't you?
> 
> Man get custom water and that thing will do 4.8ghz-5.0ghz. 4.8 for sure.


I had a similar chip, although a 5960X. Could do 4.6 realbench at 1.18V, 4.7 needed 1.34V, 4.8 not possible at any voltage. I definitely wouldn't say 4.8 for sure


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> To avoid the temptation to buy a 6850K, I have reseated my old i7-5930K.
> I am on the way to stabilize (Realbench) Core=4.6Ghz/Cache=4.6GHz with :
> Vccin=1.65V !


How does low VCCIN help?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> How does low VCCIN help?


I don't think it does.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> How does low VCCIN help?


Hello

It means little to nothing really.


----------



## Silent Scone

Nothing like a good instant debunk lol


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Overclock that more..... really.
> 
> Oh yeah you're still back in 1995 with air cooling aren't you?
> 
> Man get custom water and that thing will do 4.8ghz-5.0ghz. 4.8 for sure.


What prior poster said, nothing is for sure, most certainly not on air.

Also 4.6 cache goal is likely going to make things more difficult to impossible... The power/current that such voltage and frequencies draw from HW cache is evidently very high limiting both the OC of cache and the life of the chip. I have a 5960x that will boot at 5.0 core and run some benches but is not stable. By contrast, it's cache becomes unmanageable at 4.3. I know there are some 4.5 and 4.6 HWE caches out there. I have a 5930 that will do that, but don't set yourself up for failure seeking parity between them.

Oh and get some water on that thing or you'll shoot your eye out kid...


----------



## GRABibus

4 Hours realbench running, still no errors.
Core=4.6GHz
Cache=4.6GHz
Vcore=1.17V adaptative
Vccin=1.70V
Vcache=1.24V
Vccsa=1.05V
Vccio=1.1V
LLC level 7

Again 4 Hours to wait....

If realbench fails, I am Pretty sure It Will pass at Vccin=1.75V

And I am not a kid cekim , I am 49 years old


----------



## Fidelity21

What CPU is that?

I see from an earlier post that you're not running Broadwell-E. That would have been helpful to know because I couldn't believe the numbers you're getting.

I'm at 4.3ghz at 1.310v Vcore and I've tried going up to 1.325v in order to hit 4.4ghz stable with zero success. Now I'm just researching what people are running as a max voltage because I'd prefer to not fry my CPU in order to hit the magical 4.4ghz or even 4.5ghz. Siliconlottery.com provided statistics that said 21% of the Broadwell 6850k CPU's were able to achieve 4.5ghz and 53% were able to hit 4.4ghz. Of course, they're running voltage up to 1.400v or slightly higher and I'm not willing to go that high just yet.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

But why are you undervolting input voltage at all?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> But why are you undervolting input voltage at all?


I am searching the lowest limits. Challenge.


----------



## Kimir

You spend way to much time with realbench IMO
I'm done with stress test myself, actually using the rig for a few now, folding a little, playing some games. Damn it changes to see the rig consumption from 4930K and those 2 monster 780Ti KPE compared to the 5960X and 980Ti. Must be nice to have a Titan XP, such power, wow, no gigawatt of usage (but rip wallet).


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> You spend way to much time with realbench IMO
> I'm done with stress test myself, actually using the rig for a few now, folding a little, playing some games. Damn it changes to see the rig consumption from 4930K and those 2 monster 780Ti KPE compared to the 5960X and 980Ti. Must be nice to have a Titan XP, such power, wow, no gigawatt of usage (but rip wallet).


980ti are toasters...

The amount of effort I've expended cooling 2 of those vs 2x980 or 2x1080 is non-trivial to say the least. Mind-you, these are not reference 980ti - MSI lightning + additional frequency/voltage (1430MHz).

... but while my 6950(4.4GHz)+2x1080(2075-2100MHz) hums along nearly silently at full load, the same pump/rad config with a [email protected] + [email protected] requires pump at 100% duty and fans near their 1150MHz peak (so, not quiet at all) and still brings me to ~60-65C cpu package and 52-55C GPU temps while gaming (i.e. sad for custom water).

Again though titan-XP are 250W cards IIRC, so you are likely to see MUCH more heat than a 1080 with those (same goes for 1080ti) once you start bringing those clock speeds back up where they belong (over 2GHz).

I guess we'll see when we see with SLI 1080ti whether 420+280 is enough rad? My case has no room for push/pull on the 420, but the 280 is already push/pull. Might have to give up on this case to get P/P on the 420 which brings it to ~400W dissipated with fans at acceptably low speeds.


----------



## Kimir

Nah, at least I don't find my 980Ti HOF to be a toaster, highest temp it ever reached was 42°c (with 27°c ambient, so lower that down to 37°c when I have the usual 22°c ambient - all that while folding, gaming doesn't ever go that high)) in the same loop as the 5960X, cooled with two EK XE360 rad. Is your lightning that bad? My card boost at 1430Mhz at stock, huh.
It's true that my 780Ti KPE are running at 1.3v, that doesn't help, but they reach 40°c easily and that is with a much bigger loop (see Caselabs Panda in my sig).
I'm playing the crew recently (free from Ubi) and I see about ±450w on the wall (including display and all) when playing on the 5960X + 980Ti (at 1440p)
And on the 780Ti (yeah in SLI) I saw ±1100w (the case only this time and it was in DSR 4K, I probably should test again at 1440p







).

I haven't check how this particular game uses the CPU cores, I doubt that it uses 6/8 cores at all. Not that I got those for gaming purpose anyway.


----------



## enyceedanny

For some reason, even when setting the VCCIO manually, it will show as much higher in any monitoring software (HWINFO, AIDA, etc).
I've set it at 1.1 currently, but in software it shows as 1.4+ during load. It goes down to 0.78 (approx) under idle though.

Any ideas?

- 6850K
- Rampage V Edition 10

Thanks.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> For some reason, even when setting the VCCIO manually, it will show as much higher in any monitoring software (HWINFO, AIDA, etc).
> I've set it at 1.1 currently, but in software it shows as 1.4+ during load. It goes down to 0.78 (approx) under idle though.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> - 6850K
> - Rampage V Edition 10
> 
> Thanks.


you must be looking at vcore since vccio should hold steady. and why woul d you have vccio at 1.1V anyway? leave vccio on auto unless you know you have to change it.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you must be looking at vcore since vccio should hold steady. and why woul d you have vccio at 1.1V anyway? leave vccio on auto unless you know you have to change it.


No, it's vccio. It seems that no matter what I set it as, auto or not, it applies whatever voltages it wants to. On idle it's fine, but on load it goes up way too high. I've even flashed to the latest BIOS again via USB flashback, and took out the CMOS battery to reset.

The vcore does stay within my adaptive range just fine. It's just the VCCIO voltages.

Screen shot below of it on load.


----------



## Kimir

Isn't that just a glitsh from Hwinfo, telling that's vccio when it might be not. What does Aida says?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Isn't that just a glitsh from Hwinfo, telling that's vccio when it might be not. What does Aida says?


^^ This.

yes, vccio cpu in the top panel is at the correct value.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Isn't that just a glitsh from Hwinfo, telling that's vccio when it might be not. What does Aida says?


The odd thing is, the vccio or even the vccsa doesn't show on AIDA...

EDIT: It seems that this version doesn't fully support the CPU. Downloaded the latest version and it shows the vccio as 1.064. I guess HWINFO is bugged?


----------



## Kimir

That's why developers of such software asks user to send report, so they can fix this kind of bugs.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> That's why developers of such software asks user to send report, so they can fix this kind of bugs.


Yep, I'll be submitting a bug report. =)


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> The odd thing is, the vccio or even the vccsa doesn't show on AIDA...
> 
> EDIT: It seems that this version doesn't fully support the CPU. Downloaded the latest version and it shows the vccio as 1.064. I guess HWINFO is bugged?


They show on Aida for me in the OSD panel - you need to configure it.


----------



## Phantom101

Superkyle:

That is Das Beast! Awesome Similar to my rig but beefier in the GPU arena. I'm just a rank noob in overclocking but think I have some decent equipment to start with.

Phantom101


----------



## aznsniper911

I'm surprised at how hot these chips run! Have a 6950x and the x99 deluxe chipset cooled with a 360mm Ek XE and a 120mm EK XE. Getting nearly 80c at 4.4ghz and 1.36V


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 4 Hours realbench running, still no errors.
> Core=4.6GHz
> Cache=4.6GHz
> Vcore=1.17V adaptative
> Vccin=1.70V
> Vcache=1.24V
> Vccsa=1.05V
> Vccio=1.1V
> LLC level 7
> 
> Again 4 Hours to wait....
> 
> If realbench fails, I am Pretty sure It Will pass at Vccin=1.75V
> 
> And I am not a kid cekim , I am 49 years old


if you want to find out if the VCCIN is too low use HWBOT x265.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you want to find out if the VCCIN is too low use HWBOT x265.


Can a cache instability générates a simple message "instability detected " in realbench , or cache instability is always PC freeze or BSOD?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Can a cache instability générates a simple message "instability detected " in realbench , or cache instability is always PC freeze or BSOD?


Depends at the point the error occurs. Yes it can do.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 4 Hours realbench running, still no errors.
> Core=4.6GHz
> Cache=4.6GHz
> Vcore=1.17V adaptative
> Vccin=1.70V
> Vcache=1.24V
> Vccsa=1.05V
> Vccio=1.1V
> LLC level 7
> 
> Again 4 Hours to wait....
> 
> If realbench fails, I am Pretty sure It Will pass at Vccin=1.75V
> 
> And I am not a kid cekim , I am 49 years old


Line from a movie (Christmas story)


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Line from a movie (Christmas story)


?


----------



## pillowsack

What are signs of VCCIN instability? I had lowered it to 1.85 and since had random BSODS, I raised my vcore to 1.35v, lowered my cache, and ram speed. It still would give random BSODS. I raised vcore to 1.375, still random BSODS. Raised my VCCIN to 1.92V, and now it's all good again.

Does that sound about right?


----------



## Kimir

Hwbot x265 is the easiest test you can run to find VCCIN "weakness".
You need to run it at 4K and overkill x2 at least. When VCCIN is too low, you'll have a disparity between the test part, if one stops while the other keeps going, your VCCIN is way too low.

Of course there are other benchmark and torture test, but this one is flagrant for VCCIN (if you vcore is suffisant)


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> What are signs of VCCIN instability? I had lowered it to 1.85 and since had random BSODS, I raised my vcore to 1.35v, lowered my cache, and ram speed. It still would give random BSODS. I raised vcore to 1.375, still random BSODS. Raised my VCCIN to 1.92V, and now it's all good again.
> 
> Does that sound about right?


you got BSOD's during stress tests or usual daily use ?


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> you got BSOD's during stress tests or usual daily use ?


I think I had a high uptime of 1 days when it was at 1.33vcore and 1.85vccin. I had an uptime of 15 days before windows updates decided to spit on me when I was at 1.33vcore and 1.95vccin(after I first got this overclocked).

Web browsing didn't bother it, although it did BSOD twice in CS:GO(during competitive matches), once in overwatch(competitive match), and once when I clicked play on spotify. Don't know why I remember those so specifically.


----------



## MR-e

4.5GHz at 1.33v is looking like the main culprit. Not to mention trying to run that at 1.85 vccin doesn't look too promising... You should read the BW-E oc guide raja put out.


----------



## pillowsack

I'm pretty sure i'd have to run every benchmark every made (EXCEPT PRIME95) for a week straight.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## djgar

I always run with all cores synch'ed ...


----------



## pillowsack

Hwbot x265 safe to run all night without blowing my CPU up?


----------



## CerN

So my 6850K has been throttling along happily at 4,4ghz with 1.385vcore for a few months now. Suddenly last week, it decided it didn't want to be stable anymore.

I have been overclocking for a few years, and while I am nowhere near being an expert, I at least have some experience/idea of how things work. I have seen CPUs degrade before, needing an additional 0.005, or maybe worst case as much as 0.02 vcore bump to get back to stable.

This however is a different story. I cannot for the life of me get this chip stable again. It will not pass Realbench, usually crashes after 30ish minutes. It also crashes a lot in Rainbow Six Siege, much faster than in Realbench in fact. Funny thing is that it crashes in R6 without giving BSODS, PC just shuts off. If I dump to 4.3 it seemingly works fine again though.

I have attempted all the way up to 1.436vcore, and it still is unstable in both Realbench and Rainbow Six. This is such a massive increase in vcore, and it seemingly makes no difference at all. I'm scratching my head here.

Has anyone else experienced similar issues on Broadwell-E, or have any tips/tricks on what else I can try? I have messed with Input Voltage, System Agent, Cache Voltage etc. but they seem to have no impact on this particular problem.

Mobo: Rampage V Edition 10, newest BIOS


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> Older versions of turbo had much more of a ramp, eg 3.5 with 4 cores loaded, 3.6 with 3 cores loaded, 3,7 with 2 cores loaded and 3.8 with 1 core loaded (theoretically).


Hello

This behavior is still valid if using Intel's default Turbo rules.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> So my 6850K has been throttling along happily at 4,4ghz with 1.385vcore for a few months now. Suddenly last week, it decided it didn't want to be stable anymore.
> 
> I have been overclocking for a few years, and while I am nowhere near being an expert, I at least have some experience/idea of how things work. I have seen CPUs degrade before, needing an additional 0.005, or maybe worst case as much as 0.02 vcore bump to get back to stable.
> 
> This however is a different story. I cannot for the life of me get this chip stable again. It will not pass Realbench, usually crashes after 30ish minutes. It also crashes a lot in Rainbow Six Siege, much faster than in Realbench in fact. Funny thing is that it crashes in R6 without giving BSODS, PC just shuts off. If I dump to 4.3 it seemingly works fine again though.
> 
> I have attempted all the way up to 1.436vcore, and it still is unstable in both Realbench and Rainbow Six. This is such a massive increase in vcore, and it seemingly makes no difference at all. I'm scratching my head here.
> 
> Has anyone else experienced similar issues on Broadwell-E, or have any tips/tricks on what else I can try? I have messed with Input Voltage, System Agent, Cache Voltage etc. but they seem to have no impact on this particular problem.
> 
> Mobo: Rampage V Edition 10, newest BIOS


What about stability at stock ?
Did you test your RAM sticks ?


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> What about stability at stock ?
> Did you test your RAM sticks ?


Seems to be stable at 4.3.
When this started I suspected the RAM was perhaps the issue, but seeing no difference in 4,4 stability, running RAM at anything from 2133mhz to 3000mhz, tested with really loose timings, and higher DRAM voltage. RAM doesn't seem to be the cause.

It seems it boils down to CPU degredation, I just cannot fathom how the needed vcore could change so much in such a short timespan. Considdering I was only running 1.385v to begin with.


----------



## ithree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Funny thing is that it crashes in R6 without giving BSODS, PC just shuts off. If I dump to 4.3 it seemingly works fine again though.


I had this symptom with a different board/CPU, turned out to be the PSU was running too close to limit. Only the PSU can "just shut off". Look at the wattage from the wall (kill-o-watt or similar) and compare to PSU limits.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ithree*
> 
> I had this symptom with a different board/CPU, turned out to be the PSU was running too close to limit. Only the PSU can "just shut off". Look at the wattage from the wall (kill-o-watt or similar) and compare to PSU limits.


MB can also shut down. For example when you short circuit USB port by an accident (by a multimeter for example), or when MB detects too high current, or temperature.


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ithree*
> 
> I had this symptom with a different board/CPU, turned out to be the PSU was running too close to limit. Only the PSU can "just shut off". Look at the wattage from the wall (kill-o-watt or similar) and compare to PSU limits.


I have an AX1200i, no way am I maxing that out.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> MB can also shut down. For example when you short circuit USB port by an accident (by a multimeter for example), or when MB detects too high current, or temperature.


Can't be short circuiting when it works fine at 4,3. Max core temps during Realbench are 80-81c, 65-70c in R6.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pillowsack*
> 
> Hwbot x265 safe to run all night without blowing my CPU up?


it does not run that way. Set it up as 4K, 2x overkill, P-mode and "normal". If the benchmark does not complete, then it's either vccin or vcore or both. The objective is to have a correction factor as close to 1.0 as possible (>0,95 is fine). Then when 2x overkill is solid, go to 4x overkill . Adjust vccin until the "parts" complete nearly at thghe same time (eg, correction factor >0.95).


----------



## Jpmboy

anyone looking for a 6950X?

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=162322

(trusted seller)


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> Are you misinterpreting it? The main point is that with all 6 cores loaded they're all clocked at 3.8GHz. Older versions of turbo had much more of a ramp, eg 3.5 with 4 cores loaded, 3.6 with 3 cores loaded, 3,7 with 2 cores loaded and 3.8 with 1 core loaded (theoretically). This one has two states, and runs at 3.8 all the way up to maximum (non AVX2) load.


I was under the impression that with different core multipliers there would be different core speeds.

Edit: I get it - you're talking about how quick they get up to max ...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Nah, at least I don't find my 980Ti HOF to be a toaster, highest temp it ever reached was 42°c (with 27°c ambient, so lower that down to 37°c when I have the usual 22°c ambient - all that while folding, gaming doesn't ever go that high)) in the same loop as the 5960X, cooled with two EK XE360 rad. Is your lightning that bad? My card boost at 1430Mhz at stock, huh.
> It's true that my 780Ti KPE are running at 1.3v, that doesn't help, but they reach 40°c easily and that is with a much bigger loop (see Caselabs Panda in my sig).
> I'm playing the crew recently (free from Ubi) and I see about ±450w on the wall (including display and all) when playing on the 5960X + 980Ti (at 1440p)
> And on the 780Ti (yeah in SLI) I saw ±1100w (the case only this time and it was in DSR 4K, I probably should test again at 1440p
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> I haven't check how this particular game uses the CPU cores, I doubt that it uses 6/8 cores at all. Not that I got those for gaming purpose anyway.


Interesting, I put my 2 lightning toasters in their own loop and they run loaded at 1475 @39-40C on a push/pull 280 Ek rad...

So, it appears it is the combined VRM, CPU, 2xGPU heat that is the problem despite the 280+420 rads....

darn it... now I need two loops...

Going to need to do some more experiments with the CPU/VRM loop now. I am getting a LOT of heat coming out of the case(s) with a single loop at 6950x or 5960x +2x980ti or 2x1080. So, the heat is being removed and I am seeing ~40 (1080) and ~45-50 (980ti) but I'm also seeing 65C peaks on the CPU.

Something doesn't add up. With this much rad, if the 2x980ti lightning is running so cool on its own, then the combined system shouldn't be so warm. D5 pump, so I don't think I've reached flow limits, but...

p.s. 1440p generally runs quite a bit cooler for me than 4K in any of these setups. So, not apples:apples. The load is real.


----------



## done12many2

I guess I don't even have a high enough post count over there to even look at the listing when logged in.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> p.s. 1440p generally runs quite a bit cooler for me than 4K in any of these setups. So, not apples:apples. The load is real.


Indeed but it really depend on the game, the measurement I did in my previous post was with Th Crew, which is limited to 60 fps. I would need to use a non limited game for better comparison. There is no real comparison possible between my two rigs anyway.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I guess I don't even have a high enough post count over there to even look at the listing when logged in.


If you are talking about hwbot forum, there is no minimum posts limitation to see the wtb/wts section.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> What are you saying, that ASUS is not using the default turbo rules? Where is AIDA64 reading those multis from?


Hello

Depend on how the settings are configured in the UEFI.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> When I took that screenshot, Turbo was disabled and the CPU was at it's fixed 3.6GHz base clock. Aside from disabling turbo, the UEFI was 100% default/stock.


If you have ASUS Core enhancement Enabled vs Disabled (disabled= Intel core enhancement). Either way, once you OC the cpu neither is active:


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I guess I don't even have a high enough post count over there to even look at the listing when logged in.


huh? should be viewable logged in or not.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> Asus "multicore enhancement" was disabled


so then Intel Multicore Enhancement takes over. One or the other when running stock.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Lahatiel

There is no "Intel Multicore Enhancement". He used wrong technical term and meant intels standard turbo mode.
The "Asus Multicore Enhancement" is for "none k"-CPUs and syncs all cores in turbo mode (which is for Intel overclocking on none overclockable cpus and not very welcome).
K-CPUs can do this without that option. Just choose "sync all cores" a few options later in the uefi.
You can disable the "Asus Multicore Enhancement" (if you own a k-cpu).


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lahatiel*
> 
> There is no "Intel Multicore Enhancement". He used wrong technical term and meant intels standard turbo mode.
> The "Asus Multicore Enhancement" is for "none k"-CPUs and syncs all cores in turbo mode (which is for Intel overclocking on none overclockable cpus and not very welcome).
> K-CPUs can do this without that option. Just choose "sync all cores" a few options later in the uefi.
> You can disable the "Asus Multicore Enhancement" (if you own a k-cpu).


Hello

The ASUS Multicore Enhancement has nothing to do with non-K CPUs. At stock settings with this enabled the max turbo multiplier is applied to all cores. Disabled uses Intel's turbo profile for the given CPU. With non-stock settings the configuration of this option is irrelevant. All cores will use the manually set multiplier.


----------



## Lahatiel

Sure does it work but it is not meant to be used on k-cpus since you can configure all single core speeds and the voltage by your own.

Use the option "CPU core ratio" and set it to "sync all cores" or edit as you like. You can set the multipliers to (example): 40/40/40/40

Edit @Praz
No, it is not. It is a kind of "auto overklocking (including raising voltage)" for none K-cpus.

http://edgeup.asus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/140630154847.jpg


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lahatiel*
> 
> S*ure does it work but it is not meant to be used on k-cpus* since you can configure all single core speeds and the voltage by your own.
> 
> Use the option "CPU core ratio" and set it to "sync all cores" or edit as you like. You can set the multipliers to (example): 40/40/40/40
> 
> Edit @Praz
> No, it is not. It is a kind of "auto overklocking (including raising voltage)" for none K-cpus.
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/140630154847.jpg


B ullsheet.
Of course.. . Not sure what you are trying to show in that SS, but as soon as you exceed the stock max turbo multiplier ASUS CE and Intel CE (aka, stock turbo stepping) is not active. Or if you synch cores, you have a override of the ASUS and Intel clock stepping (core enhancement). I have 3 non-K cpus... and overclocking these (besides a modest bclk) needs a non_k unlock bios. These are available for ASUS, Asrock and Giga z170 boards.

non-K cpu @ 4900:


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> So my 6850K has been throttling along happily at 4,4ghz with 1.385vcore for a few months now. Suddenly last week, it decided it didn't want to be stable anymore.
> 
> I have been overclocking for a few years, and while I am nowhere near being an expert, I at least have some experience/idea of how things work. I have seen CPUs degrade before, needing an additional 0.005, or maybe worst case as much as 0.02 vcore bump to get back to stable.
> 
> This however is a different story. I cannot for the life of me get this chip stable again. It will not pass Realbench, usually crashes after 30ish minutes. It also crashes a lot in Rainbow Six Siege, much faster than in Realbench in fact. Funny thing is that it crashes in R6 without giving BSODS, PC just shuts off. If I dump to 4.3 it seemingly works fine again though.
> 
> I have attempted all the way up to 1.436vcore, and it still is unstable in both Realbench and Rainbow Six. This is such a massive increase in vcore, and it seemingly makes no difference at all. I'm scratching my head here.
> 
> Has anyone else experienced similar issues on Broadwell-E, or have any tips/tricks on what else I can try? I have messed with Input Voltage, System Agent, Cache Voltage etc. but they seem to have no impact on this particular problem.
> 
> Mobo: Rampage V Edition 10, newest BIOS


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ithree*
> 
> I had this symptom with a different board/CPU, turned out to be the PSU was running too close to limit. Only the PSU can "just shut off". Look at the wattage from the wall (kill-o-watt or similar) and compare to PSU limits.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> I have an AX1200i, no way am I maxing that out.
> Can't be short circuiting when it works fine at 4,3. Max core temps during Realbench are 80-81c, 65-70c in R6.


Hmm... really strange behavior.
When I read your comment on PC shutting off, I also suspected PSU being faulty. What are you running uncore at ? Uncore voltage ?
I know there are talks about CPU degradation with high current these days, but I have never experienced it over almost 20 years of overclocking (casual) hobby. By casual I mean, no extreme overclocking with tools such as LN2. I consider any stable overclock achievable with customer water moderate & safe overclokcing. And with this, one should never experience what they call "degradation" over the course of our PC usage. Surely, I can't speak for everyone as everyone uses PCs differently. Unless you stressed your CPU with something like Prime95 non stop for a several weeks to even months, I don't see degradation should be in the same sentence. My humble opinion of course.
Please share more information. I'm sure many experienced enthusiasts will help you pin point the cause of your instability.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aznsniper911*
> 
> I'm surprised at how hot these chips run! Have a 6950x and the x99 deluxe chipset cooled with a 360mm Ek XE and a 120mm EK XE. Getting nearly 80c at 4.4ghz and 1.36V


You're surprised a 10 core cpu runs hot at 4.4ghz and 1.36v?

Lol. Why?

These chips run much cooler than HW-E. Very noticeable. I don't go past 69c with 1.425v on my 6800k at 4.4ghz.

My 5930k did about 85c at 4.4ghz/1.350v. Same cooling setup.

Certain chips are better than others of course... this doesn't mean crap when you're pulling down 69c at 4.4ghz/1.425v with 6 Cores. That's a substantial difference no matter how you look at it.


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hmm... really strange behavior.
> When I read your comment on PC shutting off, I also suspected PSU being faulty. What are you running uncore at ? Uncore voltage ?
> I know there are talks about CPU degradation with high current these days, but I have never experienced it over almost 20 years of overclocking (casual) hobby. By casual I mean, no extreme overclocking with tools such as LN2. I consider any stable overclock achievable with customer water moderate & safe overclokcing. And with this, one should never experience what they call "degradation" over the course of our PC usage. Surely, I can't speak for everyone as everyone uses PCs differently. Unless you stressed your CPU with something like Prime95 non stop for a several weeks to even months, I don't see degradation should be in the same sentence. My humble opinion of course.
> Please share more information. I'm sure many experienced enthusiasts will help you pin point the cause of your instability.


Appreciate the response.

I'm running cache at 3.7ghz, with cache voltage at 1.32 volts, I have been stable previously at 1.3, but boosted it up a bit to eliminate as the cause.
I have redone pretty much everything, and ended up with quite different values for System Agent. I am now bluescreening most of the time, but I get a mix of codes.

0x124
0x101
0x50
0x9C

Gotten all of these codes, still crashing fairly early into Realbench.

Currently testing the following:
1.4 vcore
1.296 SA
1.968 VCCIN with LLC9.

For over 2 months, I was stable with 1.385vcore and 1.89 VCCIN. I don't remember what my SA was at exactly, but it was in the upper 1.2 range.


----------



## Lahatiel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lahatiel*
> 
> Sure does it work but it is not meant to be used on k-cpus since you can configure all single core speeds and the voltage by your own.
> 
> Use the option "CPU core ratio" and set it to "sync all cores" ore edit as you like. You can set the multipliers to (example): 40/40/40/40


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> B ullsheet.
> Of course.. . Not sure what you are trying to show in that SS, but as soon as you exceed the stock max turbo multiplier ASUS CE and Intel CE (aka, stock turbo stepping) is not active. Or if you synch cores, you have a override of the ASUS and Intel clock stepping (core enhancement). I have 3 non-K cpus... and overclocking these (besides a modest bclk) needs a non_k unlock bios. These are available for ASUS, Asrock and Giga z170 boards.


Watch your language pls. I never disagreed to what you are saying. I corrected your wrong use of technical term. Intel multi core enhancement doesn't exist and while we was on this subject I explained the intention behind AMCE (it was implemented before intel updated the microcode and you have to modify the uefi).
It was an easy and legal way to get more power out of non k cpu and xeons (like e3-1230 vx). To enable this by default and have a boost on all cpus (even k-cpus) was surely a marketing decision.
K-cpu owners never used this option and was disabled by them asap by setting the core ratio and voltage manually (easy to set far more accurate and powerful - btw this was shown on the screenshot I linked from ASUS).
With this in mind a k-cpu owner can bypass/disable the AMCE option without any regrets and sync the cores like I had mentioned before because it is the way to go.

It was a general statement.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lahatiel*
> 
> It was a general statement.


Hello

There was nothing general about what you stated. It was very specific and wrong. And by the way thanks for the laugh attempting to school me as to the use and meaning of ASUS UEFI settings. I actually did find some humor in that.


----------



## Lahatiel

Your welcome.








If your opinion is that the AMCE is a valid overclocking option, designed with k-cpu owners in mind...
I'm fine with it.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

can someone help me out and tell me how long the OCCT benchmark should be run to check the stability of a clock ?


----------



## ondoy

is it safe to buy a 6900k from amazon warehouse deals ?
has anyone tried this ?


----------



## Lahatiel

It depends. Read the shop ratings thoroughly. Do they look like fakes? Any warnings from customers? How long does the shop exist? Where is the corporate headquarter? Etc. pp..

Edit: Ah mistaken. Warehouse and not Marketplace. Sorry.

Warehouse is okay.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lahatiel*
> 
> Watch your language pls. I never disagreed to what you are saying. I corrected your wrong use of technical term. Intel multi core enhancement doesn't exist and while we was on this subject I explained the intention behind AMCE (it was implemented before intel updated the microcode and you have to modify the uefi).
> It was an easy and legal way to get more power out of non k cpu and xeons (like e3-1230 vx). To enable this by default and have a boost on all cpus (even k-cpus) was surely a marketing decision.
> K-cpu owners never used this option and was disabled by them asap by setting the core ratio and voltage manually (easy to set far more accurate and powerful - btw this was shown on the screenshot I linked from ASUS).
> With this in mind a k-cpu owner can bypass/disable the AMCE option without any regrets and sync the cores like I had mentioned before because it is the way to go.
> 
> It was a general statement.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lahatiel*
> 
> Your welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your opinion is that the AMCE is a valid overclocking option, designed with k-cpu owners in mind...
> I'm fine with it.


----------



## Lahatiel

That is the level I expected. Well done.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> I've NEVER had a CPU be unstable after passing 8 hours of Realbench with Max ram usage.


If I tweak specifically for RealBench stability, I will almost always wind up with a CPU that is quite clearly unstable in a variety of other tasks, including some real-world ones, not to mention more demanding stress tests.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> Intel's maximum _officially_ supported memory speed for Haswell (mainstream) is 1600MHz. They list Haswell Max Memory Bandwidth as 25.6 GB/s. With 1600MHz RAM, you can get within spitting distance of 25.6 GB/s on that platform.
> 
> Intel's maximum officially supported memory speed for Broadwell-E is 2400MHz. They list Broadwell-E Max Memory Bandwidth as 76.8 GB/s. However, from what I can see, you need RAM clocked at well over 3000MHz to get anywhere near that bandwidth.
> 
> Does anyone know the reason for this apparent inconsistency in advertised Max Memory Bandwidth spec?


You will never see anywhere near 100% bandwidth efficiency, but lower your memory speed implies tighter timings, and a higher uncore to memory clock ratio. The closest I've ever come was on Socket 754 with extremely tight timings on single channel memory with a very high (for the time) CPU OC.

If you could run your DDR-2400 at the exact same timings as you can run DDR-1600 at and you raise the core and uncore clocks another 50% to account for the higher memory clock, you'd see the same ratio of actual bandwidth vs. peak bandwidth. To get that 100% efficiency, all your timings would need to be near zero and your core and uncore would need to be fast enough to never be a bottleneck.

So, it's not really an anomaly , just what a happens to real vs. hypothetical peak bandwidth as you are forced to loosen timings and run the memory closer and closer to the clock speed of the memory controller and CPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> It means little to nothing really.


Probably hurts, if anything.

Lower the VCCIN the more current the board VRM has to deliver for the same CPU power consumption.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> can someone help me out and tell me how long the OCCT benchmark should be run to check the stability of a clock ?


At least 1 hour (Large Data Set test). When I formerly used it, I did it 12 hours.
Keep an eye on core temps and CPU Package temps. OCCT drives much a lot of power.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lahatiel*
> 
> That is the level I expected. Well done.


thank you.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Probably hurts, if anything.
> 
> Lower the VCCIN the more current the board VRM has to deliver for the same CPU power consumption.


I wonder. Would lower voltage to CPU mean lower FIVR efficiency? When not, it could mean lower FIVR related heat... But FIVR probably needs large enough voltage to function including voltage drop at full load.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> At least 1 hour (Large Data Set test). When I formerly used it, I did it 12 hours.
> Keep an eye on core temps and CPU Package temps. OCCT drives much a lot of power.


ok i will is it possible that a clock and voltage settings which ran fine in a one hour test is likely to fail in a 12 hour test ?


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Appreciate the response.
> 
> I'm running cache at 3.7ghz, with cache voltage at 1.32 volts, I have been stable previously at 1.3, but boosted it up a bit to eliminate as the cause.
> I have redone pretty much everything, and ended up with quite different values for System Agent. I am now bluescreening most of the time, but I get a mix of codes.
> 
> 0x124
> 0x101
> 0x50
> 0x9C
> 
> Gotten all of these codes, still crashing fairly early into Realbench.
> 
> Currently testing the following:
> 1.4 vcore
> 1.296 SA
> 1.968 VCCIN with LLC9.
> 
> For over 2 months, I was stable with 1.385vcore and 1.89 VCCIN. I don't remember what my SA was at exactly, but it was in the upper 1.2 range.


So after spending over 30 hours this week, trying to reclaim my old 4,4ghz OC, I think I am just about giving up and settling for 4,3ghz.
Cannot get stable 4,4ghz, even at 1.43vcore, I still get x124 bluescreens.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> So after spending over 30 hours this week, trying to reclaim my old 4,4ghz OC, I think I am just about giving up and settling for 4,3ghz.
> Cannot get stable 4,4ghz, even at 1.43vcore, I still get x124 bluescreens.


124 is not ALWAYS cpu vcore. try increasing CPU VCCIO a couple of notches over stock. Unfortunately a 124 can be nearly any component, or even a video driver that's fouled.


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 124 is not ALWAYS cpu vcore. try increasing CPU VCCIO a couple of notches over stock. Unfortunately a 124 can be nearly any component, or even a video driver that's fouled.


Thanks. My CPU VCCIO is already at 1.15, is this safe/necessary to set higher, you think?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Thanks. My CPU VCCIO is already at 1.15, is this safe/necessary to set higher, you think?


eh, you're already higher than I would go. 1.075V is all that should ever be necessary. what cpu and MB?


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> eh, you're already higher than I would go. 1.075V is all that should ever be necessary. what cpu and MB?


6850k
Rampage V 10

In an interesting turn of events, it seems I have finally reached stability at 4,4ghz. It required me to severely lower my cache ratio for some reason.
I used to run it at 3,7ghz.

Currently tested 1 hour realbench, 30 minutes handbrake, and 100% on HCI memtest with cache set to 3,1ghz.

I can be happy with cache below 3,7, as I know it doesn't matter much, but I would be interested to at least get it up to 3,5ghz. Any tricks to push cache, without affecting vcore/core clock stability?

EDIT: Cache at 3,5ghz with 1,35 cache voltage crashes instantly when stressing. 3,4ghz at 1,34v seems to have potential. Why is my cache not going higher than this?

Has anyone ever published benchmarks on cache clocks?


----------



## enyceedanny

After an exhaustive stability testing run, I've finally reached the lowest stable voltages for my 6850K running on Rampage V Edition 10.


44X Multiplier
37X Cache
1.8V CPU input voltage
1.345V Adaptive CPU
+0.15 Cache Voltage Offset (effectively 1.169v via software readings)
+0.001 System Agent Offset - lowest I can go without giving negative offset, which I can but don't feel the need to. (effectively 0.984v via software)
DDR4 2800 XMP at 14-16-16-36-1T (1.35v)
VCCIO CPU at 1.05v
OCCT 10 hour stable (max core temp: 80), Realbench 8 hour stable (max core temp: 78).


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> After an exhaustive stability testing run, I've finally reached the lowest stable voltages for my 6850K running on Rampage V Edition 10.
> 
> 
> 44X Multiplier
> 37X Cache
> 1.8V CPU input voltage
> 1.345V Adaptive CPU
> +0.15 Cache Voltage Offset (effectively 1.169v via software readings)
> +0.001 System Agent Offset - lowest I can go without giving negative offset, which I can but don't feel the need to. (effectively 0.984v via software)
> DDR4 2800 XMP at 14-16-16-36-1T (1.35v)
> VCCIO CPU at 1.05v
> OCCT 10 hour stable (max core temp: 80), Realbench 8 hour stable (max core temp: 78).


Wow, that looks great. Much better than my chip for sure.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> 6850k
> Rampage V 10
> 
> In an interesting turn of events, it seems I have finally reached stability at 4,4ghz. It required me to severely lower my cache ratio for some reason.
> I used to run it at 3,7ghz.
> 
> Currently tested 1 hour realbench, 30 minutes handbrake, and 100% on HCI memtest with cache set to 3,1ghz.
> 
> I can be happy with cache below 3,7, as I know it doesn't matter much, but I would be interested to at least get it up to 3,5ghz. Any tricks to push cache, without affecting vcore/core clock stability?
> 
> EDIT: Cache at 3,5ghz with 1,35 cache voltage crashes instantly when stressing. 3,4ghz at 1,34v seems to have potential. Why is my cache not going higher than this?
> 
> Has anyone ever published benchmarks on cache clocks?


For normal everyday use, higher cache clocks don't provide any noticeable improvements. You may need to just accept that your specific chip has a cache clock wall.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Wow, that looks great. Much better than my chip for sure.


Yeah, think I got quite lucky with this one. My other 6850K can only do 43x @ 1.34 (can't do 44x no matter the voltages) / 36x cache @ +0.275 offset (effectively 1.3 ish)


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> For normal everyday use, higher cache clocks don't provide any noticeable improvements. You may need to just accept that your specific chip has a cache clock wall.


Seems that way. Oh well, hopefully the reduced cache might allow me to get my memory up a bit higher.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Seems that way. Oh well, hopefully the reduced cache might allow me to get my memory up a bit higher.


You were doing the stability testing with your memory at lowest speeds with loose timings right?


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> You were doing the stability testing with your memory at lowest speeds with loose timings right?


I was before, but not now with the cache. I thought I should always prioritize memory speed over cache?


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> I was before, but not now with the cache. I thought I should always prioritize memory speed over cache?


When looking for the max clocks for cpu or cache, you should have your memory at relaxed settings to keep it out of the equation. Once both are at ideal levels with optimal voltages, then you can work on the ram.


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> When looking for the max clocks for cpu or cache, you should have your memory at relaxed settings to keep it out of the equation. Once both are at ideal levels with optimal voltages, then you can work on the ram.


Hm, ok. I've been going for CPU, then RAM, then Cache. Guess I might start over and do it this way.

Does System Agent have any impact on cache?


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> After an exhaustive stability testing run, I've finally reached the lowest stable voltages for my 6850K running on Rampage V Edition 10.
> 
> 
> 44X Multiplier
> 37X Cache
> 1.8V CPU input voltage
> 1.345V Adaptive CPU
> +0.15 Cache Voltage Offset (effectively 1.169v via software readings)
> +0.001 System Agent Offset - lowest I can go without giving negative offset, which I can but don't feel the need to. (effectively 0.984v via software)
> DDR4 2800 XMP at 14-16-16-36-1T (1.35v)
> VCCIO CPU at 1.05v
> OCCT 10 hour stable (max core temp: 80), Realbench 8 hour stable (max core temp: 78).


Thats decent, i need 1.46v for 4.4 Core and cache refuses to boot higher than 36.

Is this air cooled?


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Thats decent, i need 1.46v for 4.4 Core and cache refuses to boot higher than 36.
> 
> Is this air cooled?


No, it's cooled via an EK EX480 Radiator.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

I just ran OCCT at 4.2Ghz, 1.25V with my 6850k for 8 hours is this good enough ? or i should have ran it for 12 hours ? first i tried 4.2Ghz with 1.20V but OCCT crashed after 10 minutes


----------



## enyceedanny

Double check the event viewer and look for any issues such as WHEA warnings. If all is clear, maybe run 8 hours of realbench to be safe?


----------



## mbze430

gotta do Realbench 8hrs. I can pass 24hr+ on OCCT and Realbench will crap out within 2-4.....IF you want a 24/7 stable system

After Realbench 8hrs, do a HWBOT x265


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> gotta do Realbench 8hrs. I can pass 24hr+ on OCCT and Realbench will crap out within 2-4.....IF you want a 24/7 stable system
> 
> After Realbench 8hrs, do a HWBOT x265


Yes, and then at least 24 hours of AIDA.

(Not to be taken seriously)


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Yes, and then at least 24 hours of AIDA.
> 
> (Not to be taken seriously)


might as well add the 72hrs of XTU


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> might as well add the 72hrs of XTU


But I thought that the stress test in XTU was pretty much like OCCT. Damn will have to add 8 hours of this one to the stress testing protocol.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> But I thought that the stress test in XTU was pretty much like OCCT. Damn will have to add 8 hours of this one to the stress testing protocol.


I think OCCT and RB is enough. As long as you don't get any crashing (system, drivers, or luxmark), and event viewer is clear of any errors/warnings related to CPU, cache or memory - normal usage after that should suffice.


----------



## Kimir

I think you missed the "(Not to be taken seriously)" from the first quote, it was implied in both mbze430 and my post.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> 6850k
> Rampage V 10
> In an interesting turn of events, it seems I have finally reached stability at 4,4ghz. It required me to severely lower my cache ratio for some reason.
> I used to run it at 3,7ghz.
> 
> Currently tested 1 hour realbench, 30 minutes handbrake, and 100% on HCI memtest with cache set to 3,1ghz.
> 
> I can be happy with cache below 3,7, as I know it doesn't matter much, but I would be interested to at least get it up to 3,5ghz. Any tricks to push cache, without affecting vcore/core clock stability?
> 
> EDIT: Cache at 3,5ghz with 1,35 cache voltage crashes instantly when stressing. 3,4ghz at 1,34v seems to have potential. Why is my cache not going higher than this?
> 
> *Has anyone ever published benchmarks on cache clocks*?


yes, there's one in AID64 (memory and cache). Cinebench R15 is very cache dependent, as are several memory-intensive benchmarks and/or apps.
In the Tweakers Bios sub menu, look for PLL and VCC (i think) change PLL to 1 (+25mV) and VCC to 4 (+4mV) then try increasing cache one multiplier at a time while increasing Vcache up to your chosen limit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> After an exhaustive stability testing run, I've finally reached the lowest stable voltages for my 6850K running on Rampage V Edition 10.
> 
> 
> 44X Multiplier
> 37X Cache
> 1.8V CPU input voltage
> 1.345V Adaptive CPU
> +0.15 Cache Voltage Offset (effectively 1.169v via software readings)
> +0.001 System Agent Offset - lowest I can go without giving negative offset, which I can but don't feel the need to. (effectively 0.984v via software)
> DDR4 2800 XMP at 14-16-16-36-1T (1.35v)
> VCCIO CPU at 1.05v
> OCCT 10 hour stable (max core temp: 80), Realbench 8 hour stable (max core temp: 78).


That's a really low VCCIN... not sure that is actually "healthy".


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> I think you missed the "(Not to be taken seriously)" from the first quote, it was implied in both mbze430 and my post.


October Foldathon?


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, there's one in AID64 (memory and cache). Cinebench R15 is very cache dependent, as are several memory-intensive benchmarks and/or apps.
> In the Tweakers Bios sub menu, look for PLL and VCC (i think) change PLL to 1 (+25mV) and VCC to 4 (+4mV) then try increasing cache one multiplier at a time while increasing Vcache up to your chosen limit.


Was thinking of non-synthetic benchmarks.

Thanks a lot for the tips, will definitely test those out.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, there's one in AID64 (memory and cache). Cinebench R15 is very cache dependent, as are several memory-intensive benchmarks and/or apps.
> In the Tweakers Bios sub menu, look for PLL and VCC (i think) change PLL to 1 (+25mV) and VCC to 4 (+4mV) then try increasing cache one multiplier at a time while increasing Vcache up to your chosen limit.
> That's a really low VCCIN... not sure that is actually "healthy".


You reckon I should raise it a bit? I read on Raja's guide on Edge up that it should be at least .45 more than vcore, and it's right within that range. hmm


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> October Foldathon?


Linux been running as soon as I got home, I'm running one of those long lasting low points project, sigh.


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, there's one in AID64 (memory and cache). Cinebench R15 is very cache dependent, as are several memory-intensive benchmarks and/or apps.
> In the Tweakers Bios sub menu, look for PLL and VCC (i think) change PLL to 1 (+25mV) and VCC to 4 (+4mV) then try increasing cache one multiplier at a time while increasing Vcache up to your chosen limit.


Is it reasonable to increase these even further btw?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Was thinking of non-synthetic benchmarks.
> 
> Thanks a lot for the tips, will definitely test those out.


what "benchmark" is not synthetic?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> You reckon I should raise it a bit? I read on Raja's guide on Edge up that it should be at least .45 more than vcore, and it's right within that range. hmm


The main thing is to not voltage starve the input power supply (which may result in higher amperage in order to deliver the needed power). Try HWBOT x265 benchmark: 4K 2x overkill, p-mode. If the correction factor is >0.95, vccin is probably good.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Linux been running as soon as I got home, I'm running one of those long lasting low points project, sigh.


oh, I know those bum projects well. the one I got hit with earlier is working on the Vertex CF drug (I know the inventor very well)... good drug, poor programming of the problem IMO.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Is it reasonable to increase these even further btw?


Reasonable? I haven't done so myself, but you're already running the CPU outside the NOR. Buy the Intel Tuning plan.


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what "benchmark" is not synthetic?


No, I was thinking of gaming benchmarks etc. I know cache doesn't matter much for gaming, but it probably has some impact, and I was wondering how big.
Quote:


> Reasonable? I haven't done so myself, but you're already running the CPU outside the NOR. Buy the Intel Tuning plan.


Well, I am not really sure what these 2 settings actually do. Skeptical of upping them even higher if they can have adverse effects.
That is why I am asking.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> The main thing is to not voltage starve the input power supply (which may result in higher amperage in order to deliver the needed power). Try HWBOT x265 benchmark: 4K 2x overkill, p-mode. If the correction factor is >0.95, vccin is probably good.


Overkill score:
(3.25 + 3.26) * 0.995
= 6.48 FPS


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> No, I was thinking of gaming benchmarks etc. I know cache doesn't matter much for gaming, but it probably has some impact, and I was wondering how big.
> Well, I am not really sure what these 2 settings actually do. Skeptical of upping them even higher if they can have adverse effects.
> That is why I am asking.


The only detail I found so far on the VCCU offset is from (http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=157669).
Quote:


> Uncore Voltage: This voltage has changed compared to Haswell-E. There are two voltages that affect uncore/cache frequency. One is "VRING" and other is "VccU Offset".
> 
> Air testing showed that uncore will scale to 3.75GHz roughly using up to 1.40VRING and +0.25 VccU Offset. You don't really need high VccU offset for air or LN2, +0.25 is generally enough for majority of CPUs.
> 
> LN2 testing showed that uncore will scale to 4.6GHz roughly using a mix of voltage and correct temperature. In terms of voltage, we could see uncore scaling up to 1.6VRING and we use +0.25 VccU Offset. You can try higher voltages and see if it helps with your CPU. Temperature is very important with uncore. You must be cold enough to boot at very high uncore clocks (-80C or colder). We recommend booting at lower uncore and using GTL to clock up core and uncore frequency in OS.


I think you should just leave it where it's at. Don't think there's much need to increase it. Though you can definitely try it out and see if it helps as each chip will react differently to these settings. My chip doesn't react at all in terms of overclockability to the PLL and VCCU offset settings, so I just leave them at default.


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> The only detail I found so far on the VCCU offset is from (http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=157669).
> I think you should just leave it where it's at. Don't think there's much need to increase it. Though you can definitely try it out and see if it helps as each chip will react differently to these settings. My chip doesn't react at all in terms of overclockability to the PLL and VCCU offset settings, so I just leave them at default.


Awesome, thanks for the info.

My cache clock affects vcore so much, I don't know if that is normal. Even with high cache voltage, and the +25mv VCCU offset, it still requires me to up Vcore quite a lot to get above 3,3ghz.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Awesome, thanks for the info.
> 
> My cache clock affects vcore so much, I don't know if that is normal. Even with high cache voltage, and the +25mv VCCU offset, it still requires me to up Vcore quite a lot to get above 3,3ghz.


Yeah, guess your chip just has a low ceiling when it comes to cache ratios. I would get it to a point where it doesn't require any additional Vcore other than what's required for your core clock.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> No, I was thinking of gaming benchmarks etc. I know cache doesn't matter much for gaming, but it probably has some impact, and I was wondering how big.
> Well, I am not really sure what these 2 settings actually do. Skeptical of upping them even higher if they can have adverse effects.
> That is why I am asking.


yeah - gaming benchmarks are synthetic also, but you would not notice/feel any impact/benefit from a modest cache OC while gaming... especially if the ram is not tuned up also.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Overkill score:
> (3.25 + 3.26) * 0.995:thumb:
> = 6.48 FPS


good to go.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> Awesome, thanks for the info.
> 
> *My cache clock affects vcore so much*, I don't know if that is normal. Even with high cache voltage, and the +25mv VCCU offset, it still requires me to up Vcore quite a lot to get above 3,3ghz.


I have both of these set as described above for cache @ 3.8 with 1.32V on this 6950X. Without these settings Vcache is higher.

are you running a low VCCIN?


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Double check the event viewer and look for any issues such as WHEA warnings. If all is clear, maybe run 8 hours of realbench to be safe?


Ok i will do so
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> gotta do Realbench 8hrs. I can pass 24hr+ on OCCT and Realbench will crap out within 2-4.....IF you want a 24/7 stable system
> 
> After Realbench 8hrs, do a HWBOT x265


noted but how long stability test for hwbot?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> Ok i will do so
> *noted but how long stability test for hwbot*?


http://www.overclock.net/t/1601679/broadwell-e-thread/3340_20#post_25584089


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> it does not run that way. Set it up as 4K, 2x overkill, P-mode and "normal". If the benchmark does not complete, then it's either vccin or vcore or both. The objective is to have a correction factor as close to 1.0 as possible (>0,95 is fine). Then when 2x overkill is solid, go to 4x overkill . Adjust vccin until the "parts" complete nearly at thghe same time (eg, correction factor >0.95).


Not exactly sure what you mean but I'm guessing 4k loops, 12 threads (I have 6800k), priority=normal.

Is that correct? I normally just ran the default mode.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> Not exactly sure what you mean but I'm guessing 4k loops, 12 threads (I have 6800k), priority=normal.
> 
> Is that correct? I normally just ran the default mode.


this is x265 benchmark.. not x264 stability test. x265 uses additional instruction sets and is a higher power draw.


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - gaming benchmarks are synthetic also, but you would not notice/feel any impact/benefit from a modest cache OC while gaming... especially if the ram is not tuned up also.
> good to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have both of these set as described above for cache @ 3.8 with 1.32V on this 6950X. Without these settings Vcache is higher.
> 
> are you running a low VCCIN?


No, my VCCIN is at 1.952v reported by AI Suite.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hello first of all I would like to thank you all because with your help I manage to lear a lot about my rig.

I would like to know if anyone could help me out with my overclock settings right now I am kind new with this system and new on X99 platform:

Asus Rampage 10 Edition
6850K (bought in SilliconLotery 4.4GHz @ 1.375 or less)
32 GB Trident Z 3200MHz @ 14 CL
2xTitanX Pascal
All watercooled EK waterblocks.

Currently I do have this in AI Suite (and in BIOS):


















I would like to know if is there any value you see out of the table (too high or too low)

I am not pretty sure about this fields (which values are safe I mean ranges):

CPU Cache Voltage
CPU System Agent
CPU Input Voltage

Is it worth it to overclock CPU Cache Ratio?

Is there anything related to USB not working properly sometimes?

Which test and how long will you run it to feel that there is a perfectly stable OC?
I am using:
Realbench
OCCT
X264 Stability test
XTU

Thanks in advance


----------



## CerN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello first of all I would like to thank you all because with your help I manage to lear a lot about my rig.
> 
> I would like to know if anyone could help me out with my overclock settings right now I am kind new with this system and new on X99 platform:
> 
> Asus Rampage 10 Edition
> 6850K (bought in SilliconLotery 4.4GHz @ 1.375 or less)
> 32 GB Trident Z 3200MHz @ 14 CL
> 2xTitanX Pascal
> All watercooled EK waterblocks.
> 
> Currently I do have this in AI Suite (and in BIOS):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know if is there any value you see out of the table (too high or too low)
> 
> I am not pretty sure about this fields (which values are safe I mean ranges):
> 
> CPU Cache Voltage
> CPU System Agent
> CPU Input Voltage
> 
> Is it worth it to overclock CPU Cache Ratio?
> 
> Is there anything related to USB not working properly sometimes?
> 
> Which test and how long will you run it to feel that there is a perfectly stable OC?
> I am using:
> Realbench
> OCCT
> X264 Stability test
> XTU
> 
> Thanks in advance


System Agent can affect USB devices. It can bring instability if set too high, or too low.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello first of all I would like to thank you all because with your help I manage to lear a lot about my rig.
> 
> I would like to know if anyone could help me out with my overclock settings right now I am kind new with this system and new on X99 platform:
> 
> Asus Rampage 10 Edition
> 6850K (bought in SilliconLotery 4.4GHz @ 1.375 or less)
> 32 GB Trident Z 3200MHz @ 14 CL
> 2xTitanX Pascal
> All watercooled EK waterblocks.
> 
> Currently I do have this in AI Suite (and in BIOS):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know if is there any value you see out of the table (too high or too low)
> 
> I am not pretty sure about this fields (which values are safe I mean ranges):
> 
> CPU Cache Voltage
> CPU System Agent
> CPU Input Voltage


Your voltages seem alright, although you may be able to better fine-tune them. CPU power phase control, you can set it to Optimized in the bios, and current capability at 100% is fine as well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Is it worth it to overclock CPU Cache Ratio?


Not really. There isn't any real world benefits to having high cache clocks for most commonly used applications. If you're able to get cache up while NOT sacrificing core speed and temperatures, it definitely doesn't hurt.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Is there anything related to USB not working properly sometimes?


What exactly is going on with the USB? It seems that the x99 chipset is a bit finicky with certain USB storage devices. But other than that, other USB devices such as mice, keyboard, etc should have no problems. Make sure you install the latest ASMEDIA usb drivers from the website.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Which test and how long will you run it to feel that there is a perfectly stable OC?
> I am using:
> Realbench
> OCCT
> X264 Stability test
> XTU


I run OCCT first as it seems to be the fastest in giving errors. Once I find a potentially stable config, I run OCCT for 8 hours, and then run RB for 8 hours.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, there's one in AID64 (memory and cache). Cinebench R15 is very cache dependent, as are several memory-intensive benchmarks and/or apps.
> *In the Tweakers Bios sub menu, look for PLL and VCC (i think) change PLL to 1 (+25mV) and VCC to 4 (+4mV) then try increasing cache one multiplier at a time while increasing Vcache up to your chosen limit.*
> That's a really low VCCIN... not sure that is actually "healthy".


Ah thanks for the reminder. I was wondering why my system wasn't as stable as it used to on previous bios. Totally forgot about those settings.

I personally use 1 and 3 as I don't push my cache as high as you guys. Only at a measly 3500mhz with <1.2V


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> System Agent can affect USB devices. It can bring instability if set too high, or too low.


Which values do you consider high or low with System Agent?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Your voltages seem alright, although you may be able to better fine-tune them. CPU power phase control, you can set it to Optimized in the bios, and current capability at 100% is fine as well.
> Not really. There isn't any real world benefits to having high cache clocks for most commonly used applications. If you're able to get cache up while NOT sacrificing core speed and temperatures, it definitely doesn't hurt.
> What exactly is going on with the USB? It seems that the x99 chipset is a bit finicky with certain USB storage devices. But other than that, other USB devices such as mice, keyboard, etc should have no problems. Make sure you install the latest ASMEDIA usb drivers from the website.
> I run OCCT first as it seems to be the fastest in giving errors. Once I find a potentially stable config, I run OCCT for 8 hours, and then run RB for 8 hours.


Which temps do you consider OK for this CPU under OCCT's stress test?

Could you give some ranges for (starting point and highest value you would use)

CPU Cache Voltage
CPU System Agent
CPU Input Voltage

Regarding USB, I have plenty of them (almost all USB connected) (Wheel, pedals, shifter, Oculus Rift, Oculus Tracker Mouse, Keyboard) and yesterday testing the OC while playing the wheel just stopped working without a reason. Unplugged/plugged it again and go back working again. Any Idea? System Agent voltage may be causing this?

Thank you very much guys


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Which values do you consider high or low with System Agent?
> Which temps do you consider OK for this CPU under OCCT's stress test?
> 
> Could you give some ranges for (starting point and highest value you would use)
> 
> CPU Cache Voltage
> CPU System Agent
> CPU Input Voltage
> 
> Regarding USB, I have plenty of them (almost all USB connected) (Wheel, pedals, shifter, Oculus Rift, Oculus Tracker Mouse, Keyboard) and yesterday testing the OC while playing the wheel just stopped working without a reason. Unplugged/plugged it again and go back working again. Any Idea? System Agent voltage may be causing this?
> 
> Thank you very much guys


System agent I would stay above 1.0 and below 1.2, but depending on ram speed, density, and your CPU's IMC, it may need up to 1.3 (but not likely).
CPU Package temp below 80 at full load I would consider ideal.

Cache I would stay within the range of 1.1v ~ 1.3v
System agent I would stay within the range of 1.0v ~ 1.2v
CPU input voltage I would stay within the range of 1.8v ~ 1.95v ( at least 0.45 more than the CPU core voltage should help with stability )

If you haven't read it yet, take a read.
https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> After an exhaustive stability testing run, I've finally reached the lowest stable voltages for my 6850K running on Rampage V Edition 10.
> 
> 
> 44X Multiplier
> 37X Cache
> 1.8V CPU input voltage
> 1.345V Adaptive CPU
> +0.15 Cache Voltage Offset (effectively 1.169v via software readings)
> +0.001 System Agent Offset - lowest I can go without giving negative offset, which I can but don't feel the need to. (effectively 0.984v via software)
> DDR4 2800 XMP at 14-16-16-36-1T (1.35v)
> VCCIO CPU at 1.05v
> OCCT 10 hour stable (max core temp: 80), Realbench 8 hour stable (max core temp: 78).


Nice !
As you maybe know, if you are 10 Hours OCCT stable, That is golden stability !
It is useless to Run Realbench, as OCCT is tougher to pass.
You should do HCI memtest overnight to confirm RAM stability in addition to OCCT


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Nice !
> As you maybe know, if you are 10 Hours OCCT stable, That is golden stability !
> It is useless to Run Realbench, as OCCT is tougher to pass.
> You should do HCI memtest overnight to confirm RAM stability in addition to OCCT


I like to be certain. And since I run them while I sleep, it's not a big deal, plus it keeps my room nice and warm.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CerN*
> 
> 6850k
> Rampage V 10
> 
> In an interesting turn of events, it seems I have finally reached stability at 4,4ghz. It required me to severely lower my cache ratio for some reason.
> I used to run it at 3,7ghz.
> 
> Currently tested 1 hour realbench, 30 minutes handbrake, and 100% on HCI memtest with cache set to 3,1ghz.
> 
> I can be happy with cache below 3,7, as I know it doesn't matter much, but I would be interested to at least get it up to 3,5ghz. Any tricks to push cache, without affecting vcore/core clock stability?
> 
> EDIT: Cache at 3,5ghz with 1,35 cache voltage crashes instantly when stressing. 3,4ghz at 1,34v seems to have potential. Why is my cache not going higher than this?
> 
> *Has anyone ever published benchmarks on cache clocks?*


I think cache frequency doesn't really benefit in real world scenario especially if you're a gamer.
Please take a look at this post. (There's a section for cache).
http://www.overclock.net/t/1570313/skylake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/0_20#post_24319195
It seems generally speaking, 0.7GHz overclock in cache frequency = 0.05GHz overclock in core frequency.
I'd say overclocking cache provides negligible improvement in performance.

Disable XMP.
Run cache at stock frequency.
Try to find an absolute stable core frequency. (I'd say start with 4.3GHz and build from there)
Enable XMP (or manually config timings)
Run GSAT and/or MemTest.
If core and memory are stable, you can start working on cache overclock. However, leaving cache at stock may not be a bad idea.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I think cache frequency doesn't really benefit in real world scenario especially if you're a gamer.
> Please take a look at this post. (There's a section for cache).
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1570313/skylake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/0_20#post_24319195
> It seems generally speaking, 0.7GHz overclock in cache frequency = 0.05GHz overclock in core frequency.
> I'd say overclocking cache provides negligible improvement in performance.
> 
> Disable XMP.
> Run cache at stock frequency.
> Try to find an absolute stable core frequency. (I'd say start with 4.3GHz and build from there)
> Enable XMP (or manually config timings)
> Run GSAT and/or MemTest.
> If core and memory are stable, you can start working on cache overclock. However, leaving cache at stock may not be a bad idea.


darkwizzie's OP is really good, but cache on a 4 core dual channel system is not the same as on an 8 or 10 core quad channel system. Does cache affect game performance? Not really since most games only run a few cores anyway and use little ram. It does affect other, more ram and core-count intensive uses.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Not really since most games only run a few cores anyway and use little ram.


6 GB RAM.

The RAM usage started to rise when installed base switched to x64, and it increased when consoles used 8 GB.


----------



## Kimir

They use graphic card ram mostly, not the system ram that much tho.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> 6 GB RAM.
> 
> The RAM usage started to rise when installed base switched to x64, and it increased when consoles used 8 GB.


ninja'd


----------



## X3NEIZE

So I can go 4.2Ghz @ 1.20V on my system and under max load and benchmarks I top at 68C on the hottest core (under 60 for the coolest one) and under heavy gaming I'm in the 40's

4.3Ghz I need 1.30V, Temperatures are in the low 70's for benchmarking and mid 50's for gaming
4.4Ghz I need 1.35V Temperatures are hitting 80c on benchmarking and 62-72c for gaming
4.5Ghz I need 1.40V...Temperatures are all in the 80's during benchmarking and all within 70's while gaming

I'm thinking 4.2Ghz is a perfect everyday clocks.


----------



## Fidelity21

Those are some good overclocking numbers.

I'm at:

4.2ghz I need 1.298v and I'm under 70C with XTU
4.3ghz I need 1.310v and I'm 72C max with XTU
4.4ghz I haven't been able to get stable at 1.350v and I haven't tried going higher yet as I want to keep temperatures under 80C


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> They use graphic card ram mostly, not the system ram that much tho.


http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/617329150697906545/
There you have some educational reading.

Considering I wrote games for fun without licencing engines (and I should get disability papers first I'd have money for art assets from disability rent and could release them as freeware), or using freely available, I kinda have experience with RAM and games.

Games typically need random access into large sizes like 2 GB, and even when there would be possibility to group processed stuff close, to ensure it would be kept in cache, nobody would bother to use this optimization for not graphic related computation.

Another RAM hog is CIV V. Dying light. Witcher 3. Basically if you want to play games, don't plan anything less than 8GB. And considering I currently use 9.6GB only for Chrome when you want to play games and keep your Chrome tabs open...


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> gotta do Realbench 8hrs. I can pass 24hr+ on OCCT and Realbench will crap out within 2-4.....IF you want a 24/7 stable system
> 
> After Realbench 8hrs, do a HWBOT x265


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Yes, and then at least 24 hours of AIDA.
> 
> (Not to be taken seriously)


As per both your advice, after running OCCT successfully for 7 hours i ran my cpu clocked on 4.2ghz at 1.250V, i ran realbench with memory set upto 32GB it ran perrfectly for 7 hours then crashed with some error related to memory, it was the same with 1.275V and 1.300V ... i am so confused should i just select 4gb memory and then run rather than selecting all my 32gb ? because with my AIO cooler i should not set voltage more than 1.300V as the max temp my cpu reached with 1.300V volt were 78C on realbench


----------



## Silent Scone

I wasn't being serious when I suggested running AIDA for that long lol. The part in brackets outlines that quite well.

Also you should run RB with the amount of system memory present.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/617329150697906545/
> There you have some educational reading.
> Considering I wrote games for fun without licencing engines (and I should get disability papers first I'd have money for art assets from disability rent and could release them as freeware), or using freely available, I kinda have experience with RAM and games.
> Games typically need random access into large sizes like 2 GB, and even when there would be possibility to group processed stuff close, to ensure it would be kept in cache, nobody would bother to use this optimization for not graphic related computation.
> 
> Another RAM hog is CIV V. Dying light. Witcher 3. Basically if you want to play games, don't plan anything less than 8GB. And considering I currently use 9.6GB only for Chrome when you want to play games and keep your Chrome tabs open...


So I guess we can blame you for the poor coding in games?








yup - the majority of games do not use much system ram (especially ram bandwidth). even CiV, W3 doesn't use much ram. 8GB installed ram is well below what 99% of PC gaming rigs have installed. And those games that do use a significant amount, must not be the ones folks claiming cache clock has no impact use I guess.
That said, if ram amount matters, one would think ram and cache frequency must also


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> As per both your advice, after running OCCT successfully for 7 hours i ran my cpu clocked on 4.2ghz at 1.250V, i ran realbench with memory set upto 32GB it ran perrfectly for 7 hours then crashed with some error related to memory, it was the same with 1.275V and 1.300V ... i am so confused should i just select 4gb memory and then run rather than selecting all my 32gb ? because with my AIO cooler i should not set voltage more than 1.300V as the max temp my cpu reached with 1.300V volt were 78C on realbench


Keep tuning

when it crashed, did it BSOD? what was the code?


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Keep tuning
> 
> when it crashed, did it BSOD? what was the code?


no there were no BSOD in any of the crashes only real bench benchmark stopped itself saying there was some instability due to some memory issue


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> no there were no BSOD in any of the crashes only real bench benchmark stopped itself saying there was some instability due to some memory issue


never seen that part of message, it usually just say "Instability Detected, Halting Test" or something like that. But good luck anyway!


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> no there were no BSOD in any of the crashes only real bench benchmark stopped itself saying there was some instability due to some memory issue


Did you check event viewer for any warnings or errors?


----------



## Emmanuel

New owner of a 6850K here. Here's my interesting journey to 4.3GHz stable. I use Prime95 27.9 with AVX, custom settings with full FFT range and 90% memory.
1.29v error after 13 minutes
1.31v error after 48 minutes
1.33v error after 1 hour and 6 minutes
1.35v error after 24 hours and 24 minutes, after Prime95 went through all FFTs and started running 8K again

So now I'm at 1.355v and I'm expecting that to be rock stable.

Now on to the memory, currently running with the 3200Mhz XMP setting, 1.35v (just realized my RAM voltage and vCore are the same lol) and 100MHz strap. My VCCIO is at 1.1v and VCCSA at +200mV results in 0x50 BSODs, and at +300mV I'm currently an hour and half stable in Prime95. What voltage are you guys running your VCCSA and VCCIO at?


----------



## CerN

Ok, so I ended up with two options:

I could set cache to 3.1, possibly 3.2. Vcore at 1.415, and run 4.4ghz core clock.
Or I could go 4.3ghz, and run cache at 3.7, with much prettier voltages.

Then I found a third alternative, a compromise. I set ratio to 43, but overclocked BCLK slightly.
Now I am stable at 4.35ghz, with cache at 3.65, vcore at 1.39. Happy with this solution. Might try and push BCLK slightly higher down the road.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Did you check event viewer for any warnings or errors?


yes all errors even in event viewers were kernel power 41


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Nice !
> As you maybe know, if you are 10 Hours OCCT stable, That is golden stability !
> It is useless to Run Realbench, as OCCT is tougher to pass.
> You should do HCI memtest overnight to confirm RAM stability in addition to OCCT


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> In the Tweakers Bios sub menu, look for PLL and VCC (i think) change PLL to 1 (+25mV) and VCC to 4 (+4mV) then try increasing cache one multiplier at a time while increasing Vcache up to your chosen limit.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> The only detail I found so far on the VCCU offset is from (http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=157669).
> I think you should just leave it where it's at. Don't think there's much need to increase it. Though you can definitely try it out and see if it helps as each chip will react differently to these settings. My chip doesn't react at all in terms of overclockability to the PLL and VCCU offset settings, so I just leave them at default.


I stand corrected on the tweaker paradise settings. Initially I thought the PLL and VCCU offsets didn't affect my overclock in any way, but after full OCCT and RB testing with success, I ran HCI memtest and it crashed the computer at about 1 hour mark.

So to rule memory out, I ran Google's stress app test, and it passed. That means it was cache related. After setting the PLL to 1 (+25mv) and VCCU offset to 4 (+4mv), it passed 500% coverage of HCI memtest. Due to it being 64GBs of ram, it may take quite a lot longer than overnight for the "golden" 1000% coverage. (Took about 8-9 hours for 500% coverage =/ )

So with the CPU core out of the way, I'm focusing on further tuning the memory and cache. Currently running HCI memtest with my 2800 memory at 3000 (14-16-16-36-1T) without any bump in voltages which seems to be good so far.

I'll also be attempting to get cache to 3.8 if I can do so with minimal voltage increase just because I like even numbers (currently at 3.7)


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> In the Tweakers Bios sub menu, look for PLL and VCC (i think) change PLL to 1 (+25mV) and VCC to 4 (+4mV) then try increasing cache one multiplier at a time while increasing Vcache up to your chosen limit.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> yes all errors even in event viewers were kernel power 41


Did you try with your memory speeds relaxed?
What's your system agent voltage at?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I stand corrected on the tweaker paradise settings. Initially I thought the PLL and VCCU offsets didn't affect my overclock in any way, but after full OCCT and RB testing with success, I ran HCI memtest and it crashed the computer at about 1 hour mark.
> 
> So to rule memory out, I ran Google's stress app test, and it passed. That means it was cache related. After setting the PLL to 1 (+25mv) and VCCU offset to 4 (+4mv), it passed 500% coverage of HCI memtest. Due to it being 64GBs of ram, it may take quite a lot longer than overnight for the "golden" 1000% coverage. (Took about 8-9 hours for 500% coverage =/ )
> 
> So with the CPU core out of the way, I'm focusing on further tuning the memory and cache. Currently running HCI memtest with my 2800 memory at 3000 (14-16-16-36-1T) without any bump in voltages which seems to be good so far.
> 
> I'll also be attempting to get cache to 3.8 if I can do so with minimal voltage increase just because I like even numbers (currently at 3.7)


These are two parameters that can help with cache and ram once you start dialing things up.. and dialing it in.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> These are two parameters that can help with cache and ram once you start dialing things up.. and dialing it in.


Yeah I see that now. Wish there were some more information as to how they affect the cache and ram overclocks so I can use that as a point of reference.


----------



## Emmanuel

Any tips on which voltage to adjust other than cache voltage to overclock the cache? At 1.3v, i can't boot at 38x, 0x124 BSOD at 37x and so far Prime95 stable at 36x. I have PLL voltage and VCCU that i haven't touched yet.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emmanuel*
> 
> Any tips on which voltage to adjust other than cache voltage to overclock the cache? At 1.3v, i can't boot at 38x, 0x124 BSOD at 37x and so far Prime95 stable at 36x. I have PLL voltage and VCCU that i haven't touched yet.


p95 is not a good test of the cache unless you use only large ffts (i think). use AID64 cache stress test.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I like to be certain. And since I run them while I sleep, it's not a big deal, plus it keeps my room nice and warm.


And noisy maybe


----------



## Emmanuel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> p95 is not a good test of the cache unless you use only large ffts (i think). use AID64 cache stress test.


I've never had any surprises after passing Prime95 stable for 24 hours (with the appropriate custom test settings) so I still consider it a good indicator of stability. If I were to guess I'd think small FFTs would be a better test of the cache considering it can actually fit in it, anything bigger hits the RAM instead. There is very little info on VCCU, are people tweaking that for Uncore overclocks? And if so what Uncore/Cache frequencies are people hitting?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emmanuel*
> 
> I've never had any surprises after passing Prime95 stable for 24 hours (with the appropriate custom test settings) so I still consider it a good indicator of stability. If I were to guess I'd think small FFTs would be a better test of the cache considering it can actually fit in it, anything bigger hits the RAM instead. There is very little info on VCCU, are people tweaking that for Uncore overclocks? And if so what Uncore/Cache frequencies are people hitting?


X99 cache and ram are very coupled. Small FFTs only really use the floating point unit. It's just not good for x99 in many ways.
Yeah, when cache is not a separated architecture, ya just worry about vcore. Have at it with p95. But either way, keep an eye on current draw.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Would expect 4.4 to scale a little better, mines quicker at 4.2 unless I'm missing something glaringly obvious


It's running at 4.2 on AVX2 as he wrote, so there is that. Because yes, that test use AVX2 unless you manually change the instructions on those CPUs.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> It's running at 4.2 on AVX2 as he wrote, so there is that. Because yes, that test use AVX2 unless you manually change the instructions on those CPUs.


Yes, so I missed something glaringly obvious. Although I still don't understand why people are setting AVX2 offsets.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Yes, so I missed something glaringly obvious. Although I still don't understand why people are setting AVX2 offsets.


It has its use I presume. Certainly to reduce the heat more than anything, especially with 10 cores. But what do I know, I don't have one.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> It has its use I presume. Certainly to reduce the heat more than anything, especially with 10 cores. But what do I know, I don't have one.


Only it doesn't really, because the same adaptive voltage is applied to both ratios. Also, neither will I for much longer. Selling it and taking things down a notch lol. I don't use the 10 core anywhere near it's potential.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Although I still don't understand why people are setting AVX2 offsets.


So one can run full speed in non-AVX tasks, and still be able to run any AVX2 app they care to while keeping current demands in check.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Only it doesn't really, because the same adaptive voltage is applied to both ratios.


Power draw/heat production is linear with current, which is itself linear or better with clock speed. If an AVX2 load gets to borderline temps, an offset can rein things in.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> So one can run full speed in non-AVX tasks, and still be able to run any AVX2 app they care to while keeping current demands in check.
> Power draw/heat production is linear with current, which is itself linear or better with clock speed. If an AVX2 load gets to borderline temps, an offset can rein things in.


From an armchair point of view. But where we are applying it here the difference will be negligible. For the purposes you're talking about is exactly why the thermal control tool was made in the first place.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Yes, so I missed something glaringly obvious. Although I still don't understand why people are setting AVX2 offsets.


as said, basically to have a higher light load clock... eg, find the settings that are stable for the AVX load you use, then increase multi until light loads either fail or loose performance, then set the offset to drop back to the AVX stable multi. Easy, and it's a bios thing. If you use the ATCT 24/7 then there's no reason to use the AVX setting, but it's also an OS thing controlling voltage and multipliers. No problem with that - I use both depending on the circumstances - like when setting the core to 46 or higher


----------



## Blameless

If I had an AVX offset on my Haswell-E parts, I'd certainly be using it. I can go up a least two CPU multipliers without touching anything else, at all, and be completely fine in any non-AVX load. It would be a free, if situational, performance boost if I had that offset.

Indeed, that AVX offset is probably the only feature, in my mind, that makes BW-E worthwhile over HW-E, unless you need 10 cores. The better memory controller is nice, and TSX may eventually be of some use, but the offset is the most tangible and immediately useful feature that's not present in the older (and usually cheaper) parts.


----------



## mbze430

I ❤ AVX offset


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If I had an AVX offset on my Haswell-E parts, I'd certainly be using it. I can go up a least two CPU multipliers without touching anything else, at all, and be completely fine in any non-AVX load. It would be a free, if situational, performance boost if I had that offset.
> 
> Indeed, that AVX offset is probably the only feature, in my mind, that makes BW-E worthwhile over HW-E, unless you need 10 cores. The better memory controller is nice, and TSX may eventually be of some use, but the offset is the most tangible and immediately useful feature that's not present in the older (and usually cheaper) parts.


What's stopping you using the TCT? Are you not using an ASUS board I take it?


----------



## djgar

8x no pmode @ 4600 / 3800, DDR4-3400 ...


----------



## mbze430

finally got time to try out the hwbot x265 2.0


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Only it doesn't really, because the same adaptive voltage is applied to both ratios. Also, neither will I for much longer. Selling it and taking things down a notch lol. I don't use the 10 core anywhere near it's potential.


Not for me at least. It seems my chip will drop adaptive voltage bins based on pre programmed VID when in AVX offset mode like I'd expect. Heck my temps are higher when running full tilt @ 4.4 than AVX2 with X265

Hence why in my post I mentioned voltages in AVX2 offset. Though I have not confirmed with DMM.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Not for me at least. It seems my chip will drop adaptive voltage bins based on pre programmed VID when in AVX offset mode like I'd expect. Heck my temps are higher when running full tilt @ 4.4 than AVX2 with X265
> 
> Hence why in my post I mentioned voltages in AVX2 offset. Though I have not confirmed with DMM.


Whatever you set with adaptive will be applied to both workloads. The reason I don't understand why people are using it, is because the TCT allows you to set a target and offset accordingly giving you actual control of the applied voltages.

It just makes a whole lot of sense rather than using the same voltages for both light and heavy workloads.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Whatever you set with adaptive will be applied to both workloads. The reason I don't understand why people are using it, is because the TCT allows you to set a target and offset accordingly giving you actual control of the applied voltages.
> 
> It just makes a whole lot of sense rather than using the same voltages for both light and heavy workloads.


yeah, sure - that's why there are two clock speeds.
the set voltage is determined by the high current AVX load and multiplier, and we know that this usually results in a 1-2 multi lower frequency than a light or 1 core load. Sooo,yes, the one voltage covers both. As you know, one method is instruction set driven, the other is thermally driven. However, the ATCT will let you set a much higher clock than otherwise possible.. until the cooling can;t handle it. Seems to me that's what it was designed for. A software thermal throttling in effect. ATCT works great - it just a different approach.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If I had an AVX offset on my Haswell-E parts, I'd certainly be using it. I can go up a least two CPU multipliers without touching anything else, at all, and be completely fine in any non-AVX load. It would be a free, if situational, performance boost if I had that offset.
> 
> Indeed, that AVX offset is probably the only feature, in my mind, that makes BW-E worthwhile over HW-E, unless you need 10 cores. The better memory controller is nice, and TSX may eventually be of some use, but the offset is the most tangible and immediately useful feature that's not present in the older (and usually cheaper) parts.


Per Core overclocking can accomplish very similar results with a Haswell-E chip. I run a per core overclock for my daily OC and it's pretty great.

My 5960x is configured as follows:

4 or less cores at 4.9 GHz
5 or less cores at 4.8 GHz
6 or less cores at 4.7 GHz
8 or less cores at 4.6 GHz

With that said, for daily use tasks such as gaming, browsing or whatever falls in the generally single-threaded realm, my CPU is running at 4.9 GHz. As soon as I run something that calls upon all 8 cores, clock speed drops automatically to 4.6 GHz. Using this type of OC is really neat when you run Cinebench R15 in both single and multi-thread tests.

Using this configuration, I average mid 190's cb with an occasional 196 to 198 single-threaded, which is pretty good for a HWE chip, without losing any of my CPU's multi-threaded score.

When the load is light, as in single-threaded applications, it's fine to run the higher voltages that are required for the higher low core count clock speeds. As core count utilization / load rises (say AVX), multiplier / voltage drops in same manner as the Asus TCT. The only difference is that it does so base on core utilization vice temperature. I personally prefer this solution for daily use as it's occurring at the UEFI / BIOS level.

I still use Asus TCT, but I found that under certain high transition load conditions the software based TCT application can hang resulting in the multiplier/voltage not dropping fast enough.


----------



## djgar

One factor could be that from a configuration perspective the AVX offset requires less thinking / work


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What's stopping you using the TCT? Are you not using an ASUS board I take it?


I don't have any ASUS X99 boards and I'm probably going to convert my ASRock X99 OC Forumula setup to an ESXi or Xen hypervisor and run all my OSes as hardware VMs off that, so no OC that depends on software will work anyway.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Per Core overclocking can accomplish very similar results with a Haswell-E chip. I run a per core overclock for my daily OC and it's pretty great.


I've dabbled with percore multipliers, but lightly threaded loads that are AVX2 heavy (admittedly a rare occurance) can still cause issues, so I'd prefer the offset. Might go back to it later on my 5820K when my new primary system is running the way I want it.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, sure - that's why there are two clock speeds.
> the set voltage is determined by the high current AVX load and multiplier, and we know that this usually results in a 1-2 multi lower frequency than a light or 1 core load. Sooo,yes, the one voltage covers both. As you know, one method is instruction set driven, the other is thermally driven. However, the ATCT will let you set a much higher clock than otherwise possible.. until the cooling can;t handle it. Seems to me that's what it was designed for. A software thermal throttling in effect. ATCT works great - it just a different approach.


You also don't have to worry about the applied voltage being sufficient for both workloads with the different approach


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I've dabbled with percore multipliers, but lightly threaded loads that are AVX2 heavy (admittedly a rare occurance) can still cause issues, so I'd prefer the offset.


Out of general curiosity, what are some example of lightly threaded AVX2 loads? I'd like to see if my OC is up to the task.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Out of general curiosity, what are some example of lightly threaded AVX2 loads? I'd like to see if my OC is up to the task.


y-cruncher perhaps, if you limit the amount of thread. Not sure tho, never tried it myself.


----------



## estring

I bought a 6800k and I'm not disappointed so far but it's only day 2 so we'll see


----------



## pillowsack

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *estring*
> 
> I bought a 6800k and I'm not disappointed so far but it's only day 2 so we'll see


You overclock it any?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Out of general curiosity, what are some example of lightly threaded AVX2 loads? I'd like to see if my OC is up to the task.


Only apps I personally use that are both lightly threaded and AVX2 are console emulators. Recent builds of PCSX2 and Dolphin can take advantage of AVX2 and are still limited to 1-2 threads for the bulk of their work. For the absolute best compression ratios for archival video encodes, I would also use a single thread, but in that case I'd also be transcoding several videos simultaneously. I'm sure there are other examples, but most of the other single threaded apps I use are too old to support newer instruction sets.

What I'm most concerned about are VMs where I've only assigned a few logical cores that may need to run AVX2 apps on occasion. Even though the apps themselves are multi-threaded, the VM may still be operating entirely on one core.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Whatever you set with adaptive will be applied to both workloads. The reason I don't understand why people are using it, is because the TCT allows you to set a target and offset accordingly giving you actual control of the applied voltages.
> 
> It just makes a whole lot of sense rather than using the same voltages for both light and heavy workloads.


Not for me no. Will try and see if I can confirm with DMM this weekend. HWInfo reports VID directly from CPU, and so far I've seen it to be very accurate.

1.328V set for 44x, drops it down to 1.28-1.30V depending on which cores when in AVX2 with -2 multi.

My chip's lowest VID @ 4.2-4.4 is also 1.285V on some cores, and 1.255 on other cores. soo yeah..


----------



## guttheslayer

Hi, new to broadwell and haswell here, currently i am trying to overclock my new broadwell e 6800k but i couldnt get it stable at 4.3 with less than 1.4v vcore.

I only mess with vcore so far. Any idea which other voltage can i tweak to get better result?


----------



## estring

It was overclocked by the build team at scan.co.uk as a overclocked bundle. They set it to run at 4.25Ghz. I'm stuck at this now because of warranty but tbh its fast and stable. The system is currently air cooled so 4.25 is not too bad so i'm told. Day 4 of having it and I'm happy.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Not for me no. Will try and see if I can confirm with DMM this weekend. HWInfo reports VID directly from CPU, and so far I've seen it to be very accurate.
> 
> 1.328V set for 44x, drops it down to 1.28-1.30V depending on which cores when in AVX2 with -2 multi.
> 
> My chip's lowest VID @ 4.2-4.4 is also 1.285V on some cores, and 1.255 on other cores. soo yeah..


You're not using it properly, that's the issue. The offset is designed to be used so that both the frequency and voltage drop accordingly. This is not what you are seeing. Why bother with that, when you can target a closer voltage manually. For instance with heavy AVX2 workloads where current can be damning, you're not going to make a blind bit of difference by using the offset incorrectly, not nearly enough to bother.

If the only reasoning is that the system is not stable at the higher multiplier, then if not running things such as Prime - it makes more sense to hone in stability with the higher multiplier in the first place.


----------



## guttheslayer

Guys I am using a AIO Corsair H100i V2 and my 6800K reaches as high as 94 deg C while running prime95 with 1.3V (4.2GHz)

Temps are recorded using Realtemp

Is that normal?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Guys I am using a AIO Corsair H100i V2 and my 6800K reaches as high as 94 deg C while running prime95 with 1.3V (4.2GHz)
> 
> Temps are recorded using Realtemp
> 
> Is that normal?


Hello

Yes it is. When you use utilities to test for stability instead of cooling capacity the temps will be lower.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Yes it is. When you use utilities to test for stability instead of cooling capacity the temps will be lower.


Hmmm what does that mean? I only use the "Blend" function for Prime95, is there any other setting I should change?

Also I am worried too as my temp went up to 100 Deg C when I was stress testing P95 at 1.35V, I hope that wont damage my CPU permanently too.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Hmmm what does that mean? I only use the "Blend" function for Prime95, is there any other setting I should change?
> 
> Also I am worried too as my temp went up to 100 Deg C when I was stress testing P95 at 1.35V, I hope that wont damage my CPU permanently too.


You are using too much voltage especially when running P95. Either lower voltage / multi , upgrade your cooling or use something else to test stability.

Real bench, aida64 and HCI memtest are great utility's for stability testing on this platform.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> You are using too much voltage especially when running P95. Either lower voltage / multi , upgrade your cooling or use something else to test stability.
> 
> Real bench, aida64 and HCI memtest are great utility's for stability testing on this platform.


You mean like Cinebench?

That 100 deg only occur at 1.35V when I am trying to get 4.3GHz stable. Cooling wise I am using H100i already, to upgrade only left with open loop which I am trying to avoid. In the mean time I am also getting Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut.

For 4.2GHz I was able to test it 10 hrs stable with P95 using Auto mode (1.3V)


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> You mean like Cinebench?
> 
> That 100 deg only occur at 1.35V when I am trying to get 4.3GHz stable. Cooling wise I am using H100i already, to upgrade only left with open loop which I am trying to avoid. In the mean time I am also getting Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut.
> 
> For 4.2GHz I was able to test it 10 hrs stable with P95 using Auto mode (1.3V)


Sure u can put cinebench in there along with every other bench mark out there you plan on running.

But honestly some really good benchmark's are on hwbot. x265 2.0 , y-cruncher and krieg math cpu bench mark are all pretty good at testing stability..


----------



## Seus

Hello, just wanted to know what stress test should I be running to just test my CPU overclock? I was running realbench for about 30m using 4gb ram. I also read about OCCT so I tried to run that, but got an error which didn't spit out any kind of message a few mins.

My setup is
I7 6800k
X99 Asus strix
Corsair H115i
Gskillz 3200 c16 4x8gb (haven't loaded xmp or manual input the frequency)

Right now overclocked at 4.3ghz and 1.275v adaptive voltage. It seemed to do well in realbench, I stopped it at 30 mins. Temps in real bench were max 64c.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> You're not using it properly, that's the issue. The offset is designed to be used so that both the frequency and voltage drop accordingly. This is not what you are seeing. Why bother with that, when you can target a closer voltage manually. For instance with heavy AVX2 workloads where current can be damning, you're not going to make a blind bit of difference by using the offset incorrectly, not nearly enough to bother.
> 
> If the only reasoning is that the system is not stable at the higher multiplier, then if not running things such as Prime - it makes more sense to hone in stability with the higher multiplier in the first place.


!?!?!?!?!?

Yes it's true that I'm not stable at 4.4 with 1.328V on AVX2, but I also don't feel it's sane to raise the voltage just to get 4.4 on AVX2 workloads. When in all other workloads I'm perfectly stable. Realbench can pass 4+ hours at my 4.4 settings as RB does not induce the AVX2 instruction set.

The offset is lowering frequency and voltage proportionally, my chip is just has a wide variation in VID between the cores even at stock boost clocks.

Hence it runs at 4.2 ( -2 offset ) maybe I'm not explaining clearly or one has had too much to drink.

But it seems to work here, and I've not had any instability over the last few months.

Please elaborate on how I'm not using the offset properly.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> !?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Yes it's true that I'm not stable at 4.4 with 1.328V on AVX2, but I also don't feel it's sane to raise the voltage just to get 4.4 on AVX2 workloads. When in all other workloads I'm perfectly stable. Realbench can pass 4+ hours at my 4.4 settings as RB does not induce the AVX2 instruction set.
> 
> The offset is lowering frequency and voltage proportionally, my chip is just has a wide variation in VID between the cores even at stock boost clocks.
> 
> Hence it runs at 4.2 ( -2 offset ) maybe I'm not explaining clearly or one has had too much to drink.
> 
> But it seems to work here, and I've not had any instability over the last few months.
> 
> Please elaborate on how I'm not using the offset properly.


Hi for your 1.328V Vcore which mode did you use? Offset, Manual, Adaptive or Auto mode?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Sure u can put cinebench in there along with every other bench mark out there you plan on running.
> 
> But honestly some really good benchmark's are on hwbot. x265 2.0 , y-cruncher and krieg math cpu bench mark are all pretty good at testing stability..


Btw you recommend those stress test utility above is it due to the fact P95 is too brutal and generate way more heat than it necessary should?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Btw you recommend those stress test utility above is it due to the fact P95 is too brutal and generate way more heat than it necessary should?


yeah


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> yeah


Currently I am using IBT to handle a short temp stability. I think managed to settle at 1.33V at 4.3GHz (4.2GHz for AVX). I also revert back to old P95 with Version 27.9 to avoid the high temp issue.

I cant get to AVX stable at 4.3GHz no matter what I do.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Currently I am using IBT to handle a short temp stability. I think managed to settle at 1.33V at 4.3GHz (4.2GHz for AVX). I also revert back to old P95 with Version 27.9 to avoid the high temp issue.
> 
> I cant get to AVX stable at 4.3GHz no matter what I do.


IMO it's best just to throttle the AVX multiplier back so much you can get a stable OC at reasonable temps. I am throttling the AVX multiplier all the way to 3.8 GHz on my 6950X and my daily clocks are 4.2 GHz. When running AVX/AVX2 loads, temps stays in the 70s on cores. I've even went back to Prime95 26.6 to test my "daily" clocks. LinX AVX2 stress test to check my AVX2 stability on lower multiplier. However, for general stress testing I've used RealBench, even though that software itself doesn't come without some hiccups..







Just my opinion.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> IMO it's best just to throttle the AVX multiplier back so much you can get a stable OC at reasonable temps. I am throttling the AVX multiplier all the way to 3.8 GHz on my 6950X and my daily clocks are 4.2 GHz. When running AVX/AVX2 loads, temps stays in the 70s on cores. I've even went back to Prime95 26.6 to test my "daily" clocks. LinX AVX2 stress test to check my AVX2 stability on lower multiplier. However, for general stress testing I've used RealBench, even though that software itself doesn't come without some hiccups..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just my opinion.


AVX are useless for gaming right? So even if I throttle AVX down to stock clock it wouldnt impact on gaming performance?

Anyway what is ur displayed Vcore at 4.2GHz without AVX?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> !?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Yes it's true that I'm not stable at 4.4 with 1.328V on AVX2, but I also don't feel it's sane to raise the voltage just to get 4.4 on AVX2 workloads. When in all other workloads I'm perfectly stable. Realbench can pass 4+ hours at my 4.4 settings as RB does not induce the AVX2 instruction set.
> 
> The offset is lowering frequency and voltage proportionally, my chip is just has a wide variation in VID between the cores even at stock boost clocks.
> 
> Hence it runs at 4.2 ( -2 offset ) maybe I'm not explaining clearly or one has had too much to drink.
> 
> But it seems to work here, and I've not had any instability over the last few months.
> 
> Please elaborate on how I'm not using the offset properly.


AVX offset is designed to be used in conjunction with auto voltage, which I'm fairly confident you're not using. Once an adaptive voltage is applied it's set for both target multipliers. That is the dissension, and the reason the TCT was made. Would be interested to see what actual voltages are being applied under the test in question (HWBOT Bench)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Currently I am using IBT to handle a short temp stability. *I think managed to settle at 1.33V at 4.3GHz (4.2GHz for AVX)*. I also revert back to old P95 with Version 27.9 to avoid the high temp issue.
> I cant get to AVX stable at 4.3GHz no matter what I do.


pretty typical lower oC when using stability tests like p95. if you use realbench, HCI and x265, you'd have an OC 1-2 multis higher. But if you have AVX work loads you can use the ATCT or AVX offset.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> AVX offset is designed to be used in conjunction with auto voltage, which I'm fairly confident you're not using. Once an adaptive voltage is applied it's set for both target multipliers. That is the dissension, and the reason the TCT was made. Would be interested to see what actual voltages are being applied under the test in question (HWBOT Bench)


It may be designed with Auto voltage in mind - not surprising since it is a stock thing from Intel - but it works fine with any method of vcore control... and yes, the thing is to find the voltage that works for AVX and non-AVX loads. Handy if there's a voltage ceiling one has.
But, ATCT does a great job of droping clocks and voltage when things get too hot - AVX or not. I think that is it's advantage.


----------



## Emmanuel

I personally don't like the idea of having a CPU that isn't stable across the board. When I install an app I don't go and check which instructions it's using and go adjust my voltage accordingly. I expect my CPU to be stable with anything that I throw at it. On top of that, if it's everything but AVX stable, it probably means it's at least slightly unstable, just highly unlikely to result in crash. I had an error in Prime95 (AVX) at 24 hours and 24 minutes lol, so I had to give it an extra 0.05v landing me at 1.355v.

Then it's a matter of choice. Enjoy a slightly faster CPU while running the risk of having a crash and potential corruption (which I dread), or run 100Mhz slower (which won't make any difference in the games I play) and be rock stable.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emmanuel*
> 
> I personally don't like the idea of having a CPU that isn't stable across the board. When I install an app I don't go and check which instructions it's using and go adjust my voltage accordingly. I expect my CPU to be stable with anything that I throw at it. On top of that, if it's everything but AVX stable, it probably means it's at least slightly unstable, just highly unlikely to result in crash. I had an error in Prime95 (AVX) at 24 hours and 24 minutes lol, so I had to give it an extra 0.05v landing me at 1.355v.
> 
> Then it's a matter of choice. Enjoy a slightly faster CPU while running the risk of having a crash and potential corruption (which I dread), or run 100Mhz slower (which won't make any difference in the games I play) and be rock stable.


That's why there is AVX offset and the ATCT.









(if you set either up right it's fully stable to anything thrown at it. it's not complex.. think it thru/. I run 4.5/4.2 with either tool))


----------



## Emmanuel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> That's why there is AVX offset and the ATCT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (if you set either up right it's fully stable to anything thrown at it. it's not complex.. think it thru)


I'm aware of the AVX offset and what it does, and it wasn't designed by Intel to help you push a higher OC. It was designed to keep the CPU within a certain power envelope. The fact that you can get away with a higher relatively stable OC as a result of this feature is more of a bonus than the reason for that feature.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emmanuel*
> 
> I'm aware of the AVX offset and what it does, a*nd it wasn't designed by Intel to help you push a higher OC*. It was designed to keep the CPU within a certain power envelope. The fact that you can get away with a higher relatively stable OC as a result of this feature is more of a bonus than the reason for that feature.


of course not.


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> AVX offset is designed to be used in conjunction with auto voltage, which I'm fairly confident you're not using. Once an adaptive voltage is applied it's set for both target multipliers. That is the dissension, and the reason the TCT was made. Would be interested to see what actual voltages are being applied under the test in question (HWBOT Bench)


Ok. I'll see if I can find my DMM, and find a way to reach the read points without stripping my system down.

I'm using adaptive, and according to the VID readings from HWInfo it is throttling down, including voltages based on what my chip seems to like on "Auto" pre programmed VID at stock turbo. Which is stable at 42 AVX.

Maybe my chip is magical, maybe the reading is wrong, or I'm delusional? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

For science right?









To re-iterate.

I'm using Adaptive voltage, auto/0 offset programmed at 1.328V for 44x multiplier across all cores. My AVX negative offset is set to -2. Which means my AVX2 multiplier is at x42.

According to HWInfo my chip runs solid at 1.328V under normal loads which is 44x multi. When dropped into AVX2 workload such as X265, the multi drops to 42 on all cores as expected.

However the VID report on HWInfo also drops down to 1.285V on some cores, and 1.30V on the cores. The cores that are at 1.30V are the "weaker" cores that gets VID limited at 1.285V as the lowest load core voltage regardless of frequency, the others seem to cap at around 1.24-1.25V at the lowest.

I'm fully stable at 44x Real Bench and daily routines @ 1.328V. X265 stable @ AVX2 42x with the voltages reported by HWInfo. Or it could be actually running at 1.328V, who knows.


----------



## Fidelity21

My system was stable after 8 hours of realbench and I've had several weeks of use without a single issue. Now, and for the 3rd time this week, my system restarts itself or hard locks requiring a hard reset. I have no idea why and the system logs don't show anything useful.

Should I be looking to increase my VCore voltage or could this be more of an issue with my VCCSA or VCCIO voltages...which are 1.05 and 1.10 respectively at 4.3ghz with 1.310v Vcore

It would be nice to have some sort of monitoring tool to log when and why an error occurred. Temps are never above 80F, and it usually happens while I'm playing a video game...the video card is not overclocked but is water cooled.


----------



## Coopiklaani

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> My system was stable after 8 hours of realbench and I've had several weeks of use without a single issue. Now, and for the 3rd time this week, my system restarts itself or hard locks requiring a hard reset. I have no idea why and the system logs don't show anything useful.
> 
> Should I be looking to increase my VCore voltage or could this be more of an issue with my VCCSA or VCCIO voltages...which are 1.05 and 1.10 respectively at 4.3ghz with 1.310v Vcore
> 
> It would be nice to have some sort of monitoring tool to log when and why an error occurred. Temps are never above 80F, and it usually happens while I'm playing a video game...the video card is not overclocked but is water cooled.


Looks like a uncore problem to me. Try default uncore frequency, 2.8GHz, see if that re-stables the system.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coopiklaani*
> 
> Looks like a uncore problem to me. Try default uncore frequency, 2.8GHz, see if that re-stables the system.


Thank you. I reset Cache Voltage to Auto, Min Auto and Max Auto which returned it to 28x. I was running 36x at 1.150v so maybe that was a problem. I'll update in a few days ... hopefully that was it.


----------



## webmi

3200 C13


@ 1T


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coopiklaani*
> 
> Looks like a uncore problem to me. Try default uncore frequency, 2.8GHz, see if that re-stables the system.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coopiklaani*
> 
> Looks like a uncore problem to me. Try default uncore frequency, 2.8GHz, see if that re-stables the system.


I came home today to find my computer locked up. Pressing number lock on the keyboard did not change the lights, which required holding down the power button for 5 seconds and restarting. So it's not an uncore problem as that was back to factory defaults. I've changed it back to 36x at a manual voltage of 1.150v and that seems to be working about the same.

Any other ideas on what could be causing the system to suddenly reboot without warning OR hard lock the system? Perhaps it's a windows issue? Just seems strange that it was working so well for weeks and now it's having problems. I can't imagine it's a problem with Vcore voltage because the system was idle when it decided to lock up. Maybe a problem with VCCSA or VCCIO voltages? (Those are 1.05v and 1.10v)


----------



## shonik09

So I've got a 6850k running on a full custom loop, with EK XE360 and black ice nemesis GTS 240 rads. Playing with my overclock, I've managed to get the chip stable at 4.5 with 1.42v, max temps reaching 75 in intel burn test. I'm worried this voltage may be too much for everyday use though, even though the temps are probably OK. Do people think running my chip with these settings could cause any serious degradation?

I'm considering going for 4.6, but will probably leave it given how high the voltage is already...


----------



## Fidelity21

Just out of curiousity, what do you have VCCSA and VCCIO set to?

Those are some amazing numbers for overclocking!







If you're worried about long term use, why not just buy the Intel Overclocking warranty for $35 and run it at the best stable overclock you can manage.


----------



## shonik09

I haven't actually touched the VCCSA or VCCIO at the moment, those are just the numbers I managed to get when using manual VCORE. Tbh I'm pretty sure I can get better temps as well by just adjusting he fan curves, as right now the curves are really conservative.

Yeah I actually bought the intel warranty just incase







So you reckon if I can get 4.6 stable at 1.5v, and the temps were below say 85, I'd still be alright?


----------



## Fidelity21

I am really impressed with your numbers. I have one of the 6850k CPU's when they first came out so maybe they've improved since then, but I'm pushing high 70C with only 4.3ghz at 1.310v. I've tried going to 1.350v for 4.4ghz but nothing stable.

As for your results, I'd be really happy if I were you. I'd also be running 4.5ghz at 1.42v and seeing if I could get the voltage down any. The CPU is still pretty new and nobody really knows the long term damage caused by higher voltage...but who cares if you have a 3 year warranty anyway! Just run whatever you can manage a stable overclock at and keep temperatures under 80C...you should be fine and I doubt the chip will fail in the next 3 years anyway.

Also, the one thing I've asked repeatedly and never gotten an answer to. What's the problem with leaving VCCSA and VCCIO voltages at Auto? Who really cares if they're 1.250v or higher? If it doesn't affect temperatures and the system is stable, why try forcing those numbers down to 1.05 or 1.10v live I've tried to do??? Which may very well be causing my random restarts and hard crashes. On that note, I'm going to reset VCCSA and VCCIO back to auto as you've done and see if I can get stable overclocks at 4.4ghz and 1.400v.







I know 4.5ghz isn't stable for me at any voltage and I've let the Asus Auto Tuner program run it up to 1.500v


----------



## shonik09

Haha fair enough. Yeah I just kept cranking up the multiplier and core and this is where I am. I was pretty surprised too tbh, as to begin with I nearly had to hit 1.3v to get 4.2 stable, but for some reason the jump to 4.4 wasn't as drastic, so I tried for 4.5. I may be able to get the voltage down to 1.41, but am pretty sure 1.40 isn't stable.

I think my temps are probably down to my loop though. I have my CPU, VRMs and a Titan x pascal running on this loop, and am using 3000RPM fans on the 240 and 360 radiators (and the 320 is a massive 60mm radiator), although they hit like 70% max ATM, which is why I said I still have some cooling headroom.

I think I'll try adjusting my fan curves to get some more aggressive cooling and see how far I get towards 4.6, but I'm not keen on pushing temps much past 80. After that I'll probably play with the AVX adjustments, keeping most likely 4.5 for AVX, and maybe 4.6 for gaming, depending on the temps at light load with higher voltages.

Is it really necessary to adjust VCCSA and VCCIO? I don't really know if there is a benefit, and wanted to stick with VCORE manual to see what the chip could do without touching anything else.


----------



## Fidelity21

My CPU VID for 4.4ghz is 1.420v. That's a far cry from 1.310v I've been running at for 4.3ghz. But then again, I'm having random crashes so maybe 1.310 is a possible cause.

As for VCCSA and VCCIO, I really wish I knew. Nobody has given a straight answer yet and I just turned mine back to Auto. That jumped VCCIO to 1.256v and VCCSA to 1.242v while on Auto.

Here is my AIDA64 results on 4.3ghz with controlled VCCSA and VCCIO values:


And here is the AIDA64 results on 4.3ghz with VCCSA VCCIO and VCORE voltages on Auto


----------



## Fidelity21

If I keep working this CPU, I could probably get 4.4ghz out of it, but VID at 4.4ghz is 1.422v and that's pushing my CPU Package voltage up to 84C which is higher than I'd like. I'm going to stick with 4.3ghz for now and leave VCCSA and VCCIO on Auto while moving the Vcore voltage up to 1.325v. It's possible that 1.310v just isn't enough OR it could be the VCCSA/VCCIO values but only time will tell.


----------



## Seus

i7 6800k 4.2ghz 1.30v
Is my core voltage too high given the overclock?

Saw 87c package temp in just 2 mins of Aida64 FPU. Using corsair h115i


----------



## Fidelity21

What cooling system do you have? Lowering the voltage would always help temps if it's possible to do so. That said, I'd like to stick under 80c but that's personal preference.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> i7 6800k 4.2ghz 1.30v
> Is my core voltage too high given the overclock?
> 
> Saw 87c package temp in just 2 mins of Aida64 FPU. Using corsair h115i


----------



## Seus

I tried to run 4.2ghz at 1.27v, but it froze when I was uninstalling drivers. I'm not certain it was the overclock but I had to force a shutdown and when restarting it showed the "overclock failed hit F1" screen.

Cooling with corsair h115i.


----------



## Fidelity21

Well my 6850k needs 1.298v to run at 4.2ghz reliably so 1.300v might not be far off from your stable voltage. The good news is that most games and applications don't put the intense amount of stress on your cpu that a benchmark would do, so you're probably fine leave it at 1.300v and just running the Asus Thermal Control Tool to kick in if you ever get temperatures above say 82C.

Maybe set the ATCT to kick in at 82C and drop the overclock from 4.2 to 4.0 and drop the voltage to 1.250v. See if your system remains stable with that setting and then you have protections while also enjoying the 4.2ghz overclock.


----------



## Seus

Ok, will definitely give ATCT a shot.

What regimen would be best to test the stability? I really want peace of mind in this overclock but man the temps are high at 1.30v for me.


----------



## Seus

Am I doing it right?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> 
> Am I doing it right?


Try it without p mode.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> So I've got a 6850k running on a full custom loop, with EK XE360 and black ice nemesis GTS 240 rads. Playing with my overclock, I've managed to get the chip stable at 4.5 with 1.42v, max temps reaching 75 in intel burn test. I'm worried this voltage may be too much for everyday use though, even though the temps are probably OK. Do people think running my chip with these settings could cause any serious degradation?
> 
> I'm considering going for 4.6, but will probably leave it given how high the voltage is already...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> I haven't actually touched the VCCSA or VCCIO at the moment, those are just the numbers I managed to get when using manual VCORE. Tbh I'm pretty sure I can get better temps as well by just adjusting he fan curves, as right now the curves are really conservative.
> 
> Yeah I actually bought the intel warranty just incase
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you reckon if I can get 4.6 stable at 1.5v, and the temps were below say 85, I'd still be alright?


Use Realbench. Not sure why you have resided to using Intel Burn


----------



## shonik09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Use Realbench. Not sure why you have resided to using Intel Burn


I've found IBT gives me higher temps than realbench when using 20-50 burns, which is why I prefer it for temps. I use realbench for benchmarking, which ran fine as well. Will leave the stress test on and see how that fairs too though, although I've already tested the system in games and it has been fine so far too.

I'm mainly worried about the high core voltage, but from the sounds of it, as long as my temps are good, I shouldn't worry?


----------



## Fidelity21

So I reset my overclock back to 4.3ghz with Auto voltage. That jumped voltages from 1.310v to 1.375v. I also reset VCCSA and VCCIO to Auto. Vcache back to Auto and cache reset o 28x (stock). All of this to test my overclock and see what's causing these random hard lockups. I can't get more than an hour on RealBench without a hard lock. Well, with all of these settings back to what should be safe, I'm STILL locking up within an hour.

I'm starting to think it may be a windows issue and not my overclock. To be sure, I am resetting the system to default clocks all around to see if I'm still getting these lock ups.


----------



## shonik09

Yeah I've actually managed to switch the system back to adaptive, and have the CPU top out at ~1.421V, and after applying a more aggressive fan curve, am hitting between 65-70 max temps on my cores, and 75 on the packet. Not sure I will keep it like this though as it gets pretty loud, although I doubt somehow games will push temps anywhere near as high as IBT.

Think I'm going to see if I can get this stable at 1.41, if I can, will prob keep this setup as my main, and then play around with trying for 4.6, although tbh I'm expecting it to get too hot before hitting 4.6 stable, even with this ridiculous fan curve. Most likely I'll keep this 4.5 at 1.41 or 1.42v for heavy loads, and then use Asus Temp tool to increase the overclock to 4.6 (maybe 4.7??) for lighter gaming loads. That should give me some pretty sweet performance, especially in terms of gains over stock.


----------



## Fidelity21

If my system fails again, I'm going for a fresh install of windows...these latest updates might be the cause of some of my issues.

As for my overclock, I'm going a different route. I want the machine to be very quiet even during heavy gaming so I have my fans set to low and I'm using 5 EK 1800rpm fans, 2 2200rpm fans and the middle fan is a high speed fan only when the VRM gets hot as it pulls air through my Inwin 909 case, which admittedly isn't the best option for heat dissipation but looks awesome!









I think my chip might just be sub par compared to other CPU's like yours. I cant push a single core to 4.5ghz without crashing within the first minute on realbench. 4.4ghz is ok at 1.420 but it's HOT and the fans are cranking to keep me under 82C. 4.3ghz seems to be happy at 1.310v and I've removed the cache overclock entirely (back to 28x) with the hope that I can find a way to stabilize my machine. It's a lot easier detecting a problem with the windows logs actually report something. But these hard crashes provide no indication of what could be the cause.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Try it without p mode.





Is it safe to say this is a stable overclock?


----------



## shonik09

Yeah my rig is relatively quiet during gaming tbh, I can only get the fans to spin up when doing heavy stress testing. I may have got the voltage down slightly now to 1.415v max on one core, but around1.411 on the others. Thing is the adaptive voltage is set to 1.40 with a 0.001v offset, but I know that doesn't completely limit the amount of voltage pumped into the CPU so never take those numbers as the absolute limit. Will probably leave on realbench to see how it looks for long term stability, but tbh I've found when an overclock passes 20 rounds of IBT, realbench isn't an issue. I generally do a final round of 50 burns just to be sure though.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it safe to say this is a stable overclock?


Yeah looks good.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Yeah looks good.


Woohoo I can finally just enjoy this thing!


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> i7 6800k 4.2ghz 1.30v
> Is my core voltage too high given the overclock?
> 
> Saw 87c package temp in just 2 mins of Aida64 FPU. Using corsair h115i


I'm able to get mine 4.2 @ 1.235V. I can't seem to get 4.3 stable all the way pass 3.XV something. So I left it at 4.2.


----------



## Fidelity21

Stability is lost on my system. I'm back to 4.2ghz and auto voltages all around but the system is still hard locking. At this point, I have to think it's windows related.


----------



## enyceedanny

Encountered something odd yesterday. With the below settings, I was 100% stable:


44X Multiplier
37X Cache
1.8V CPU input voltage
1.345V Adaptive CPU
+0.15 Cache Voltage Offset (effectively 1.169v via software readings)
+0.001 System Agent Offset - lowest I can go without giving negative offset, which I can but don't feel the need to. (effectively 0.984v via software)
DDR4 2800 XMP at 14-16-16-36-1T (1.35v)
VCCIO CPU at 1.05v

1000% coverage of HCI Memtest
6 hours of SAT
multiple 8 hours of RB
multiple 8-10 hours of OCCT
I am doing all of my overclocking on a secondary hard drive with a clean install of Windows 10. Before I replace it with my ssd, I decided to run some additional tests just for safety, and HCI memtest crashed the system many hours in with bugcheck code of 0x133. So I booted to my linux partition and ran SAT, to only have it crash the system or fail. Even with some voltage increases to cache, vdimm, and SA is to no avail.

Although none of the settings, or hardware changed - I did replace my stock AX1200i cables to a full set of cablemod ones. I doubt that it will be the culprit though as I see proper readings for all the rails.

Any idea why this is happening? Can it possibly be degradation only after a few weeks? I'm totally dumbfounded right now.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> I'm able to get mine 4.2 @ 1.235V. I can't seem to get 4.3 stable all the way pass 3.XV something. So I left it at 4.2.


How long have you been running at that setting? I think trying to get it to pass every test is what led to my low clock and highish voltage. Which is fine I guess because I prefer that "stock" reliability.


----------



## Fidelity21

I'm in the same boat you are. Is it possible that you've updated windows 10 in the past few weeks? That's the only change I've made and nothing is stable anymore. Even a significant reduction to the clock frequency and an increase to voltage. I even went to far as to run AI Suite 5 again and used Asus DIP5 to automatically overclock the system for me...it failed at 4.0ghz and 1.375v which leads me to believe that it's more of a windows problem than an overclocking problem.

If you figure something out, be sure to let us know. The only thing I can thing of right now is to do another reinstall of windows but first I'm going to try and create a new user account and see if that helps...one of the tips I picked up while searching "windows 10 locks up"

As for the failure in linux as well...that is a big ? mark for sure.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Encountered something odd yesterday. With the below settings, I was 100% stable:
> 
> 
> 44X Multiplier
> 37X Cache
> 1.8V CPU input voltage
> 1.345V Adaptive CPU
> +0.15 Cache Voltage Offset (effectively 1.169v via software readings)
> +0.001 System Agent Offset - lowest I can go without giving negative offset, which I can but don't feel the need to. (effectively 0.984v via software)
> DDR4 2800 XMP at 14-16-16-36-1T (1.35v)
> VCCIO CPU at 1.05v
> 
> 1000% coverage of HCI Memtest
> 6 hours of SAT
> multiple 8 hours of RB
> multiple 8-10 hours of OCCT
> I am doing all of my overclocking on a secondary hard drive with a clean install of Windows 10. Before I replace it with my ssd, I decided to run some additional tests just for safety, and HCI memtest crashed the system many hours in with bugcheck code of 0x133. So I booted to my linux partition and ran SAT, to only have it crash the system or fail. Even with some voltage increases to cache, vdimm, and SA is to no avail.
> 
> Although none of the settings, or hardware changed - I did replace my stock AX1200i cables to a full set of cablemod ones. I doubt that it will be the culprit though as I see proper readings for all the rails.
> 
> Any idea why this is happening? Can it possibly be degradation only after a few weeks? I'm totally dumbfounded right now.


Revert the memory to stock and try running GSAT again. It's going to be instability.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Revert the memory to stock and try running GSAT again. It's going to be instability.


Already did, and still am. Although I need to have it run longer to be sure, currently it seems that it's not the memory, but rather the cache frequency/voltage.

Just finished and passed an initial 1hr run at 36x cache (instead of 37x), where it would either error out (cpu mismatch) or crash.
Doing another test with cache back at 37x and cache voltage bumped up a bit. (0.175 offset)

Though hard for me to believe, all signs so far seem to point at a degradation.


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> How long have you been running at that setting? I think trying to get it to pass every test is what led to my low clock and highish voltage. Which is fine I guess because I prefer that "stock" reliability.


Since Aug, no crashes or anything.


----------



## orlfman

hey guys! i picked up a 6800k along with a gigabyte x99 ultra gaming and 32gb quad channel ddr4 2400 corsair kit. at the moment i have a d15s until i get my custom loop parts. so right now i'm running it with turbo boost, speed step, and c states completely disabled. stock 3.4ghz with voltage set to "normal" in bios. hwinfo and cpu-z both show ~1.1v's 24/7 for both the vcore and vid. even when running prime95.

for the time being i've been thinking of pushing it to 4ghz since i think the d15s can handle it. is there an average voltage rate for 4ghz? i was thinking 1.2-1.25v's? does 1.1v's sound right for stock 3.4ghz with turbo off?


----------



## guttheslayer

With avx offset i was able to get to 1.299V 4.3ghz stable while keeping avx clock at 4.1ghz

(Using adaptive mode. 1.27 vcore during avx clock)


----------



## shonik09

I'm still curious to what people think on running 6850k at 1.4x v daily on adaptive, with packet temps below 85 celcius when using IBT? Is this safe, or likely to cause long term degredation?


----------



## Fidelity21

RealBench error at 464 minutes. "ERROR: Can't allocate required memory!"

Would this be a problem with VCCIO or VCCSA or something else?

I had VCCIO at 1.100v and VCCSA at 1.150v. Memory is 3200mhz CAS 14 32gb Gskills Ripjaw 5


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> I'm able to get mine 4.2 @ 1.235V. I can't seem to get 4.3 stable all the way pass 3.XV something. So I left it at 4.2.


Interesting. Thus it follows exactly the pattern from BW non E SOC from before they released SKY.

4.2GHz wasn't caused by large L4 cache. It was result of internal architecture, and possibly chip layout. I wonder how would look like 22 nm SKY-E node with all improvements, including fin design, from 14 nm SKY node.


----------



## nexxusty

Overclocking without extreme cooling is not fun anymore.

Took me 1 day to find my 6800k's max clocks on everything. Core, Cache & IMC. 1 day is BS to be honest.

Never found my max so quickly before. It's nice in a way, but I predominantly buy hardware to overclock it.... usually I can do some initial testing and come back many times to tweak. Not with X99 refresh... lol.

Too easy man... to easy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> I'm still curious to what people think on running 6850k at 1.4x v daily on adaptive, with packet temps below 85 celcius when using IBT? Is this safe, or likely to cause long term degredation?


Hasn't seemed to degrade my 6800k. At 1.422v 24/7 with package temps never going over 79c.

CPU doesn't even get hot when stressing. 73c... 14nm rocks.


----------



## shonik09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Overclocking without extreme cooling is not fun anymore.
> 
> Took me 1 day to find my 6800k's max clocks on everything. Core, Cache & IMC. 1 day is BS to be honest.
> 
> Never found my max so quickly before. It's nice in a way, but I predominantly buy hardware to overclock it.... usually I can do some initial testing and come back many times to tweak. Not with X99 refresh... lol.
> 
> Too easy man... to easy.
> Hasn't seemed to degrade my 6800k. At 1.422v 24/7 with package temps never going over 79c.
> 
> CPU doesn't even get hot when stressing. 73c... 14nm rocks.


Cheers. Yeah those temps are on IBT too, on OCCT and Realbench the packet never goes above 77, with cores always below 72.

I am running into a weird issue though - if I use > 4GB RAM, realbench crashes within 30 mins. OCCT running the OCCT test on infinite seems to be completely stable though. I've had issues with IBT failing on stock CPU settings, with higher RAM usage (i.e. using a custom setting to get above very high), and am pretty sure it is because the XMP profile with my RAM probably isn't perfect in terms of stability. Has anyone got any advice on how I can improve this situation? What settings can I tweak that might help? Right now the XMP puts the RAM at 3200MHz.


----------



## Iceman2733

I am joining the Broadwell-E group, I have changed my Z170 setup to a x99 6850k. Hoping for some good results and a good overclocker.


----------



## Fidelity21

Lucky you! I'm not sure how you were able to find max settings for cpu frequency, cache frequency, VCCSA and VCCIO values in one day. Either you're REALLY lucky or really good. Maybe a bit of both.









I've found a modest overclock for my 6850k and I'm getting tired of tweaking...I just want stability at 4.3ghz. Unfortunately that's proving difficult to achieve and changing any of the above mentioned settings only seems to make it worse. Maybe it's a problem with windows and I should load linux in order to run some of these tests, but I'm sick of failures at the 6-8 hour mark.

Do you have any idea what would cause realbench to say "Can't allocate required memory"? Is that an overclock issue, is it a page file allocation issue?


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> CPU doesn't even get hot when stressing. 73c... 14nm rocks.


14 nm has lower max temperatures than 22 nm. I remember post of one poster who said his skylake is doing weird stuff when above 88C, and voltage doesn't help.

I simply assume that for 14 nm is 73 C what was 83 C (or 93 C?) for 22 nm, and I added second fan to heatsink.
(Currently on SKY which has 52 C degrees where my Ivy-E had 73C degrees. But I suspect it will survive much less abuse than 22 nm. And electricity grid in my house isn't sane.)


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Overclocking without extreme cooling is not fun anymore.
> 
> Took me 1 day to find my 6800k's max clocks on everything. Core, Cache & IMC. 1 day is BS to be honest.
> 
> Never found my max so quickly before. It's nice in a way, but I predominantly buy hardware to overclock it.... usually I can do some initial testing and come back many times to tweak. Not with X99 refresh... lol.
> 
> Too easy man... to easy.
> Hasn't seemed to degrade my 6800k. At 1.422v 24/7 with package temps never going over 79c.
> 
> CPU doesn't even get hot when stressing. 73c... 14nm rocks.


hmmm takes me about 10min to find max oc....


----------



## Fidelity21

So you consider "max oc" as the max frequency you can boot with? With that simplistic approach, I found mine within a day as well. Unfortunately, finding the max stable frequency for everyday use takes much longer. I can hit 4.4ghz at 1.420v and run realbench for 15minutes without an issue. I'll crash within the first hour, but apparently that's not relevant to "max oc".

Finding VCCSA and VCCIO values takes time, especially when the error doesn't present itself until 464minutes into the test. And if you choose to ignore that and consider something stable if it passes a quick test, then you'll be chasing your tail wondering why the system randomly crashes or reboots.

I found my answer to leaving VCCIO and VCCSA on auto, it leaves the voltages very high and stability suffers. I switched to auto and instead of random reboots I was getting system lock ups within an hour. Going back to low values brought stability back. Leaving Vcache at 1.100v and 32x seems more stable than 1.000v at 28x. For someone like myself that just wants to enjoy the system without hunting down random bugs, it's taken much longer than 10 minutes to get stability....in fact I'm still searching.

On the other hand, it's possible that I'm way overthinking this and trying to link the system crashes to hardware overclocked rather than a crappy operating system. Since everything seems random, no system logs are provided by windows, and nothing online has helped resolve these random crashes, I'm being pushed more and more towards a Linux operating system for stability tests.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Encountered something odd yesterday. With the below settings, I was 100% stable:
> 
> 
> 44X Multiplier
> 37X Cache
> 1.8V CPU input voltage
> 1.345V Adaptive CPU
> +0.15 Cache Voltage Offset (effectively 1.169v via software readings)
> +0.001 System Agent Offset - lowest I can go without giving negative offset, which I can but don't feel the need to. (effectively 0.984v via software)
> DDR4 2800 XMP at 14-16-16-36-1T (1.35v)
> VCCIO CPU at 1.05v
> 
> 1000% coverage of HCI Memtest
> 6 hours of SAT
> multiple 8 hours of RB
> multiple 8-10 hours of OCCT
> I am doing all of my overclocking on a secondary hard drive with a clean install of Windows 10. Before I replace it with my ssd, I decided to run some additional tests just for safety, and HCI memtest crashed the system many hours in with bugcheck code of 0x133. So I booted to my linux partition and ran SAT, to only have it crash the system or fail. Even with some voltage increases to cache, vdimm, and SA is to no avail.
> 
> Although none of the settings, or hardware changed - I did replace my stock AX1200i cables to a full set of cablemod ones. I doubt that it will be the culprit though as I see proper readings for all the rails.
> 
> Any idea why this is happening? Can it possibly be degradation only after a few weeks? I'm totally dumbfounded right now.


Upping the cache voltage to +0.175 seems to have done the trick. Definitely seems like early degradation to me..


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Lucky you! I'm not sure how you were able to find max settings for cpu frequency, cache frequency, VCCSA and VCCIO values in one day. Either you're REALLY lucky or really good. Maybe a bit of both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've found a modest overclock for my 6850k and I'm getting tired of tweaking...I just want stability at 4.3ghz. Unfortunately that's proving difficult to achieve and changing any of the above mentioned settings only seems to make it worse. Maybe it's a problem with windows and I should load linux in order to run some of these tests, but I'm sick of failures at the 6-8 hour mark.
> 
> Do you have any idea what would cause realbench to say "Can't allocate required memory"? Is that an overclock issue, is it a page file allocation issue?


Problem solved: It was actually a Page file error. I went into the settings and manually set the Page File to the recommended level and restarted the computer. After that, I ran RealBench and passed an 8 hour burn in test. Good news is that my CPU Package temperature never went over 80C. So now I need to see if I can keep the stability with a lower Vcore as 1.330v is still a bit to high for my liking.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Problem solved: It was actually a Page file error. I went into the settings and manually set the Page File to the recommended level and restarted the computer. After that, I ran RealBench and passed an 8 hour burn in test. Good news is that my CPU Package temperature never went over 80C. So now I need to see if I can keep the stability with a lower Vcore as *3.300v* is still a bit to high for my liking.


is this a typo? im assuming you meant 1.300v? :O

Edit:

I was playing with my OC a bit today, still for the life of me cant get 3200mhz on the RAM stable, so settled at 2400mhz, ill play with the timings when i get somemore time.

CPU does get quite hot not sure if its the limitation of my loop or the CPU is pounding out an insane amount of heat!


----------



## Fidelity21

Yes 1.330 volts is what I meant to type. 3.300v would probably start a fire.









I passed Realbench after 8 hours with 1.320v so now I'm going to try 1.310v again. The weird thing is that instability MAY have been caused by 1.) Letting windows set the Page File size for me and 2.) VCCSA was set a tad to low. I had a .200 offset and I haven't had a reboot or hard lockup since switching that to .210 offset.

Your temperatures look fine for a hard test like you're doing. What voltage were you running with the 4.3ghz frequency? My max CPU Package temp was 82c and I have a custom water loop. The actual cores never got that hot...here is the AIDA screen capture. (This is after passing an 8 hour RealBench stress test)


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Yes 1.330 volts is what I meant to type. 3.300v would probably start a fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I passed Realbench after 8 hours with 1.320v so now I'm going to try 1.310v again. The weird thing is that instability MAY have been caused by 1.) Letting windows set the Page File size for me and 2.) VCCSA was set a tad to low. I had a .200 offset and I haven't had a reboot or hard lockup since switching that to .210 offset.
> 
> Your temperatures look fine for a hard test like you're doing. What voltage were you running with the 4.3ghz frequency? My max CPU Package temp was 82c and I have a custom water loop. The actual cores never got that hot...here is the AIDA screen capture. (This is after passing an 8 hour RealBench stress test)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I had a small issue where the VCCIO being 0.015v too high caused lockups that were very inconsistent also had usb devices dropout as well.

Core is running 1.375v and the Cache is 1.290v, id love to show my voltages but no software reads them correctly.

My loop consists of 420/280/280 rads i do have 3 GPU's and run the loop parallel, not sure how relevant the temps are serial vs parallel considered the GPU's arent in 3D mode when only testing the CPU.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> I had a small issue where the VCCIO being 0.015v too high caused lockups that were very inconsistent also had usb devices dropout as well.


How large was VCCIO when it caused problems, and how much voltage are you using now?


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> How large was VCCIO when it caused problems, and how much voltage are you using now?


it was 1.005v, its now 0.986v


----------



## Raghar

Thanks.

I wonder why too high VCCIO cause instability of USB ports. (On my RIV BE I felt I probably used by nudge too little VCCIO, but I didn't want to stay more than 0.1V from VCCSA.)


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I wonder why too high VCCIO cause instability of USB ports. (On my RIV BE I felt I probably used by nudge too little VCCIO, but I didn't want to stay more than 0.1V from VCCSA.)


Im not sure to be honest, but as soon as i dialed down the volts a touch the USB issues stopped, maybe Raja could chime in here. my VCCSA is at 1.075, its been playing very nicely last few days!


----------



## Fidelity21

Your VCCSA values are more in line with the results of others. Unfortunately my CPU and memory combo was unstable with a VCCSA offset of .200 but .210 did the trick, which took me to 1.150v VCCSA. VCCIO is 1.100. Vcore is unstable at 1.310v but rock solid at 1.320v. Passed 8 hours of Realbench at 1.330v. Passed 8 hours of Realbench at 1.320v. Failed after 35 minutes at 1.310v.

When I had VCCSA at 1.140, I would get random restarts and hard lockups.

Maybe it has to do with memory speed however because I'm running ripjaw 5 3200mah Cas 14 memory. I've heard that anything under 3000mhz allow for lower VCCSA voltages.

FAILURE: Back to the drawing board. I thought I was stable after an 8 hour RealBench stress test, but restarting the computer and now I get a failure after 98m. Failure AGAIN is "Can't allocate required memory". This stinks! So I ignore the failure and use the computer...hard lockup 15 minutes later.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Yes 1.330 volts is what I meant to type. 3.300v would probably start a fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I passed Realbench after 8 hours with 1.320v so now I'm going to try 1.310v again. The weird thing is that instability MAY have been caused by 1.) Letting windows set the Page File size for me and 2.) VCCSA was set a tad to low. I had a .200 offset and I haven't had a reboot or hard lockup since switching that to .210 offset.
> 
> Your temperatures look fine for a hard test like you're doing. What voltage were you running with the 4.3ghz frequency? My max CPU Package temp was 82c and I have a custom water loop. The actual cores never got that hot...here is the AIDA screen capture. (This is after passing an 8 hour RealBench stress test)


Can almost guarantee that letting windows manage the pagefile will not cause instability. You're just very close to being stable, but not fully there yet.


----------



## Fidelity21

Pushing Vcore back to 1.330v didn't help. Resetting Vcache to 1.100v manual and 28x didn't help. Resetting VCCSA and VCCIO to Auto didn't help (In fact it made things worse)

Looks like the constant error is "Can't allocate required memory!" no matter what I do to the settings.

Anyone have any ideas? A google search of that error message doesn't provide very much assistance. No systems logs provided. I wish RealBench would provide a bit more detail other than "instability detected".

If resetting VCCSA and VCCIO to Auto didn't help (which raised the voltages) then maybe lowering them might be the way to go. I'm going to set VCCSA to .18 offset (1.120v) and VCCIO to 1.075v and see how that works. From what I've read on the Asus Broadwell-e overclocking guide, they should be about .05v apart so I'll try to keep that in mind while lowering the values and see if that helps.

If anyone else out there is running the 6850k Broadwell-E with Ripjaw 5 3200mhz CAS 14 memory 32gb...what are you using for VCCIO and VCCSA values?

Also: Is it a bad idea to be running AIDA64 while also running realbench stress test? I am doing so because I want to see how high the temperatures are getting but I wonder if that's possibly causing the memory issue I keep receiving.

And I reset to Page File to automatically assigned by windows...setting it to a manual value didn't help after all.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Pushing Vcore back to 1.330v didn't help. Resetting Vcache to 1.100v manual and 28x didn't help. Resetting VCCSA and VCCIO to Auto didn't help (In fact it made things worse)
> 
> Looks like the constant error is "Can't allocate required memory!" no matter what I do to the settings.
> 
> Anyone have any ideas? A google search of that error message doesn't provide very much assistance. No systems logs provided. I wish RealBench would provide a bit more detail other than "instability detected".
> 
> If resetting VCCSA and VCCIO to Auto didn't help (which raised the voltages) then maybe lowering them might be the way to go. I'm going to set VCCSA to .18 offset (1.120v) and VCCIO to 1.075v and see how that works. From what I've read on the Asus Broadwell-e overclocking guide, they should be about .05v apart so I'll try to keep that in mind while lowering the values and see if that helps.
> 
> If anyone else out there is running the 6850k Broadwell-E with Ripjaw 5 3200mhz CAS 14 memory 32gb...what are you using for VCCIO and VCCSA values?
> 
> Also: Is it a bad idea to be running AIDA64 while also running realbench stress test? I am doing so because I want to see how high the temperatures are getting but I wonder if that's possibly causing the memory issue I keep receiving.
> 
> And I reset to Page File to automatically assigned by windows...setting it to a manual value didn't help after all.


Does Realbench pass at completly stock settings ie no XMP?

Im pretty sure only running one stress at a time would help you eliminate any issues as well.


----------



## Fidelity21

I didn't want to undo the XMP settings unless I absolutely had to. Also, I had AIDA up and showing me the temperatures but not running a benchmark. I finally decided to move Vcache back to Auto, cache back to 28x, VCCIO and VCCSA moved back to Auto. This time I ran memtest (20 sessions of 2gb each even though I have 32gb memory) and the system finally failed after an hour...BUT this time I actually got an error.

The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The bugcheck was: 0x000000d1 (0x0000000000000000, 0x0000000000000002, 0x0000000000000001, 0xfffff80e480d6ffd). A dump was saved in: C:\Windows\MEMORY.DMP. Report Id: cbf60d70-6e02-4513-a21c-016871d2841a.

At least I have a place to start now. If all else fails, I may have to remove the XMP settings and see if I can pass realbench at lower memory timings than the memory is rated for, but that would really stink! I re-read the Asus Broadwell-e overclocking guide and I'm confident that my system is stable at 1.320v at 4.3ghz so now it's just a matter of trying to figure out why the memory is having issues....hopefully without loosing the speed they're rated for.

Found this for error code xD1: 0xD1 = QPI/VTT, increase/decrease as necessary, can also be unstable Ram, raise Ram voltage

Could my memory voltage be to low at 1.35v?


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I didn't want to undo the XMP settings unless I absolutely had to. Also, I had AIDA up and showing me the temperatures but not running a benchmark. I finally decided to move Vcache back to Auto, cache back to 28x, VCCIO and VCCSA moved back to Auto. This time I ran memtest (20 sessions of 2gb each even though I have 32gb memory) and the system finally failed after an hour...BUT this time I actually got an error.
> 
> The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The bugcheck was: 0x000000d1 (0x0000000000000000, 0x0000000000000002, 0x0000000000000001, 0xfffff80e480d6ffd). A dump was saved in: C:\Windows\MEMORY.DMP. Report Id: cbf60d70-6e02-4513-a21c-016871d2841a.
> 
> At least I have a place to start now. If all else fails, I may have to remove the XMP settings and see if I can pass realbench at lower memory timings than the memory is rated for, but that would really stink! I re-read the Asus Broadwell-e overclocking guide and I'm confident that my system is stable at 1.320v at 4.3ghz so now it's just a matter of trying to figure out why the memory is having issues....hopefully without loosing the speed they're rated for.
> 
> Found this for error code xD1: 0xD1 = QPI/VTT, increase/decrease as necessary, can also be unstable Ram, raise Ram voltage
> 
> Could my memory voltage be to low at 1.35v?


Gonna be honest with you, you kinda need to go to completely stock and find out if it is stable, purely because something could be defective, but then on a side note my RAM isnt stable at 3200MHz no matter how much voltage i pump through the IMC, which is why i settled at 2400MHz

QPI/VTT is IMC Voltage if my memory serves me correctly!


----------



## Fidelity21

Good call and thank you! That's what I decided to do as well. Reset everything to Auto via the BIOS (F5). The only thing I changed from completely stock is to let XMP set my memory timings for me and then I forced the timing to 3200mhz. Running 12 instances of memtest right now and using >90% of available memory. So far it's 485% covered and no errors are presented. I'll run it to 500% coverage and see if anything shakes out. If that passes, what do I do next? Run Realbench again or try increasing the core frequency?

I'm going to save these settings in the BIOS as "STABLE" before moving forward, but I think I'll step back into 4.2ghz and see if I can pass the memory test overnight.

Thank you again for your help...it's a lot easier to trouble shoot something when you know where to look for a fix.









Update: I think I'm slowly making progress. After passing 500% on stock settings PLUS XMP, I decided to pump the CPU overclock to 4.2ghz and run the same test again. This time, within 5 minutes, I get error code x50, which I believe is:
0x50 = RAM timings/Frequency or uncore multi unstable, increase RAM voltage or adjust QPI/VTT, or lower uncore if you're higher than 2x

So now I'm starting to see the same issue with QPI/VTT that I was receiving earlier. Maybe a problem with memory timings to high? I still have VCCSA and VCCIO on Auto, which sets those values pretty high already and uncore is factory so I think it's just a problem with memory not being able to hit 3200mhz when the CPU is overclocked pasted 4.0ghz. Is that possible?

Turned off XMP and now the memory is running at 2133mhz. CPU is set at 4.2ghz and Auto voltage is set to 1.310v. Running another 12 instances of memtest using >90% of memory. So far it's passed 15% coverage. One interesting thing I've noted is that VCCIO and VCCSA have dropped from 1.250/1.295v to about 1.05/.920v respectively. Also, the DIMM's have dropped in voltage from 1.350v to 1.200v. CPU VRM hasn't changed...still 1.880v. Uncore is still 28x.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Good call and thank you! That's what I decided to do as well. Reset everything to Auto via the BIOS (F5). The only thing I changed from completely stock is to let XMP set my memory timings for me and then I forced the timing to 3200mhz. Running 12 instances of memtest right now and using >90% of available memory. So far it's 485% covered and no errors are presented. I'll run it to 500% coverage and see if anything shakes out. If that passes, what do I do next? Run Realbench again or try increasing the core frequency?
> 
> I'm going to save these settings in the BIOS as "STABLE" before moving forward, but I think I'll step back into 4.2ghz and see if I can pass the memory test overnight.
> 
> Thank you again for your help...it's a lot easier to trouble shoot something when you know where to look for a fix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update: I think I'm slowly making progress. After passing 500% on stock settings PLUS XMP, I decided to pump the CPU overclock to 4.2ghz and run the same test again. This time, within 5 minutes, I get error code x50, which I believe is:
> 0x50 = RAM timings/Frequency or uncore multi unstable, increase RAM voltage or adjust QPI/VTT, or lower uncore if you're higher than 2x
> 
> So now I'm starting to see the same issue with QPI/VTT that I was receiving earlier. Maybe a problem with memory timings to high? I still have VCCSA and VCCIO on Auto, which sets those values pretty high already and uncore is factory so I think it's just a problem with memory not being able to hit 3200mhz when the CPU is overclocked pasted 4.0ghz. Is that possible?
> 
> Turned off XMP and now the memory is running at 2133mhz. CPU is set at 4.2ghz and Auto voltage is set to 1.310v. Running another 12 instances of memtest using >90% of memory. So far it's passed 15% coverage. One interesting thing I've noted is that VCCIO and VCCSA have dropped from 1.250/1.295v to about 1.05/.920v respectively. Also, the DIMM's have dropped in voltage from 1.350v to 1.200v. CPU VRM hasn't changed...still 1.880v. Uncore is still 28x.


OK!

XMP will alter voltages according, 9/10 times its normally sets them higher than needed in order to compensate for stability in terms of VCCSA/VCCIO which normally isnt a issue.

Maybe your IMC is weak like mine is, i cant get mine stable any higher than 2400MHz which isnt really a problem to be honest.

So now what i would do, providing your memory is stable at 2133MHz is leave it there and just play with the core, go up the multiplier till you are rock solid stable.

Go up each multi and test 1 hour of Realbench, then when you cant go any higher test Realbench for 4 hours, providing this is stable we can move onto getting your memory higher, i would leave the uncore alone till we have the core and memory running nicely.

On the off chance your memory is not stable at 2133, you need to test each individual stick on its own, to see if one of them is dying, your motherboard should have a DIMM slot which is used to boot single DIMM's for testing, might have to refer to the manual for this.


----------



## Fidelity21

I believe your right and I have a weak IMC controller. Since I am redoing this overclocking process, I decided to start from scratch and find max clock frequency again. I failed realbench after 50m with a 4.4ghz clock at 1.38v so I went to 1.39v. About 2 hours into Realbench, it failed with a bugcode xf7, which I believe is DRIVER_OVERRAN_STACK_BUFFER, and the system restarted. Hopefully that's a problem with low Vcore and not something else? Temperatures still seemed to be inline and I was not stable, so I'm trying again with 1.400v. I'll keep trying up to 1.420v and if I can't find anything stable then I'll step back to 4.3ghz.

Temps were sneaking into the 80C territory, so I dropped Core #3 (it was 10C higher than the rest) down 2x to 4.2ghz. Now the temps are well into the high 60C or low 70C while running realbench...hopefully it passes 8 hours and I can move forward.


----------



## Fidelity21

"Can't allocate required memory error" pops up again!!! Memory at auto timing with non xmp so it's 2133mhz

That's the same error that haunted me earlier...could it be a faulty Memory chip? What do I do? Higher voltage? I can't lower timing any more.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I believe your right and I have a weak IMC controller. Since I am redoing this overclocking process, I decided to start from scratch and find max clock frequency again. I failed realbench after 50m with a 4.4ghz clock at 1.38v so I went to 1.39v. About 2 hours into Realbench, it failed with a bugcode xf7, which I believe is DRIVER_OVERRAN_STACK_BUFFER, and the system restarted. Hopefully that's a problem with low Vcore and not something else? Temperatures still seemed to be inline and I was not stable, so I'm trying again with 1.400v. I'll keep trying up to 1.420v and if I can't find anything stable then I'll step back to 4.3ghz.
> 
> Temps were sneaking into the 80C territory, so I dropped Core #3 (it was 10C higher than the rest) down 2x to 4.2ghz. Now the temps are well into the high 60C or low 70C while running realbench...hopefully it passes 8 hours and I can move forward.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> "Can't allocate required memory error" pops up again!!! Memory at auto timing with non xmp so it's 2133mhz
> 
> That's the same error that haunted me earlier...could it be a faulty Memory chip? What do I do? Higher voltage? I can't lower timing any more.


I know this might sound like a silly question, are you running a nvidia gpu with sli?


----------



## Fidelity21

Yes on nvidia, no on SLI

I'm running memtest again and I'm up to 73% coverage with no errors. Is it possible that realbench v2.44 has an issue? The system isn't crashing at the moment, it's just reported unstable by realbench with no corresponding bug check error in the windows log.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Yes on nvidia, no on SLI
> 
> I'm running memtest again and I'm up to 73% coverage with no errors. Is it possible that realbench v2.44 has an issue? The system isn't crashing at the moment, it's just reported unstable by realbench with no corresponding bug check error in the windows log.


OK i used to have this issues, i run 3 way sli, and Realbench would randomly lock up or BSOD because the nvidia driver would just lose its mind, it was always between 70-80% towards Realbench completion, turns out Blender had a issue which no one had fixed, so i had to remove 2/3 cards to just to get it to work.

I doubt Realbench is the issue, must be something else im missing, not really sure what to suggest....

How is your knowledge with Linux?


----------



## Fidelity21

I can use Linux for sure, but I hoped to stick with windows because that's my primary OS.

I'm up to 160% coverage with memtest and it's AOK so does that mean this could be an uncore issue? That's the only other thing I can think of right now, but uncore is auto voltage and 28x. Or could a CPU instability issue show up with that error message about memory allocation?

If memtest gets to 500% and passes, and uncore is stock, that really only leaves a CPU issue or an OS issue which means I will have to try again while running Ubuntu from a 128gb memory stick.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I can use Linux for sure, but I hoped to stick with windows because that's my primary OS.
> 
> I'm up to 160% coverage with memtest and it's AOK so does that mean this could be an uncore issue? That's the only other thing I can think of right now, but uncore is auto voltage and 28x. Or could a CPU instability issue show up with that error message about memory allocation?
> 
> If memtest gets to 500% and passes, and uncore is stock, that really only leaves a CPU issue or an OS issue which means I will have to try again while running Ubuntu from a 128gb memory stick.


Take a read of this first post

http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread#post_24292666

and run GSAT, lets just see if Windows is being douche


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I can use Linux for sure, but I hoped to stick with windows because that's my primary OS.
> 
> I'm up to 160% coverage with memtest and it's AOK so does that mean this could be an uncore issue? That's the only other thing I can think of right now, but uncore is auto voltage and 28x. Or could a CPU instability issue show up with that error message about memory allocation?
> 
> If memtest gets to 500% and passes, and uncore is stock, that really only leaves a CPU issue or an OS issue which means I will have to try again while running Ubuntu from a 128gb memory stick.


you can use puppy linux on an 8GB USB stick, works like a charm: http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread/2960_20#post_25585525

also, how much ram is installed in your rig.. please fill out rigbuilder and add it to your signature block (how-to link in mine)


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> hmmm takes me about 10min to find max oc....


Depends how you roll... of course you can immediately find max OC.

I prefer to drag it out as much as possible to get my monies worth. Hehe.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> "Can't allocate required memory error" pops up again!!! Memory at auto timing with non xmp so it's 2133mhz
> 
> That's the same error that haunted me earlier...could it be a faulty Memory chip? What do I do? Higher voltage? I can't lower timing any more.


Damn dude.. sorry this is happening to you....

Finish Memtest to 1000% coverage. If it passes that the RAM is fine.

Realbench requires Visual Basic... maybe try reinstalling all of them to latest? There is a tool made by a member of over at Guru3d. I'd try that too.

If none of this works... toss a little extra voltage into System Agent... see if that helps. If not you're left with individually testing each stick.


----------



## Fidelity21

I read the post and trying GSAT is definitely an option but I would think memtest would be telling me if there was a problem. Currently at 330% and 0 errors. Researching the exact error message "Can't allocate required memory" seems to be linked to the program 7-zip which is used by RealBench.

Would I be wrong in assuming my memory is fine if I let memtest run to 500%? Maybe I'll give another stress test a try and see if something else shakes loose once I hit 500% with no errors.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I read the post and trying GSAT is definitely an option but I would think memtest would be telling me if there was a problem. Currently at 330% and 0 errors. Researching the exact error message "Can't allocate required memory" seems to be linked to the program 7-zip which is used by RealBench.
> 
> Would I be wrong in assuming my memory is fine if I let memtest run to 500%? Maybe I'll give another stress test a try and see if something else shakes loose once I hit 500% with no errors.


5-10 laps (500-1000%) gives very high confidence the ram (and to a degree, cache) are good to go. GSAT/linux really isolates the ram during the test. (a good thing when trying toi sort things out).


----------



## mbze430

GSAT really gives me the confidence not having to deal with the memory OC anymore once it passes.


----------



## Fidelity21

I agree in that I should run GSAT once I start pushing my memory, but right now it's at stock timings. It's CAS 14 3200mhz memory running at 2133mhz so I SHOULDN'T be getting any errors. I did finally pass 500% HCI memtest so I'm calling that good enough and pushing forward. I upped the memory timings to XMP enabled which increased uncore (which I then lowered back to stock) and increased memory timings, which I then lowered back to 2400mhz. I'm going to run realbench 2.44 AGAIN with this settings and see what shakes out. The only difference is that this time I'm using a brand new user account so hopefully any programs and/or errors created from my main account will be be eliminated as possible problems.

I did a quick RealBench Benchmark and the numbers seem decent. 157051, 220713, 80346, 193630 and total score is 146868. I'm sure those numbers will go up as I increase memory back to what it should be capable of, but I want to find stable and go from there. If this test fails, I plan on booting into linux and trying the GSAT using current memory timings. The only down side is that I'm still not entirely sure of WHY my system is failing and since I've already passed 500% HCI memtest, I'm inclined to believe that it's not memory or uncore related.

Am I going in the wrong direction here? It just doesn't make sense to keep running memory test after memory test with timings I don't plan on actually using.


----------



## Fidelity21

So I passed 500% of HCI memtest and decided to move forward with the assumption that either windows 10 Pro is jacked up OR Realbench has a bug. Before moving forward, I was failing Realbench with "Instability detected" at 88 minutes into the test. Now, I'm 130 minutes into the test and it's still running. The only thing I've done differently is to enter the BIOS and activate XMP. I disabled the overclock to the uncore and left it at 28x and Auto voltage. I also reduced the memory timing to 2400, which is far from the rated 3200 but better than the 2133mhz frequency it was running at when passing the HCI memtest. After making these changes, I went into windows, created a new user account (local account only) and ran the test.

FIngers crossed, but I think I'm onto something here. It could very well have been a problem with either windows 10 Pro OR something specific to my user account. It may have been a multitude of things because, as others have pointed out, sometimes the system just doesn't like 3200mhz memory frequencies when overclocking the CPU. Either way, I'm 130 minutes into the test and it's passing with flying colors. I am going to stop the test and increase memory another step. If that works for another 2 hours, I'll reset back to 3200mhz and run it overnight. Something should shake loose as I get closer to finding out the cause of this instability.







I HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Update: Failed 48 minutes into testing when the memory was changed from 2400mhz to 3200mhz. The failure resulted in a hard lockup, which is the original problem I was trying to trouble shoot. Maybe it's a memory timing issue combined with the overclock. I'm going to run at 3000mhz and see if I get the same result.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> So I passed 500% of HCI memtest and decided to move forward with the assumption that either windows 10 Pro is jacked up OR Realbench has a bug. Before moving forward, I was failing Realbench with "Instability detected" at 88 minutes into the test. Now, I'm 130 minutes into the test and it's still running. The only thing I've done differently is to enter the BIOS and activate XMP. I disabled the overclock to the uncore and left it at 28x and Auto voltage. I also reduced the memory timing to 2400, which is far from the rated 3200 but better than the 2133mhz frequency it was running at when passing the HCI memtest. After making these changes, I went into windows, created a new user account (local account only) and ran the test.
> 
> FIngers crossed, but I think I'm onto something here. It could very well have been a problem with either windows 10 Pro OR something specific to my user account. It may have been a multitude of things because, as others have pointed out, sometimes the system just doesn't like 3200mhz memory frequencies when overclocking the CPU. Either way, I'm 130 minutes into the test and it's passing with flying colors. I am going to stop the test and increase memory another step. If that works for another 2 hours, I'll reset back to 3200mhz and run it overnight. Something should shake loose as I get closer to finding out the cause of this instability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> So far so good. 28 minute in and temperatures are looking good.


I'd just load the XMP and run HCI or gsat with the core and cache at "Optimized Defaults". In fact, it is a good idea to either clrcmos or load opt defaults then select XMP. Once in windows or linux, run the memory test. GSAT is much faster than HCI. If it completes 1-2 hours of GSAT - the ram XMP is fine.

(also, are you running ANY other monitoring software during the time that the run above was captured? look at the max core and cache clocks...







)


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Take a read of this first post
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-skylake-haswell-e-broadwell-e-24-7-ddr4-memory-stability-thread#post_24292666
> 
> and run GSAT, lets just see if Windows is being douche


Downloaded Mint, installed stressapptest and running it for 1 hour right now. Using Optimized default settings with XMP enabled. This reduced my overclock frequency from 4.4ghz to 4.0 and increased my uncore from 28x to 31x but it also increased my memory frequency to 3200mhz. Hopefully (fingers crossed) it's not a hardware issue because I bought the memory from Newegg back in June 2016.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I'd just load the XMP and run HCI or gsat with the core and cache at "Optimized Defaults". In fact, it is a good idea to either clrcmos or load opt defaults then select XMP. Once in windows or linux, run the memory test. GSAT is much faster than HCI. If it completes 1-2 hours of GSAT - the ram XMP is fine.
> 
> (also, are you running ANY other monitoring software during the time that the run above was captured? look at the max core and cache clocks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


The only programs running are Realbench v2.44 and AIDA64. I did notice the inaccurate results that crop in from time to time...I'm not sure why that is???

GSAT passed with Optimized defaults.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Downloaded Mint, installed stressapptest and running it for 1 hour right now. Using Optimized default settings with XMP enabled. This reduced my overclock frequency from 4.4ghz to 4.0 and increased my uncore from 28x to 31x but it also increased my memory frequency to 3200mhz. Hopefully (fingers crossed) it's not a hardware issue because I bought the memory from Newegg back in June 2016.
> The only programs running are Realbench v2.44 and AIDA64. I did notice the inaccurate results that crop in from time to time...I'm not sure why that is???
> 
> 1200 of 3600 remaining on GSAT. So far so good. If this passes, and my fingers are crossed, what's the next step? I'm assuming I can go back into the BIOS and bring back my 4.4ghz frequencies but it's already failed at 3200mhz timing so maybe I'm stuck trying a lower frequency or should I try raising the voltage for each DIMM? Maybe go from 1.35v to 1.36v? I've already gone down the road of changing VCCSA and VCCIO and that's been incredibly frustrating as it takes a LOT of time and nothing has provided a stable configuration...I've gone from 1.00 to 1.300v for each.
> 
> I think the next step is to load up my known good configuration of 4.4ghz at 1.400v AND load XMP memory timings and re-run this GSAT test. Hopefully that will tell me what failed and give me an idea of what voltage I need to increase? Since VCCSA and VCCIO are a giant PITA and have taken up weeks of time tinkering with, I hope it gives me another avenue.


I would first lock down a RAM OC. NOte the primary timings XMP applied (1.35V - right?), shut down clr cmos or load opt defaults and post back to bios, enter the timings manually and change command rate to 1T from 2T - do not select XMP, select OC - Manual (and "keep current"). Add 25mV VDIMM to both channels, and run GSAT again - 1 h. If clean, SAVE it to a bios save slot or a USB stick. Then bring the core up.. best way to do this is to Set 1.25V vcore, BCLK 100, strap 100 (Disable fully manual, set turbo voltage to 1.25V - change nothing else), then post back to bios and keep increasing the multiplier until the system fails to post or posts and fails to load the OS (windows, etc). If it hangs, hold down the start button until it shuts down, then restart (safe mode). now either lower the multiplier one notch or increase VCORE until it loads the OS and is stable to something like Cinebench R15, (a quick test - not a stability test). then try your regular stability protocol.


----------



## Fidelity21

Thank you! Since I passed GSAT, I'm back in the BIOS and re reading what you wrote. Yes, my memory voltage is 1.35v and the timings are 14/14/14/34/2. I went into "DRAM TIMING CONTROL" and changed CAS# Latency From Auto to 14. RAS# to CAS# Delay from Auto to 14. RAS# PRE Time from Auto to 14. RAS# ACT Time from Auto to 34 and DRAM Command Rate from Timing 2T to 1T. Now I'm back under AI Tweaker and I see "optimised defaults" has set my CPU Cores to "Sync ALL Cores" and 4.0ghz with Auto Voltage at 1.153v. I'm going to leave that alone for right now because it passed 1 hour of GSAT. Also, optimized defaults changed Min. CPU Cache ratio to 31 and Max CPU Cache ratio to 31. I'm going to leave that alone as well. Now back under AI Tweaker, DRAM Voltage for CHA, CHB is Auto at 1.350v so I'm going to change that to 1.375v. Same for CHC, CHD from 1.350 (Auto) to 1.375v. I think that covers everything you mentioned to do so I'm going back into GSAT for another 1 hour run.

GSAT passed after 1 hour!

Back to BIOS...saving the configuration as "GOOD MEM OC".

Changed Vcore to 1.400v and Core frequencies changed to 4.4ghz. Left uncore alone at 31 min/max. Boots into windows fine. Running realbench Benchmark provides decent results. Running Realbench overnight. Hopefully it passes 8 hours with temps under 80C


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I'd just load the XMP and run HCI or gsat with the core and cache at "Optimized Defaults". In fact, it is a good idea to either clrcmos or load opt defaults then select XMP. Once in windows or linux, run the memory test. GSAT is much faster than HCI. If it completes 1-2 hours of GSAT - the ram XMP is fine.
> 
> (also, are you running ANY other monitoring software during the time that the run above was captured? look at the max core and cache clocks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


I think I figured out the answer to your last question. System instability was causing the "Maximum" values reported to be inaccurate. I figured this out after getting my system a bit more stable by increasing the Vcore (last test failed with bugcheck x101) so now I'm at 1.420v and 4.4ghz. The values reported by AIDA are not jumping around and nothing seems to be inaccurate 22 minutes into the test.


----------



## Iceman2733

Weird question what it multiplier range for the 6850k? Looking for the bottom range, recently changed my system to x99 and noticed on idle the system will reduce the multiplier to 12 but comparing to my 6700k that would go to 8. I am running an Evga x99 Classified board and don't see an option in bios that sets a downstep multiplier.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Thank you! Since I passed GSAT, I'm back in the BIOS and re reading what you wrote. Yes, my memory voltage is 1.35v and the timings are 14/14/14/34/2. I went into "DRAM TIMING CONTROL" and changed CAS# Latency From Auto to 14. RAS# to CAS# Delay from Auto to 14. RAS# PRE Time from Auto to 14. RAS# ACT Time from Auto to 34 and DRAM Command Rate from Timing 2T to 1T. Now I'm back under AI Tweaker and I see "optimised defaults" has set my CPU Cores to "Sync ALL Cores" and 4.0ghz with Auto Voltage at 1.153v. I'm going to leave that alone for right now because it passed 1 hour of GSAT. Also, optimized defaults changed Min. CPU Cache ratio to 31 and Max CPU Cache ratio to 31. I'm going to leave that alone as well. Now back under AI Tweaker, DRAM Voltage for CHA, CHB is Auto at 1.350v so I'm going to change that to 1.375v. Same for CHC, CHD from 1.350 (Auto) to 1.375v. I think that covers everything you mentioned to do so I'm going back into GSAT for another 1 hour run.
> 
> GSAT passed after 1 hour!
> 
> Back to BIOS...saving the configuration as "GOOD MEM OC".
> 
> Changed Vcore to 1.400v and Core frequencies changed to 4.4ghz. Left uncore alone at 31 min/max. Boots into windows fine. Running realbench Benchmark provides decent results. Running Realbench overnight. Hopefully it passes 8 hours with temps under 80C


Once you get closer to your final settings, give it a longer SAT run. I've had a few runs where it detected an error into the 5 hour mark. So I run 8 hours to be safe.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I think I figured out the answer to your last question. System instability was causing the "Maximum" values reported to be inaccurate. I figured this out after getting my system a bit more stable by increasing the Vcore (last test failed with bugcheck x101) so now I'm at 1.420v and 4.4ghz. The values reported by AIDA are not jumping around and nothing seems to be inaccurate 22 minutes into the test.


x101 is Vinput, i mean you're already at 1.9v i think i rad somewhere 1.95v is the max safe voltage, although i might be mistaken


----------



## Bllacky

I really hoped that 6850K can reach 4.6 Ghz easily or even 4.7 Ghz. My 5820K is nicely humming along at 4.5 Ghz. But from what I read, the 6850 sometimes has a hard time hitting 4.4 Ghz. Maybe later revisions of the 6850K will improve its performance.


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> x101 is Vinput, i mean you're already at 1.9v i think i rad somewhere 1.95v is the max safe voltage, although i might be mistaken


I thought x101 meant "add Vcore" based on this:
http://www.overclock.net/a/common-bsod-error-code-list-for-overclocking

I forgot that setting "optimized defaults" previously had removed the Load Line Calibration settings...so it was left on Auto as well. I changed it back to level 5 in the BIOS and Vinput is now 1.888v which is well within range.

I have to stop making multiple changes because now I'm not sure if it was LLC to 5 from auto that fixed my problem or if it was Vcore from Auto to 5 that did it.

Thanks for the tip enyceedanny...I'll run GSAT when I get home from work or this evening and let it run through the night.

REALBENCH PASSED 8 HOURS!!!!

THANK YOU JPMBOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Getting the memory stable first was the key. Once I did that, I was able to go back to the highest clock setting and focus on Vcore to find the optimal stable frequency and voltage. I'm not at 4.4ghz with 1.420v Vcore which is high but the temperatures are under 80C so I'm going to save this in my BIOS and start working on VCCSA and VCCIO to find lower voltages if possible.


----------



## Fidelity21

Thank you!!!! I really appreciate the help...I would still be struggling if you hadn't pointed me towards the memory voltage increase and memory testing BEFORE finding max frequency.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Thank you!!!! I really appreciate the help...I would still be struggling if you hadn't pointed me towards the memory voltage increase and memory testing BEFORE finding max frequency.


you are welcome!
A 101 bsod is most likely vcore, but low vccin can do the same as was pointed out. Vccin can be set in the 1.95V range (some folks run higher) so long as you set LLC accordingly - LLC 5-6 should work fine. Why did you jump right to 1.4V vcore? that's pretty high for BWE. It's best to set something like 1.3-1.325V and then just increase the multiplier until it fails to post ot boot, then drop back one anbd stress test in that range first. Jumping voltage up like that may cause you to miss the chips "sweet spot"... where the mV per MHz is still linear. Always good to have that sweetspot saved as a solid 24/7 OC.


----------



## Fidelity21

I've been at this since September so I've been all through the voltage ranges. I know that VCC VID forces 1.298 for 4.2ghz no matter what i set adaptive voltage to. This caused a lot of confusion early on until I realized that I can't override the VID value when running adaptive mode. I had turbo set to 1.250v and the Vcore was 1.298v under load...I eventually figured it out.







. When set to manual voltage, it worked at 1.250v for a while but eventually failed. Tried this all the way to 1.280v and then gave up on manual voltage because it didn't drop the voltage at idle like adaptive does.

I know that 1.320v is stable for 4.3ghz.(1.310v fails with a bugcheck error) I've tried 1.32-1.400v for 4.4...fails pretty quickly with anything south of 1.400v. I did skip 1.400---1.4200v as I wanted to run the stress test while sleeping and 1.400v failed with bug check x101. Should I go back and try 1.410v or is it worth it to try even smaller voltage differences like 1.402 or 1.405? The temperatures under load were almost identical between 1.400v and 1.420v but I know Lower is better.

Also, temps under load are 80C or less right now. I have Asus Throttle Control Tool installed and set to kick in at 85c and drop me to 36x and 1.250v. I also have the AVX offset set to 3, but I think this is redundant given that I'm already using ACTC.

Looking at siliconlottery.com and their performance numbers, it looks like the newer chips are better overclockers than the first ones to come out(bought mine in June) so many people are able to hit 4.4ghz in the sub 1.4v range where I am not that lucky. I purchased the Intel overclocking plan just in case something goes south. I also noticed they test up to 1.422v so I assumed it was safe to do so although it's on the upper limit for sure.


----------



## Fidelity21

Now that I've got 4.4ghz stable, even though voltages are crazy, I'm going to drop back to 4.3ghz and 1.320v and see if I'm still stable. I'd like to stay under 1.350v Vcore just to be safe for everyday usage and I agree that 0.100v increase just to get another 100mhz is a big jump and probably not worth it. Maybe now that my memory is stable, I can find a voltage lower than 1.320v for 4.3ghz and then I'll start working on VCCSA and VCCIO.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Now that I've got 4.4ghz stable, even though voltages are crazy, I'm going to drop back to 4.3ghz and 1.320v and see if I'm still stable. I'd like to stay under 1.350v Vcore just to be safe for everyday usage and I agree that 0.100v increase just to get another 100mhz is a big jump and probably not worth it. Maybe now that my memory is stable, I can find a voltage lower than 1.320v for 4.3ghz and then I'll start working on VCCSA and VCCIO.


When increasing vcore that much you should also see if adding vccin helpsto stabilize the configuration. so, basically, if you need to add 80mV vcore, add 10+ mV to VCCIN also.








figure 10mV vcore for each 100MHz per core in the linear range... once a chip starts needing > 15mV for 100MHz/core it's going off the reservation... fine for benchmarking, but not a comfort zone for 24/7 clocks - especially if you do a lot of high current operations (like video encoding or hashing, folding etc). And yes, you'd be amazed at how many users struggle with getting a stable core OC only to later realize it was the ram borking it up.


----------



## Fidelity21

I'm a little lost on what value to start with, only because I don't know the starting point at which you add VCCIN voltage. Up to this point, I've left it on auto which I will eventually change.

Going back through my screen captures:

VCCIN 1.888 when 4.3ghz at 1.320v and LLC 5
VCCIN 1.904 when 4.4ghz at 1.420v and LLC 5
VCCIN 1.936 when 4.4ghz at 1.400v and LLC Auto

I see that 4.3-4.4 took 16mV. From memory, 1.888v VCCIN has been pretty consistent at 4.3ghz with voltages from 1.300-1.320v.

Realbench is 90 minutes into its test so hopefully I can pass at least 4 hours and then start changing things off auto.

Back to VCCSA, VCCIN and VCCIO...which one should I work in first? Or should I keep dropping Vcore first? Or should I just leave things alone because the numbers look good.


----------



## Fidelity21

Realbench test failed 140 minutes into testing with "cannot allocate required memory". That error is going down as the most frustrating error I've ever dealt with! How can it pass at 4.4ghz and 1.420v, but fail at 4.3ghz and 1.320v? That's the only change I've made...so do I increase Vcore or ???

I let my system run all night long (8 hours) with realbench and then woke up this morning to the system successfully passing the stress test. I let the computer sit for a few hours and then loading AI Suite to change voltage from 1.420 to 1.320 and frequency from 4.4ghz to 4.3ghz. I then restarted the test and it failed 140 minutes in.

I've been reading online about many people who blame AI Suite for instability...maybe that's a cause? AI Suite is the only way I know of to change voltage and frequency in windows. I loaded AI Suite, changed the settings and then closed the program. It's possible that the program causes problems simply because it's installed or it was loaded into memory before the benchmark??? I'll have to restart the computer and re-run the same test to see if AI Suite is a problem. Or I could just uninstall it completely and try again, but I like the programs ability to control fan speed.


----------



## Iceman2733

OK i have am having trouble finding a lot of info for the 6850k, can anyone tell me what is the recommended max voltage or volt range to be running safely.


----------



## Fidelity21

I believe that information exists anywhere because I have looked myself. It's a better idea to start with something in the range of 1.25v and see what your temperatures are. You can go up or down in voltage so long as you keep your temperatures under 80 Celsius or some choose to go slightly higher but 85C is the max I'd ever go and continuous temps should be under 80c.

I can hit 1.420v and stay under that mark with water cooling. An AIO water system maybe 1.350v? Air cooling maybe 1.25v? These are just estimates as everyone has a different setup. Check out the Asus Broadwell-e overclocking guide for more info. I think page 5 of 7 has voltage information.


----------



## Fidelity21

Well I restarted and did another test without loading Asus AI Suite 3 and this time I passed for 205 minutes before stopping it. I am moving forward with the assumption that things are stable and now I'm trying to find the best VCCSA value. What's the best way to do this? I'm thinking, since it's related to memory, that I can run GSAT to test stability or should I be using something else?

I pulled this from the Asus Broadwell-e Overclocking guide.
"Once CPU core stability is established, configure XMP for the memory modules - if they support XMP - and run a memory-intensive stress test to ensure the system is stable. (Recommended stress tests are listed later in this guide.) If stability cannot be established with XMP engaged, try reducing the CPU core clock to debug where the issue lies. Keep Vcore at the same value when doing this, just to remove CPU core instability from the equation. If the system becomes stable at a lower operating frequency, then you may need to tune Vcore, System Agent (VCCSA), and VCCIO voltages. If none of these help stability, the memory timings or DRAM voltage may need adjustment."

My system is stable with VCCIO and VCCSA at Auto values. The voltages are between 1.250 and 1.300v...I'm told that's high.

I am starting to isolate VCCSA and restesting stability. Starting with a + offset of .060v and AIDA is reporting the voltage as .992v. I'm going to run RealBench again and see if I am stable for 2 hours...this entire process can take a VERY long time if it takes 4-8 hours before displaying a problem. Hopefully that's not the case.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Well I restarted and did another test without loading Asus AI Suite 3 and this time I passed for 205 minutes before stopping it. I am moving forward with the assumption that things are stable and now I'm trying to find the best VCCSA value. What's the best way to do this? I'm thinking, since it's related to memory, that I can run GSAT to test stability or should I be using something else?
> 
> I pulled this from the Asus Broadwell-e Overclocking guide.
> "Once CPU core stability is established, configure XMP for the memory modules - if they support XMP - and run a memory-intensive stress test to ensure the system is stable. (Recommended stress tests are listed later in this guide.) If stability cannot be established with XMP engaged, try reducing the CPU core clock to debug where the issue lies. Keep Vcore at the same value when doing this, just to remove CPU core instability from the equation. If the system becomes stable at a lower operating frequency, then you may need to tune Vcore, System Agent (VCCSA), and VCCIO voltages. If none of these help stability, the memory timings or DRAM voltage may need adjustment."
> 
> My system is stable with VCCIO and VCCSA at Auto values. The voltages are between 1.250 and 1.300v...I'm told that's high.
> 
> I am starting to isolate VCCSA and restesting stability. Starting with a + offset of .060v and AIDA is reporting the voltage as .992v. I'm going to run RealBench again and see if I am stable for 2 hours...this entire process can take a VERY long time if it takes 4-8 hours before displaying a problem. Hopefully that's not the case.


I've been running tests, and still am, though I'm almost at the best settings. I've probably ran more than 200 hours of stress tests so far.

VCCSA seems to vary greatly between chips. My 6850K hates it and causes instability when it's set anywhere close to 1.2v. . +.001 ~ .016 seems good for my chip. Currently have it at .016 (which gives me somewhere around 1v)


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I'm a little lost on what value to start with, only because I don't know the starting point at which you add VCCIN voltage. Up to this point, I've left it on auto which I will eventually change.
> 
> Going back through my screen captures:
> 
> VCCIN 1.888 when 4.3ghz at 1.320v and LLC 5
> VCCIN 1.904 when 4.4ghz at 1.420v and LLC 5
> VCCIN 1.936 when 4.4ghz at 1.400v and LLC Auto
> 
> I see that 4.3-4.4 took 16mV. From memory, 1.888v VCCIN has been pretty consistent at 4.3ghz with voltages from 1.300-1.320v.
> 
> Realbench is 90 minutes into its test so hopefully I can pass at least 4 hours and then start changing things off auto.
> 
> Back to VCCSA, VCCIN and VCCIO...which one should I work in first? Or should I keep dropping Vcore first? Or should I just leave things alone because the numbers look good.


Mess with 1 setting at a time. Vcore first, then the rest. VCCSA and VCCIO can definitely be tweaked imo.


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ This.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> OK i have am having trouble finding a lot of info for the 6850k, can anyone tell me what is the recommended max voltage or volt range to be running safely.


The product spec sheet does not list an AOR for vcore... only VCCIN, and a few other voltage rails. Stay under 1.4 vcore on 6 and 8 core skus, and 1.35V with 10 core for 24/7 and importantly stay under 1.3V for Cache. there's been a few chips degrade with higher voltages tho they were under high current loads. my


----------



## Fidelity21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I've been running tests, and still am, though I'm almost at the best settings. I've probably ran more than 200 hours of stress tests so far.
> 
> VCCSA seems to vary greatly between chips. My 6850K hates it and causes instability when it's set anywhere close to 1.2v. . +.001 ~ .016 seems good for my chip. Currently have it at .016 (which gives me somewhere around 1v)


Thanks. Jpmboy told me VCCSA may require about 1.00v because I overclocked the memory (XMP) so I set the offset to .060 which provided a voltage of .992v. I went back into the BIOS and changed it to .065, just to get closer to 1.000 but AIDA is still showing .992v. I also set VCCIO to 1.05 just to have a starting point. Is there a better test than Realbench when setting these values? I'm already an hour into Realbench and I'm stable. I wonder if x265 would be a better test for SA...which directly affects the memory via the IMC if I'm not mistaken. I did GSAT for an hour on .001 and passed...I stopped doing that because I wasn't sure if that was the best way to rest the VCCSA values. What really confuses me is the DRASTIC difference between AUTO and my current values...yet it's still fairly stable?


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Thanks. Jpmboy told me VCCSA may require about 1.00v because I overclocked the memory (XMP) so I set the offset to .060 which provided a voltage of .992v. I went back into the BIOS and changed it to .065, just to get closer to 1.000 but AIDA is still showing .992v. I also set VCCIO to 1.05 just to have a starting point. Is there a better test than Realbench when setting these values? I'm already an hour into Realbench and I'm stable. I wonder if x265 would be a better test for SA...which directly affects the memory via the IMC if I'm not mistaken. I did GSAT for an hour on .001 and passed...I stopped doing that because I wasn't sure if that was the best way to rest the VCCSA values. What really confuses me is the DRASTIC difference between AUTO and my current values...yet it's still fairly stable?


I have my memory overclocked and with tighter timings (2800 > 3000, CL14 > CL13), and VCCSA is fine at 1.0v. My chip doesn't get affected by VCCSA much at all it seems. For me, I find that for VCCSA GSAT (or even HCI) is best. Just make sure to use the -W command to add more stress to the CPU. I don't think 1 hour is enough. I think a minimum of 5 hours are necessary to really call it close to stable. I've had GSAT even give me errors way into the 6-7 hour marks. So the longer the better.

In my experience, OCCT gives faster errors than RB for CPU/cache voltage issues.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Thanks. Jpmboy told me VCCSA may require about 1.00v because I overclocked the memory (XMP) so I set the offset to .060 which provided a voltage of .992v. I went back into the BIOS and changed it to .065, just to get closer to 1.000 but AIDA is still showing .992v. I also set VCCIO to 1.05 just to have a starting point. Is there a better test than Realbench when setting these values? I'm already an hour into Realbench and I'm stable. I wonder if x265 would be a better test for SA...which directly affects the memory via the IMC if I'm not mistaken. I did GSAT for an hour on .001 and passed...I stopped doing that because I wasn't sure if that was the best way to rest the VCCSA values. What really confuses me is the DRASTIC difference between AUTO and my current values...yet it's still fairly stable?
> 
> **


VCCSA is a voltage rail where more is not always better, when tuning it, be sure to test "around" a low set point that provides a clean boot. 1.000V is a good general place to start, then fine tune with a +/- range of 25mV. when doing ram-intensive stability testing. I run a 3200c14 64GB kit at 3400c13, VSA is 1.05V
VDIMM is 1.45V. Been at these values since the R5E-10 launched.

btw - fully uninstall AI suite and use turboVcore if you adj voltages while in the OS.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I've been reading online about many people who blame AI Suite for instability...maybe that's a cause? AI Suite is the only way I know of to change voltage and frequency in windows. I loaded AI Suite, changed the settings and then closed the program. It's possible that the program causes problems simply because it's installed or it was loaded into memory before the benchmark??? I'll have to restart the computer and re-run the same test to see if AI Suite is a problem. Or I could just uninstall it completely and try again, but I like the programs ability to control fan speed.


I have heard ASUS AI SUITE be called the "Kiss of Death" and that installing it "destroys the heart of your system". Personally I think that may be a bit extreme. I have used it to find a starting point. I think the fear is that the program is accessing your BIOS on an intimate level and it may be doing "things" that you are not in control of. The comment was on Tom's Hardware (I think). You can use Intel Extreme Tuning Utility which is a free download and a nice looking program. It will let you adjust VCore and frequency from within Windows. Here's the link. Hopefully it posts correctly - the editor is acting weird right now...

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/24075/Intel-Extreme-Tuning-Utility-Intel-XTU-


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> I have heard ASUS AI SUITE be called the "Kiss of Death" and that installing it "destroys the heart of your system". Personally I think that may be a bit extreme. I have used it to find a starting point. I think the fear is that the program is accessing your BIOS on an intimate level and it may be doing "things" that you are not in control of. The comment was on Tom's Hardware (I think). You can use Intel Extreme Tuning Utility which is a free download and a nice looking program. It will let you adjust VCore and frequency from within Windows. Here's the link. Hopefully it posts correctly - the editor is acting weird right now...
> 
> https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/24075/Intel-Extreme-Tuning-Utility-Intel-XTU-


if you are on an ASUS board, use TurboVcore (from ASUS).


----------



## Fidelity21

I will remove AI Suite, which is currently installed but not set to start with windows, and instal turbovcore once I find the latest version. The one consistency I've noticed is that running AI and then shutting it down after settings have been updated always seems to lead to instability and failed realbench tests.

I let the system run last night and passed 1000% using HCI memtest in windows. It passed so I have to assume my VCCSA and VCCIO numbers are in a good place. Now I'm running realbench and if that passes for 8 hours then I'm saving the settings in the bios and backed up on a thumb drive.

The one thing I haven't touched yet is uncore. Should I follow the same procedure as Vcore and clock frequencies and simply set a voltage in the bios (manual I think because adaptive doesn't work for uncore) and just keep increasing uncore until I find instability? Before redoing this whole overclock, I was at 36x and I played with voltage ranges from 1.1 to 1.25 and uncore seemed happy at any of those voltage ranges..but then again I had random restarts and crashes so that's possibly related.

I've also noticed that a BIOS update deletes all profiles saved and the last time I upgraded the bios, I saved the settings to a USB device first. Upon updating, the bios file wouldn't load....which makes me think they're version dependent? If so, might make sense to hand write all the important settings and save them somewhere just in case.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I will remove AI Suite, which is currently installed but not set to start with windows, and instal turbovcore once I find the latest version. The one consistency I've noticed is that running AI and then shutting it down after settings have been updated always seems to lead to instability and failed realbench tests.
> 
> I let the system run last night and passed 1000% using HCI memtest in windows. It passed so I have to assume my VCCSA and VCCIO numbers are in a good place. Now I'm running realbench and if that passes for 8 hours then I'm saving the settings in the bios and backed up on a thumb drive.
> 
> The one thing I haven't touched yet is uncore. Should I follow the same procedure as Vcore and clock frequencies and simply set a voltage in the bios (manual I think because adaptive doesn't work for uncore) and just keep increasing uncore until I find instability? Before redoing this whole overclock, I was at 36x and I played with voltage ranges from 1.1 to 1.25 and uncore seemed happy at any of those voltage ranges..but then again I had random restarts and crashes so that's possibly related.
> 
> I've also noticed that a BIOS update deletes all profiles saved and the last time I upgraded the bios, I saved the settings to a USB device first. Upon updating, the bios file wouldn't load....which makes me think they're version dependent? If so, might make sense to hand write all the important settings and save them somewhere just in case.


lookin' good!
bios settings are not portable between bios versions ()on any motherboard). You can save bios screenshots (F12 with usb stick in) and work off of those after the flash, but do not assume the settings will be the same between versions - close, but maybe not identical.


----------



## Fidelity21

Luxmark-x64 crashed and realbench showed "instability detected" immediately after. This has never happened before and the information online seems to indicate that it's related to the graphics card? I haven't even begun to overclock the GPU yet, but it's a water cooled Asus Nvidia 1080 with EK Water Block and backplate cover. GPU never seems to get over 50C even in the most demanding applications.

Could the luxmark crash have anything to do with VCCSA or VCCIO?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> Luxmark-x64 crashed and realbench showed "instability detected" immediately after. This has never happened before and the information online seems to indicate that it's related to the graphics card? I haven't even begun to overclock the GPU yet, but it's a water cooled Asus Nvidia 1080 with EK Water Block and backplate cover. GPU never seems to get over 50C even in the most demanding applications.
> 
> Could the luxmark crash have anything to do with VCCSA or VCCIO?


Do you have MSI afterburner or Precision X opened during the test ?


----------



## Fidelity21

I do have Asus GPU Tweak II set to autostart with windows but I usually close it down before starting Realbench. It's set to run and configure the video card far below it's full potential. None of my games really need the 1080 overclocked so I've been saving that for a future project.









The only time I did feel a lack of GPU power is when running both 4k monitors with Nvidia's Video Spanning. Basically making an 8k monitor and that configuration was substantially more demanding than the Nvidia 1080 could ever hope to process...probably needs at least SLI.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> I do have Asus GPU Tweak II set to autostart with windows but I usually close it down before starting Realbench. It's set to run and configure the video card far below it's full potential. None of my games really need the 1080 overclocked so I've been saving that for a future project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only time I did feel a lack of GPU power is when running both 4k monitors with Nvidia's Video Spanning. Basically making an 8k monitor and that configuration was substantially more demanding than the Nvidia 1080 could ever hope to process...probably needs at least SLI.


i was asking if you have MSI afterburner or EVGA Precision X opened during Realbench test ?
It can create Luxmark crash during RealBench stress test.


----------



## Fidelity21

Negative. I did not have either program installed or running at the time.

It must have been something to do with Nvidia as the settings changed afterwards on my dual monitor setup.

Also getting some weird issue with the audio popping...maybe it has something to do with the new microsoft windows update was installed.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I've been quietly reading lately (cause I know how annoying my millions of questions get..lol), the talk of VCCSA.
From what I've seen for my 2800Mhz kit I had my VCCSA far to high (1.15), so I went on a mission to lower it.

So far so good at these voltages (CPU [email protected], Cache [email protected]).
But like we all know you can stress test for days and pass but then it'll throw a error using the machine.

(Screenshot taken while running x265 Benchmark)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I've been quietly reading lately (cause I know how annoying my millions of questions get..lol), the talk of VCCSA.
> From what I've seen for my 2800Mhz kit I had my VCCSA far to high (1.15), so I went on a mission to lower it.
> 
> So far so good at these voltages (CPU [email protected], Cache [email protected]).
> But like we all know you *can stress test for days and pass but then it'll throw a error using the machine.*
> 
> (Screenshot taken while running x265 Benchmark)


what are you using to stress test the voltage change?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what are you using to stress test the voltage change?


X265, Realbench, HCI and Stessapptest.
On another note got tahrpup working, it hated my Corsair K70 Lux plugged into the USB 2 ports, moved them to the USB 3 and it just booted, heck of a lot easier than installing Linux for stressapptest.


----------



## Shaded War

What are normal temps on the 6800k?

I just got mine today, and I'm hitting 85°C on stock with a H100i and Noctua NF-F12 fans on medium-high speeds in Intel Burn Test. I Bumped the core turbo speeds up to 4Ghz without changing volts from stock, and it was enough to thermal throttle. Idle temp is 30°C which seems around normal so I think the cooler should be seated ok.

My 3770k that I just pulled from this rig never hit 75°C at 4.5Ghz with the fans barely spinning.

Even a rig I built for a friend using a 5820K at 4.5Ghz never hit above ~85°C on the Noctua ND-14 air cooler in Intel burn test.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shaded War*
> 
> What are normal temps on the 6800k?
> 
> I just got mine today, and I'm hitting 85°C on stock with a H100i and Noctua NF-F12 fans on medium-high speeds in Intel Burn Test. I Bumped the core turbo speeds up to 4Ghz without changing volts from stock, and it was enough to thermal throttle.
> 
> My 3770k that I just pulled from this rig never hit 75°C at 4.5Ghz with the fans barely spinning.
> 
> Even a rig I built for a friend using a 5820K at 4.5Ghz never hit above ~85°C on the Noctua ND-14 air cooler in Intel burn test.


The x99 Strix applies some stupidly high voltages when on Auto, you should start setting them manually (Adaptive/offsets), you'll find the temps will come down.
IBT is a little overkill for the Broadwell-E cpu's as well.


----------



## TMatzelle60

Does Broadwell-e support windows 7 and also when will next skylake x be out looking to build new system want to make sure skylake-x is not coming out antime soon


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TMatzelle60*
> 
> Does Broadwell-e support windows 7 and also when will next skylake x be out looking to build new system want to make sure skylake-x is not coming out antime soon


Saw this today:

Intel Skylake-X series CPU Photo Surfaces
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-skylake-x-series-cpu-photo-surfaces.html


----------



## Shaded War

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> The x99 Strix applies some stupidly high voltages when on Auto, you should start setting them manually (Adaptive/offsets), you'll find the temps will come down.
> IBT is a little overkill for the Broadwell-E cpu's as well.


I just ran IBT with CPU-Z open at 4.0 Auto voltage, and found voltage was hovering in 1.225-1.239v range.

Also, the temps are very sporadic even without thermal throttling. Realtemp reports mid 70's, then all of a sudden it shoots up 10°C for a second or two even on completely stock clocks. No amount of fan speed is going to change these temp surges.

EDIT: The temp surges only happen in IBT, Prime 95 temps are much more stable.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> X265, Realbench, HCI and Stessapptest.
> On another note got tahrpup working, it hated my Corsair K70 Lux plugged into the USB 2 ports, moved them to the USB 3 and it just booted, heck of a lot easier than installing Linux for stressapptest.


puppy linux is just tooeasy, and it's not a bad OS at all.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shaded War*
> 
> What are normal temps on the 6800k?
> 
> I just got mine today, and I'm hitting 85°C on stock with a H100i and Noctua NF-F12 fans on medium-high speeds in Intel Burn Test. I Bumped the core turbo speeds up to 4Ghz without changing volts from stock, and it was enough to thermal throttle. Idle temp is 30°C which seems around normal so I think the cooler should be seated ok.
> 
> My 3770k that I just pulled from this rig never hit 75°C at 4.5Ghz with the fans barely spinning.
> 
> Even a rig I built for a friend using a 5820K at 4.5Ghz never hit above ~85°C on the Noctua ND-14 air cooler in Intel burn test.


30C is high for idle with an H100i IMO - depending on ambient. Also, programs like IBT and p95 should be set aside with this architecture. Use realbench (or x264 stresstest), HCI memtest (and or GSAT).
You should check the cooler mount, those temps seem high.


----------



## Shaded War

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 30C is high for idle with an H100i IMO - depending on ambient. Also, programs like IBT and p95 should be set aside with this architecture. Use realbench (or x264 stresstest), HCI memtest (and or GSAT).
> You should check the cooler mount, those temps seem high.


Even Prime95 caused the CPU to hit unsafe temps in the high 90°C range so I'm going to have to change something. I'll try redoing the thermal paste. I noticed there was a tad more than needed, but I didn't think it would be an issue.

I'll give realbench a shot once I get back and running. I wasn't aware there was some issues with this architecture and benches.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> puppy linux is just tooeasy, and it's not a bad OS at all.


Yeah I've actually been playing with it for years, just never go around to it since owning the x99 setup.
Plus it's original developer was an Aussie, so we support home gown









It never crossed my mind to use it for stressapptest, it's useless on the 32bit variants though, tahrpup64 is the best.
Typing this on it now...lol..


----------



## TMatzelle60

will I have problems with Ubuntu 16.04 on a X99 and using a 6800K. Really worried at moving to Linux and all want to make sure hardware works.


----------



## Shaded War

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 30C is high for idle with an H100i IMO - depending on ambient. Also, programs like IBT and p95 should be set aside with this architecture. Use realbench (or x264 stresstest), HCI memtest (and or GSAT).
> You should check the cooler mount, those temps seem high.


I never thought 30°C was high for the H100i since my 3770k always ran there, but redoing the TIM so it was just barely any on there got my 6800k idle down to 25°C. I suppose the 3770k was running with bad thermal paste all these years as well, so I come to expect it.

Intel burn test at 4Ghz maxed out at 73°C with my fans on minimal RPM, which is a massive step down from 90+ on high speeds. Hopefully I can safely achieve 4.5Ghz range now with realistic usage temps being much lower.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> puppy linux is just tooeasy, and it's not a bad OS at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30C is high for idle with an H100i IMO - depending on ambient. Also, programs like IBT and p95 should be set aside with this architecture. Use realbench (or x264 stresstest), HCI memtest (and or GSAT).
> You should check the cooler mount, those temps seem high.


30c is high for idle? I idle around 28-33 @4.4 (1.34v) on my quad EK XE radiator.


----------



## Silent Scone

https://siliconlottery.com/collections/2011-3/products/6800k45g

Why am I tempted.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> https://siliconlottery.com/collections/2011-3/products/6800k45g
> 
> Why am I tempted.


I'm still rocking my 5960X on a Rampage V Extreme, I've been tempted to give that delidding a shot on a 6950X. Waiting for black Friday to see what they do.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> I'm still rocking my 5960X on a Rampage V Extreme, I've been tempted to give that delidding a shot on a 6950X. Waiting for black Friday to see what they do.


6950x is beastly but I don't need that many cores on my home system anymore!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> 30c is high for idle? I idle around 28-33 @4.4 (1.34v) on my quad EK XE radiator.


package or core? this 6950x idles at 2C above ambient on the cores and package is +10C
I'd have to disable speedstep/run manual override to get into the mid/high 20s at idle.
But a lot depends on the ambient temp.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 6950x is beastly but I don't need that many cores on my home system anymore!


it's like having a 12 cylinder Jag or a 700HP Vette... not gonna use it all on the street (ever), but good to know it's there.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> package or core? this 6950x idles at 2C above ambient on the cores and package is +10C
> I'd have to disable speedstep/run manual override to get into the mid/high 20s at idle.
> But a lot depends on the ambient temp.
> it's like having a 12 cylinder Jag or a 700HP Vette... not gonna use it all on the street (ever), but good to know it's there.


Core.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> package or core? this 6950x idles at 2C above ambient on the cores and package is +10C
> I'd have to disable speedstep/run manual override to get into the mid/high 20s at idle.
> But a lot depends on the ambient temp.
> it's like having a 12 cylinder Jag or a 700HP Vette... not gonna use it all on the street (ever), but good to know it's there.


I can't get down with that analogy as it's not enjoyable having cores unused, but it is using part throttle listening to a v12


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TMatzelle60*
> 
> will I have problems with Ubuntu 16.04 on a X99 and using a 6800K. Really worried at moving to Linux and all want to make sure hardware works.


No. I'm not really sure why you're asking if a certain CPU or Chipset work with Linux....

Every single x86 CPU/Chipset will work with Linux. Or Windows.... or any x86 operating system.

With Windows the only issue is drivers. Same with Linux to a lesser extent. Some hardware is just not supported on Linux but it's never the case of that hardware being the CPU or Chipset.

Linux even runs properly if there is no CPU microcode in the BIOS. Windows cannot do that.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I can't get down with that analogy as it's not enjoyable having cores unused, but it is using part throttle listening to a v12


what a sound it is!


----------



## TMatzelle60

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> No. I'm not really sure why you're asking if a certain CPU or Chipset work with Linux....
> 
> Every single x86 CPU/Chipset will work with Linux. Or Windows.... or any x86 operating system.
> 
> With Windows the only issue is drivers. Same with Linux to a lesser extent. Some hardware is just not supported on Linux but it's never the case of that hardware being the CPU or GPU.
> 
> Linux even runs properly if there is no CPU microcode in the BIOS. Windows cannot do that.


I'm just worried to pull the trigger on x99 board for Linux because if it does not work I will have to run windows which I do not want to


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TMatzelle60*
> 
> I'm just worried to pull the trigger on x99 board for Linux because if it does not work I will have to run windows which I do not want to


Many of us can run Linux on our X99 boards.


----------



## TMatzelle60

Thanks I just want to make sure I like Linux I use it on laptop and want to build a Linux computer.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TMatzelle60*
> 
> Thanks I just want to make sure I like Linux I use it on laptop and want to build a Linux computer.


Np man. Better safe than sorry.


----------



## Sh3perd

Im debating about getting the 6850K. Will it have higher FPS in solitaire? I only play that and pinball. Just curious.


----------



## mouacyk

Anyone here build Arch or Gentoo or some other Linux from source and maintain it that way? How does the 6900K and 6950K work out for you? I'm more and more heavily invested in Gentoo so looking to virtualize Windows with GPU-passthrough and grab one of these monsters. Just wishing G-Sync would work through virtualization soon.


----------



## TMatzelle60

I guess I just over react because most of the time Linux will be fine


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TMatzelle60*
> 
> will I have problems with Ubuntu 16.04 on a X99 and using a 6800K. Really worried at moving to Linux and all want to make sure hardware works.


It will work fine. Just keep in mind though, certain peripherals that require specific drivers may not work. For example, my Supremefx hi-fi DAC doesn't work on linux.


----------



## TMatzelle60

i was going to have intel nic and realtek audio


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sh3perd*
> 
> Im debating about getting the 6850K. Will it have higher FPS in solitaire? I only play that and pinball. Just curious.


The 6850X gets luckier cards in Solitaire


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sh3perd*
> 
> Im debating about getting the 6850K. Will it have higher FPS in solitaire? I only play that and pinball. Just curious.


oh solitaire? you need a 6950X. Don't cheap out.


----------



## aerotracks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> oh solitaire? you need a 6950X. Don't cheap out.


+1









I got a set of Corsairs today. I went onto memtesting as I'm limited to 1600MHz clock speed with the little MSI board - VDIMM 1.40V
They seem alright







, my G.Skill can't do this. But decision whether they're good or not will fall using 1151 platform

http://abload.de/image.php?img=3200c13-13-13i6ur6.png


----------



## Jpmboy

lol - you're the second guy I've seen with those Corsair 3200c14-16-16's, they look to be a very good kit!


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aerotracks*
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got a set of Corsairs today. I went onto memtesting as I'm limited to 1600MHz clock speed with the little MSI board - VDIMM 1.40V
> They seem alright
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , my G.Skill can't do this. But decision whether they're good or not will fall using 1151 platform
> 
> http://abload.de/image.php?img=3200c13-13-13i6ur6.png


What kit is that? I want it. Now.

Lol.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> What kit is that? I want it. Now.
> 
> Lol.


says it in the screen shot. CPU-z SPD Tap
http://www.corsair.com/en-us/dominator-platinum-se-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3200mhz-c14-memory-kit-blackout-cmd32gx4m4c3200c14m


----------



## Kimir

Isn't that the shiny kit?
The Dominator platinum SE I mean, limited edition black or silver

Dominator® Platinum Special Edition 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C14 Memory Kit - Blackout (CMD32GX4M2C3200C14M)
Dominator® Platinum Special Edition 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C14 Memory Kit - Chrome (CMD32GX4M2C3200C14C)

ninja'd


----------



## lilchronic

Those are pretty tempting and that price is not bad either.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Those are pretty tempting and that price is not bad either.


Indeed, $330 isn't bad for a limited edition product. The G.Skill are around 300€ here still.


----------



## Iceman2733

With the memory controller of the Broadwell-E is there any disadvantage to running 8 sticks of memory? I recently put 4x4 16gig and have thought about going with another 4x4 16gig kit in the computer. I have done searching and searching I have read people say it makes overclocking harder but I don't plan to OC the memory any.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> With the memory controller of the Broadwell-E is there any disadvantage to running 8 sticks of memory? I recently put 4x4 16gig and have thought about going with another 4x4 16gig kit in the computer. I have done searching and searching I have read people say it makes overclocking harder but I don't plan to OC the memory any.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


mixing kits may be more of an issue than anything else you mention. The BWE IMC is capable.


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> With the memory controller of the Broadwell-E is there any disadvantage to running 8 sticks of memory? I recently put 4x4 16gig and have thought about going with another 4x4 16gig kit in the computer. I have done searching and searching I have read people say it makes overclocking harder but I don't plan to OC the memory any.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
> 
> 
> 
> mixing kits may be more of an issue than anything else you mention. The BWE IMC is capable.
Click to expand...

Thank you good sir for the response I just wasn't for sure I hadn't read of benefits or disadvantages to it but wanted to make sure. I plan to buy the exact same kit but i agree I should have jus thought a 32gig to start with but talked myself out of it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Thank you good sir for the response I just wasn't for sure I hadn't read of benefits or disadvantages to it but wanted to make sure. I plan to buy the exact same kit but i agree I should have jus thought a 32gig to start with but talked myself out of it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


even mixing the exact same kits is not supported by the manufacturer - the sticks were not binned to work together. They may play well together... or not.


----------



## aerotracks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Isn't that the shiny kit?
> The Dominator platinum SE I mean, limited edition black or silver
> 
> Dominator® Platinum Special Edition 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C14 Memory Kit - Blackout (CMD32GX4M2C3200C14M)
> Dominator® Platinum Special Edition 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C14 Memory Kit - Chrome (CMD32GX4M2C3200C14C)
> 
> ninja'd


Almost it's the set with 8GB Sticks, 16GB sticks are smelly









http://www.corsair.com/de-de/dominator-platinum-se-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3200mhz-c14-memory-kit-blackout-cmd32gx4m4c3200c14m

With rising memory prices here in Germany it's not that much of a premium anymore


----------



## Silent Scone

They've fallen in line with other brands with their pricing. I think they know they're beat when it comes to GSKILL.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> They've fallen in line with other brands with their pricing. I think they know they're beat when it comes to GSKILL.


^^ This! (and about time)


----------



## Kimir

I didn't moved the drop-down box to set the 4x8GB before posting the link? oops.
Damn you guys got in in Germany, when I go there from the French webpage all it shows is "find a reseller". tsss

I noticed a rise in memory price here as well, the G.Skill had dropped quite alot after I got mine, it's back at about 320€ so yeah those Domi are not a premium price anymore!


----------



## aerotracks

That's weird, mine came in through NL with the shipment originating in Taiwan.


----------



## Kimir

I took a look on other products, it seems like the French store is not really available just yet, all of the product shows "find a reseller".


----------



## Timmaigh!

Finally got my 6850k rig put together... running it stock for the time being. What are the usual temps, when using watercooling, both idle and under load? I have Corsair H105 and RealTemp reports about 22C while idling/web browsing and then i between 38-44 (depending on core) under load (Cinebench run)... is this in line with what to expect? I never had water cooling setup before.

Another question, i hear constant buzzing from inside the computer - its not what i would say loud, but its there even when idling, thus making the new rig more noisy then the previous one. I assume its the pump, well it sounds different to usual noise caused by fans for sure. Is it normal to hear it or is it supposed to be dead silent?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> They've fallen in line with other brands with their pricing. I think they know they're beat when it comes to GSKILL.


Hello

I agree. There doesn't seem to be anything special there compared to G.Skill. G.Skill will do the same timings and speed with default 1.35V.


----------



## Shaded War

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Thank you good sir for the response I just wasn't for sure I hadn't read of benefits or disadvantages to it but wanted to make sure. I plan to buy the exact same kit but i agree I should have jus thought a 32gig to start with but talked myself out of it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
> 
> 
> 
> even mixing the exact same kits is not supported by the manufacturer - the sticks were not binned to work together. They may play well together... or not.
Click to expand...

I recently had some DDR3 2400Mhz 8GB kits not mix together with my 3770k so I returned one of them. Strangely enough, when I got a 16GB set of 2400, they perfectly ran with my old 8GB set for a total of 24GB at 2400Mhz using the MXP preset.

Allot of it comes down to luck. Especially with brands like G.Skill that use mixed brands of memory modules, even on the same part numbers.


----------



## djgar

Somewhat off-topic but somewhat relevant, why do people have to announce what they use to send their messages? It takes up space, it's distracting, and we don't really care!









I feel better now


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> I took a look on other products, it seems like the French store is not really available just yet, all of the product shows "find a reseller".


Try Corsair UK Store. I could find shipping to Finland and also France.

I would really like to have a 64GB kit, but would like the looks of the Special Chromes....that only comes as 32 GB single kit.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Try Corsair UK Store. I could find shipping to Finland and also France.
> 
> I would really like to have a 64GB kit, but would like the looks of the Special Chromes....that only comes as 32 GB single kit.


Doesn't seems to be the case anymore, it only allows me to ship in UK, might be du to Brexit.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Doesn't seems to be the case anymore, it only allows me to ship in UK, might be du to Brexit.


I got some stuff shipped from Amazon UK today ...


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I got some stuff shipped from Amazon UK today ...


We were talking about Corsair shop, not Amazon if you didn't follow.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> We were talking about Corsair shop, not Amazon if you didn't follow.


I did, but you mentioned Brexit as the possible cause which is generic, so this is some additional info







.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Doesn't seems to be the case anymore, it only allows me to ship in UK, might be du to Brexit.


I went through corsair.com now and used global site as my location. However, for some reason it shows USD as currency, so custom charges etc. probably on top of that.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I went through corsair.com now and used global site as my location. However, for some reason it shows USD as currency, so custom charges etc. probably on top of that.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Ah yeah indeed on the international page it's there, somehow the price is gouged compared to the en-us one too, that rip off... $330 to $420 excluding tax and shipping, damn.


----------



## Danny Bui

Just got a 6950X, doing some stability testing atm. It just passed 1hr of Asus RealBench stress test at 4.4Ghz core with 1.3v. Is this chip decent?


----------



## aerotracks

Scorchy







after switching to AIO, but stable. 2hrs HCI memtest stable settings failed within a couple minutes, another 10mV VDIMM and everything was smooth again

http://abload.de/image.php?img=4200_1270_customsns8x.png


----------



## Fidelity21

After searching around for a while, I finally found Asus TurboVCore if anyone needs it.

I hope this is the latest version:
http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/misc/utils/TurboV-Core_Win7-81-10_V10104.zip?_ga=1.15124150.180495121.1478205298


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fidelity21*
> 
> After searching around for a while, I finally found Asus TurboVCore if anyone needs it.
> 
> I hope this is the latest version:
> http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/misc/utils/TurboV-Core_Win7-81-10_V10104.zip?_ga=1.15124150.180495121.1478205298


I would be wary of using TurboV with BWE. The reason you struggled to find it is because it's being dropped as far as I'm aware. It has a few quirks that make it less than undesirable. It's aimed primarily at benchmarking use only. Would recommend changing values from UEFI otherwise


----------



## eatthermalpaste

Has anyone had issues with a i7-6950X dying? Talking actual dead CPU. If so, could you shoot me a PM to talk about the conditions it died under?


----------



## Vellinious

I may have a dead 6950X. I've got another motherboard coming in tomorrow to further troubleshoot it, but....at this point, it's either the motherboard or the CPU. I'll know more by Wednesday.

As to the conditions...nothing extraordinary. A simple 4.3 overclock at 1.265v, no cache clock, the XMP profile set for the 3200 GSkill memory....bout it.


----------



## Silent Scone

The CPU's are fairly resilient to failure, the boards normally take the brunt or are at the fault of it.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The CPU's are fairly resilient to failure, the boards normally take the brunt or are at the fault of it.


Yeah...that's why I started with the board first. This isn't the first one to have failed on me, of this particular type, either, so......my first thought was motherboard.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Yeah...that's why I started with the board first. This isn't the first one to have failed on me, of this particular type, either, so......my first thought was motherboard.


Do you get the 00 QCode?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Do you get the 00 QCode?


Not at first. First is was A2 and b6 intermittently, then 99 (after I removed all drives, just trying to get into the bios), then last night it goes straight to 00, no post, no drive spin up...nothing. New board arrives tomorrow. That'll tell me for sure.


----------



## Mehran

I've also put together a rig with a 6850K CPU and a Corsair H100i v2. I have a feeling that something is wrong...
I'm running stock voltage/frequency and my idle temperatures are fine (around 25 to 35). However, under heavy load with Prime95 (Small FFTs test), the cores go as high as 85 degrees... Is this normal for 6850K? The AIO cooler remains fairly cool to the touch (fans spin like crazy obviously). It's been around 10 years since I've built a PC and I'm not used to seeing temps this high







If these are not normal, gut feeling says something's wrong with the AIO.
Any help is appreciated


----------



## SmackHisFace

Can anyone point me towards average overclock results. Im deciding between a 6800k and a 5820k. The 5820k is 20 dollars cheaper and from what Ive heard it OC better. So what should I get a 5820k for 310 or a 6800k for 330? I will be cooling with a H110GTX in Push Pull.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mehran*
> 
> I've also put together a rig with a 6850K CPU and a Corsair H100i v2. I have a feeling that something is wrong...
> I'm running stock voltage/frequency and my idle temperatures are fine (around 25 to 35). However, under heavy load with Prime95 (Small FFTs test), the cores go as high as 85 degrees... Is this normal for 6850K? The AIO cooler remains fairly cool to the touch (fans spin like crazy obviously). It's been around 10 years since I've built a PC and I'm not used to seeing temps this high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If these are not normal, gut feeling says something's wrong with the AIO.
> Any help is appreciated


yes.. p95 small FFTs will do that (and higher temps.) AIO, or custom water. It is really not a good stress test for BWE (or HWE for that matter) as it only loads the FPU. MOre of a test of your cooling than processor logioc/overclock. use REalbench, HCI memtest and some combo of HWBOT x265 (4K, 2-4 overkill), AID64 cache stress (2 hours) and if you feel compelled to burn the cpu, OCCT large data set. Basically - forget p95 - it's from the Jurassic silicon era.


----------



## AstralReaper

Hey guys, just have a quick question for you all.

Would this be a good time to embark on an x99 build with a 6800K?

Reason I ask is the 6800k looks to be $379.99 this black Friday season from newegg, and I have been wanting to upgrade from about 2 years now and I kept pushing it back and back. Current rig specs below for comparison but I am fairly confident that the 6800k is a far better processor than the 8320 I currently have.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Not at first. First is was A2 and b6 intermittently, then 99 (after I removed all drives, just trying to get into the bios), then last night it goes straight to 00, no post, no drive spin up...nothing. New board arrives tomorrow. That'll tell me for sure.


From my personal experience, thats a dead board!

But i know this sounds silly, but unseat your cpu waterblock and see if it boots...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AstralReaper*
> 
> Hey guys, just have a quick question for you all.
> 
> Would this be a good time to embark on an x99 build with a 6800K?
> 
> Reason I ask is the 6800k looks to be $379.99 this black Friday season from newegg, and I have been wanting to upgrade from about 2 years now and I kept pushing it back and back. Current rig specs below for comparison but I am fairly confident that the 6800k is a far better processor than the 8320 I currently have.


take a look at the 5820K before buying a 6800K. Either one will be a shocking upgrade from the AMD cpu... or wait for Skylake-E


----------



## mbze430

I am ready to upgrade my 6900k for a sKylake-E already


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I am ready to upgrade my 6900k for a sKylake-E already


And I imagine you'll have to upgrade your mobo too ...


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I am ready to upgrade my 6900k for a sKylake-E already


You change CPU every 6 months ?


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> You change CPU every 6 months ?


Some of us do









It's a hobby!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> You change CPU every 6 months ?


erm... why so long?


----------



## mbze430

pretty much, and yes I know I need to change mobo


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm... why so long?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Some of us do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a hobby!


I know, i have the same as you


----------



## mbze430

Actually this used to be a "job". When I worked for companies like Broadcom and such, it's part of the validation program. So we were send tons of ES CPUs/Memory/Motherboard etc...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> Actually this used to be a "job". When I worked for companies like Broadcom and such, it's part of the validation program. So we were send tons of ES CPUs/Memory/Motherboard etc...


Quite a few of us had this as a job ... I remember having to load OS/2 from 25 floppies, and the 24th would fail ... and having some DEC Ethernet cards fail in Compaq servers due to both being at opposite extremes of their respective timing tolerances









Definitely better as a hobby - or is it a constructive kind of dementia?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> pretty much, and yes I know I need to change mobo


LGA 2066 is simply huge!


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbze430*
> 
> I am ready to upgrade my 6900k for a sKylake-E already


There is no SKY-E, there is only SKY-X.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> LGA 2066 is simply huge!


Is LGA 2066 really that big? The Skylake-X ES pic looked about the same size as LGA 2011-3.

Or is it just Purley and LGA 3647 that will be extra large with the Hex channel memory and all?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Is LGA 2066 really that big? The Skylake-X ES pic looked about the same size as LGA 2011-3.
> 
> Or is it just Purley and LGA 3647 that will be extra large with the Hex channel memory and all?


Yeah it seems a little bigger:

http://www.benchmark.pl/aktualnosci/intel-kaby-lake-x-i-skylake-x-zapowiedz-nowych-procesorow-i.html


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> There is no SKY-E, there is only SKY-X.


yeah, i know. HEDT.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Is LGA 2066 really that big? The Skylake-X ES pic looked about the same size as LGA 2011-3.
> 
> Or is it just Purley and LGA 3647 that will be extra large with the Hex channel memory and all?


3647.. that's the pin count I'd like to see in 2Q17 (hopefully). We do need a jump in memory bandwidth.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Yeah it seems a little bigger:
> 
> http://www.benchmark.pl/aktualnosci/intel-kaby-lake-x-i-skylake-x-zapowiedz-nowych-procesorow-i.html


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 3647.. that's the pin count I'd like to see in 2Q17 (hopefully). We do need a jump in memory bandwidth.


When I first saw the 3647 my jaw dropped, never seen a socket that big before...
Could you imagine that in the hands of overclockers with a unlocked chip.


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> When I first saw the 3647 my jaw dropped, never seen a socket that big before...
> Could you imagine that in the hands of overclockers with a unlocked chip.


I wouldn't put 3647 in the hands of overclockers. They could burn down a house with that thing.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> I wouldn't put 3647 in the hands of overclockers. They could burn down a house with that thing.


Fingers crossed for BCLK non-K overclocking on Skylake-EP. Would love to try overclocking a $4000 28 core chip. Probably would need to whip out some phase change cooling.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Yeah it seems a little bigger:
> 
> http://www.benchmark.pl/aktualnosci/intel-kaby-lake-x-i-skylake-x-zapowiedz-nowych-procesorow-i.html


Looks about the same size to me:


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> From my personal experience, thats a dead board!
> 
> But i know this sounds silly, but unseat your cpu waterblock and see if it boots...


It was the board. New board is in, up and running. Temps all look good. The board is pretty sharp. Haven't played in the bios yet. That'll decide if I keep it or not.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> It was the board. New board is in, up and running. Temps all look good. The board is pretty sharp. Haven't played in the bios yet. That'll decide if I keep it or not.


which MB? X99A II ?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> which MB? X99A II ?


That's the one I just pulled out. It'll be heading back to ASUS via RMA soon. I bought an ASRock Taichi....I wanted to play with the dual M.2 slot for a while. If I like it....might even keep it.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> It was the board. New board is in, up and running. Temps all look good. The board is pretty sharp. Haven't played in the bios yet. That'll decide if I keep it or not.


I thought it would be the board, ive actually been told by someone who is reliable source in retail that 00 on the Asus stuff 9/10 times is a dead board!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> I thought it would be the board, ive actually been told by someone who is reliable source in retail that 00 on the Asus stuff 9/10 times is a dead board!


Almost as many times out of that is due to socket damage


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> That's the one I just pulled out. It'll be heading back to ASUS via RMA soon. I bought an ASRock Taichi....I wanted to play with the dual M.2 slot for a while. If I like it....might even keep it.


nice!


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice!


It was different enough that I thought it was worth a shot. I've got another 512 Samsung 950 pro coming in. I looked around the bios last night, just getting a feel for it. I've never owned an ASRock board before, so.....it seems rather foreign.


----------



## mbze430

I am still waiting for my 1TB 960 Pro!


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eatthermalpaste*
> 
> Has anyone had issues with a i7-6950X dying? Talking actual dead CPU. If so, could you shoot me a PM to talk about the conditions it died under?


Haven't had a 6950X die, but I did have a 6800K die on a X99 Strix.

I ended up getting an RMA from silicon lottery ( it was a binned 4.4 chip ) and replaced the Strix with a Deluxe II just in case the board was at fault, running strong now.

So far I have the following machines at work and also personally.

1x 6800K ( X99 Deluxe 2 )

1x 6900K ( Rampage V E 10 )

1x 6950X ( Rampage V E 10 ) ( Personal rig )

0 issues overclocked and under some impressive loads.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> It was different enough that I thought it was worth a shot. I've got another 512 Samsung 950 pro coming in. I looked around the bios last night, just getting a feel for it. I've never owned an ASRock board before, so.....it seems rather foreign.


It would have been nice if they could have pulled off some type of 3rd party RAID controller for the that board.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> It would have been nice if they could have pulled off some type of 3rd party RAID controller for the that board.


I love how fast it boots, compared to the ASUS boards I've owned. It cut boot up times in half, easily.

A good raid controller would have been nice. Still....not many boards out there with the option for 2 x M.2 slots to even play with it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I love how fast it boots, compared to the ASUS boards I've owned. It cut boot up times in half, easily.
> 
> A good raid controller would have been nice. Still....not many boards out there with the option for 2 x M.2 slots to even play with it.


most asrock MB post very fast for some reason... too fast if you set ultra fast boot - have to use the boot to bios key to get back into bios!


----------



## Vellinious

lol. I'd get bored waiting for the ASUS board to hit that screen and miss it. I finally learned to just use the boot to bios. That was pretty handy.


----------



## orlfman

i ran aida's cache and memory benchmark on my 6850k for any of those interested to see how fast ddr4 2400 quad channel and 6850k caches are.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *orlfman*
> 
> i ran aida's cache and memory benchmark on my 6850k for any of those interested to see how fast ddr4 2400 quad channel and 6850k caches are.


you'll find a lot more of this data *here*


----------



## NYU87

Need some opinions from Broadwell-E owners who made a similar jump. Seriously considering upgrading my sig rig to a 6900K + MSI Gaming Pro X99 motherboard. 2 extra cores + IPC increase. Would it be worth it? Or should I wait for Zen then make the jump depending on how it is.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Need some opinions from Broadwell-E owners who made a similar jump. Seriously considering upgrading my sig rig to a 6900K + MSI Gaming Pro X99 motherboard. 2 extra cores + IPC increase. Would it be worth it? Or should I wait for Zen then make the jump depending on how it is.


Whether it's worth it is subjective. If you have the need for more CPU power, go for it. I went from a 4930K to the 5960X, and loved every bit of the Haswell platform along with the 8 cores.

Thinking about taking advantage of a Black Friday sale?


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Whether it's worth it is subjective. If you have the need for more CPU power, go for it. I went from a 4930K to the 5960X, and loved every bit of the Haswell platform along with the 8 cores.
> 
> *Thinking about taking advantage of a Black Friday sale?*


Sure am.

Definitely do not need more CPU power but would like a more modern platform with NVMe support and more SATA 3 ports. I was looking at the 6800/6850K but I feel like it won't really be an upgrade from a 4930K.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Sure am.
> 
> Definitely do not need more CPU power but would like a more modern platform with NVMe support and more SATA 3 ports. I was looking at the 6800/6850K but I feel like it won't really be an upgrade from a 4930K.


clock that 4930K higher and you'll get near the same performance. remember, BWE generally do not run the OC that IBE or HWE can.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> clock that 4930K higher and you'll get near the same performance. remember, BWE generally do not run the OC that IBE or HWE can.


Still, even 8 Broadwell cores at ~4.3 runs circles around 6 ivy cores at ~4.6 in both ST and MT.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Still, even 8 Broadwell cores at ~4.3 runs circles around 6 ivy cores at ~4.6 in both ST and MT.


yeah - if his 4930K is running 4.4 at 1.28V. it should do 4.7 in a "safe" range. I have my 4960X at 4.7 with 1.39V for a few years now. In many single or low-core count workloads it does out perform my 6950X at 4.4.








lol - just sayin'


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - if his 4930K is running 4.4 at 1.28V. it should do 4.7 in a "safe" range. I have my 4960X at 4.7 with 1.39V for a few years now. In many single or low-core count workloads it does out perform my 6950X at 4.4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol - just sayin'


Really? That suggests the IPC difference between Ivy and Broadwell is less than 7%. In my experience even Haswell-E pulled ahead more than 10% over Ivy-E in IPC, sometimes 15% or more in encodes.

Edit: I mean I guess it depends on the workload, but a lot of things are over 10%:


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - if his 4930K is running 4.4 at 1.28V. it should do 4.7 in a "safe" range. I have my 4960X at 4.7 with 1.39V for a few years now. In many single or low-core count workloads it does out perform my 6950X at 4.4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol - just sayin'


Good guess. My max overclock is 4.7GHz with safe temps/volts but I don't feel comfortable with it.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/10653587


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Still, even 8 Broadwell cores at ~4.3 runs circles around 6 ivy cores at ~4.6 in both ST and MT.


Like you say yourself really depends on the workload, applications that are threaded for more than 6 cores are still quite exclusive outside of the professional sector


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Like you say yourself really depends on the workload, applications that are threaded for more than 6 cores are still quite exclusive outside of the professional sector


Was just trying to point out, there is a discernable IPC difference in even single threaded workloads.


----------



## Kimir

4930K/4960X that can overclock well are more than capable for everyday compared to the new gen of 6/8/10 cores.
I'm still using my [email protected] on my everyday rig, the only reason I picked up HW-E was for the 8 cores. And I would have picked at 6950X because of its 10 cores, regardless of the overclocking capability, if I had the fund.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Was just trying to point out, there is a discernable IPC difference in even single threaded workloads.


4.3ghz Broadwell-E vs 4.7ghz Ivy-E is a close call.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Good guess. My max overclock is 4.7GHz with safe temps/volts but I don't feel comfortable with it.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/10653587


http://hwbot.org/user/jpmboy/#Hardware_Library

well, 4.7 is not the max "safe" oc it runs.. but it is the 24/7 OC for more than 2 years now... 4960X/R4BE relegated to "work".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Like you say yourself really depends on the workload, applications that are threaded for more than 6 cores are still quite exclusive outside of the professional sector


^^ This.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Was just trying to point out, there is a discernable IPC difference in even single threaded workloads.


Absolutely is a very real IPC advantage to BWE and HWE over IBE (else they'd be fails). it's the overclockability of BWE (or lack) that can level the playing field for IBE somewhat.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> 4930K/4960X that can overclock well are more than capable for everyday compared to the new gen of 6/8/10 cores.
> I'm still using my [email protected] on my everyday rig, the only reason I picked up HW-E was for the 8 cores. And I would have picked at 6950X because of its 10 cores, regardless of the overclocking capability, if I had the fund.


waaaay more than capable. (that always was(is) a good 4930K sample you found.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> 4.3ghz Broadwell-E vs 4.7ghz Ivy-E is a close call.


yeah... at the same core count it is close to a wash except for the other bells and whistles x99 offers over x79 as the OP noted.









hopefully SKL-X bring the SKL IPC to a 10 core!


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hopefully SKL-X bring the SKL IPC to a 10 core!


I'd like to see 12 cores!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> I'd like to see 12 cores!


better yet!


----------



## DADDYDC650

So, ever since I installed 4x8GB sticks of 3200Mhz CAS 14 ram, I haven't been able to run @4.4Ghz stable. Prime95 serems to run fine but my system crashes in games like BF1 while the map loads or once a round ends. Any ideas? I'm guessing it might have to do with the CPU downclocking and not having enough watts? I can run 4.3Ghz fully stable with ram at 3200Mhz CAS 14 command rate 1 using 2.90v but can't run command rate 2 with cpu @4.4Ghz. I've tried anywhere from 1.344v-1.38v. It used to run @4.4Ghz 1.344v fully stable but with only 4x4gb 3200Mhz CAS 16.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> So, ever since I installed 4x8GB sticks of 3200Mhz CAS 14 ram, I haven't been able to run @4.4Ghz stable. Prime95 serems to run fine but my system crashes in games like BF1 while the map loads or once a round ends. Any ideas? I'm guessing it might have to do with the CPU downclocking and not having enough watts? I can run 4.3Ghz fully stable with ram at 3200Mhz CAS 14 command rate 1 using 2.90v but can't run command rate 2 with cpu @4.4Ghz. I've tried anywhere from 1.344v-1.38v. It used to run @4.4Ghz 1.344v fully stable but with only 4x4gb 3200Mhz CAS 16.


what cache setting and voltage in those 2 scenarios? Sometimes when a system crashes at the end of a load it can be related to LLC, but seems to me cache is the first place to look... and 2.9V is a typo.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what cache setting and voltage in those 2 scenarios? Sometimes when a system crashes at the end of a load it can be related to LLC, but seems to me cache is the first place to look... and 2.9V is a typo.


cache is at stock when running 4.4Ghz using 1.15v. I can run 4.3Ghz 1.290v and cache at 3.5Ghz using 1.15v without issue.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> cache is at stock when running 4.4Ghz using 1.15v. I can run 4.3Ghz 1.290v and cache at 3.5Ghz using 1.15v without issue.


ram and cache.. and core are all coupled to a degree.. add 25mV cache with 1T. (and at least 25mV VDIMM)


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ram and cache.. and core are all coupled to a degree.. add 25mV cache with 1T. (and at least 25mV VDIMM)


I've ran cache at stock with 1.15v and ram with cas 2 but don't remember if I added more voltage or not which I'll try. I've also added +0.150 system agent voltage but I'm really not sure what's recommended and I'm not used to working with an offset with system agent.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I've ran cache at stock with 1.15v and ram with cas 2 but don't remember if I added more voltage or not which I'll try. I've also added +0.150 system agent voltage but I'm really not sure what's recommended and I'm not used to working with an offset with system agent.


system agent offset shows the actual VSA voltage in bios once you reboot and reenter bios.. so if you want 1.000V, adjust appropriately based on the vsa voltage shown in bios. 1T, if it can work, usually needs more VDIMM than 2T ~ 25mV as a start. and when you OC ram... cache has more load so it may need more voltage even at stock frequency.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> system agent offset shows the actual VSA voltage in bios once you reboot and reenter bios.. so if you want 1.000V, adjust appropriately based on the vsa voltage shown in bios. 1T, if it can work, usually needs more VDIMM than 2T ~ 25mV as a start. and when you OC ram... cache has more load so it may need more voltage even at stock frequency.


What should I disable in order to disable downlclocking/volting? Just to check and see if that's the issue.


----------



## Blameless

After playing with a few BW-E samples, taking into account the rumored Zen launch date, and realizing that Intel never got TSX working on BW-E (I don't have anything that uses TSX yet, but it was a factor in my desire as it could increase the longevity of the parts), I decided to hedge my bets and bought a 6800K when they went on sale this weekend. Was pretty sure I was going to get a 6900K, but with Zen still being an unknown, and a potential rival (at least in value), I figured two more cores weren't worth another $700 dollars. If I have any really big jobs were the extra cores would matter that much, I'll spend the five minutes it takes to split them up and run them on both my 5820K and 6800K systems.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> system agent offset shows the actual VSA voltage in bios once you reboot and reenter bios.. so if you want 1.000V, adjust appropriately based on the vsa voltage shown in bios. 1T, if it can work, usually needs more VDIMM than 2T ~ 25mV as a start. and when you OC ram... cache has more load so it may need more voltage even at stock frequency.


I've tried that as well as different LLC. It seems like the CPU crashes at low to mid usage while gaming. Here are my CPU voltage settings below. RAM is at 3200Mhz CAS 14 CR 2 1.375v and extreme LLC which is rock solid stable. I just tried 1.4v for the hell of it and it still crashed about 5 mins into BF1 even though I've gotten through a map before it crashed at the next map loading screen while at 1.344v. Perhaps I should move the memory sticks around and or mess with the CPU VL settings?

BTW, by enabling adaptive mode the CPU downclocks/volts depending on load.


----------



## Blameless

In my experience, the auto VLs on Gigabyte boards are usually quite excessive.

Extreme LLC is usually a worse idea than just using medium or high and increasing vinput.

VCCIO of 1.2v is very high, and almost certainly not necessary.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hello to everyone









I have been struggling with my OC profile for a long time now and I would like to take a little bit of your time if you do not mind for helping me.
I have this config:

6850K
ASUS REV 10
CPU watercooled


But is not fully stable (with 3000 MHz it pass 8+ hours of stress testing) at 3200MHz,
also I am having some weird USB problems and I am quite sure it is because I might have wrong values, not sure if too high or too low. I do use almost every single USB port on the back of the motherboard.
And not quite sure which values I should tune to get it properly stable.

So If you do not mind and share your thoughts about it, It will be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Regards


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I've tried that as well as different LLC. It seems like the CPU crashes at low to mid usage while gaming. Here are my CPU voltage settings below. RAM is at 3200Mhz CAS 14 CR 2 1.375v and extreme LLC which is rock solid stable. I just tried 1.4v for the hell of it and it still crashed about 5 mins into BF1 even though I've gotten through a map before it crashed at the next map loading screen while at 1.344v. Perhaps I should move the memory sticks around and or mess with the CPU VL settings?
> 
> BTW, by enabling adaptive mode the CPU downclocks/volts depending on load.


are you sure it is not the graphics system? anyway, blameless and lilchronic are our resident gigabyte guys - take their advice about VLs etc on that MB. One thing for sure, 1.2 vccio seems quite high, tho I'm not sure how that is the source of the instability the rig has.
I'd baseline the system and begin an OC from scratch with some guidance.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> In my experience, the auto VLs on Gigabyte boards are usually quite excessive.
> 
> Extreme LLC is usually a worse idea than just using medium or high and increasing vinput.
> 
> VCCIO of 1.2v is very high, and almost certainly not necessary.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> are you sure it is not the graphics system? anyway, blameless and lilchronic are our resident gigabyte guys - take their advice about VLs etc on that MB. One thing for sure, 1.2 vccio seems quite high, tho I'm not sure how that is the source of the instability the rig has.
> I'd baseline the system and begin an OC from scratch with some guidance.


I'm positive it's not the video card;. System runs fully stable at 4.3Ghz or less. It's been very tricky getting it stable at 4.4Ghz using 4 sticks of 8GB @3200Mhz CAS 14...

I'm going to leave it at 4.3Ghz using 1.290v with ram at 3200Mhz CAS 14 command rate 1 stock volts. Not worth wasting hours trying to get 100Mhz more.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm positive it's not the video card;. System runs fully stable at 4.3Ghz or less. It's been very tricky getting it stable at 4.4Ghz using 4 sticks of 8GB @3200Mhz CAS 14...


Hello! i think I am having the same issue (mem stability), could you please check my values and if possible tell which way (which value I should test to rise or where to start)?

Thanks in advance, any tip will be very much appreciated









Info down below:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello to everyone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been struggling with my OC profile for a long time now and I would like to take a little bit of your time if you do not mind for helping me.
> I have this config:
> 
> 6850K
> ASUS REV 10
> CPU watercooled
> 
> 
> But is not fully stable (with 3000 MHz it pass 8+ hours of stress testing) at 3200MHz,
> also I am having some weird USB problems and I am quite sure it is because I might have wrong values, not sure if too high or too low. I do use almost every single USB port on the back of the motherboard.
> And not quite sure which values I should tune to get it properly stable.
> 
> So If you do not mind and share your thoughts about it, It will be much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards


----------



## ukic

Can anyone recommend a decent motherboard for i7 6800k sub $300ish? TIA.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ukic*
> 
> Can anyone recommend a decent motherboard for i7 6800k sub $300ish? TIA.


Sabertooth x99 is decent, not the best overclocker though.


----------



## ukic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Sabertooth x99 is decent, not the best overclocker though.


Did you mean this one? For best overclocking, which would you suggest?

EDIT: Saw Rampage V Edition 10 but it's too expensive for me


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ukic*
> 
> Did you mean this one? For best overclocking, which would you suggest?
> 
> EDIT: Saw Rampage V Edition 10 but it's too expensive for me


That's the one, I would have to say Asus Rampage V Edition 10 was the best I have ever used so far but pricey, the older version of the board is also really good.

EDIT: Actually if you don't have a motherboard already it's probably better to get a modern one like this one, it's about 300 bucks or the deluxe II. ASUS LGA2011-v3 5-Way Optimization SafeSlot ATX Motherboard ROG STRIX X99 GAMING


----------



## Timmaigh!

Hey there,

I activated XMP profile on my RAMs (running at 3000 now) and it OCed my CPU as well (running at 4GHz now all cores under load). Not sure what was the default core voltage under load, but now it reads as 1,272 in CPU-z... is this all normal and fine? Couldnt i likely run at those volts my CPU at even higher clocks?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> Hey there,
> 
> I activated XMP profile on my RAMs (running at 3000 now) and it OCed my CPU as well (running at 4GHz now all cores under load). Not sure what was the default core voltage under load, but now it reads as 1,272 in CPU-z... is this all normal and fine? Couldnt i likely run at those volts my CPU at even higher clocks?


room for voltage does not necessarily mean room for OC but yes you should be able to. XMP does not usually mean the limit to OCing your chip but watch the other voltages it puts on it because they are sometimes scary high.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> Hey there,
> 
> I activated XMP profile on my RAMs (running at 3000 now) and it OCed my CPU as well (running at 4GHz now all cores under load). Not sure what was the default core voltage under load, but now it reads as 1,272 in CPU-z... is this all normal and fine? Couldnt i likely run at those volts my CPU at even higher clocks?


increase the multiplier until it becomes unstable...


----------



## Detrini1001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Sabertooth x99 is decent, not the best overclocker though.


Is there a large difference between overclocks on different boards?


----------



## Mehran

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mehran*
> 
> I've also put together a rig with a 6850K CPU and a Corsair H100i v2. I have a feeling that something is wrong...
> I'm running stock voltage/frequency and my idle temperatures are fine (around 25 to 35). However, under heavy load with Prime95 (Small FFTs test), the cores go as high as 85 degrees... Is this normal for 6850K? The AIO cooler remains fairly cool to the touch (fans spin like crazy obviously). It's been around 10 years since I've built a PC and I'm not used to seeing temps this high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If these are not normal, gut feeling says something's wrong with the AIO.
> Any help is appreciated


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes.. p95 small FFTs will do that (and higher temps.) AIO, or custom water. It is really not a good stress test for BWE (or HWE for that matter) as it only loads the FPU. MOre of a test of your cooling than processor logioc/overclock. use REalbench, HCI memtest and some combo of HWBOT x265 (4K, 2-4 overkill), AID64 cache stress (2 hours) and if you feel compelled to burn the cpu, OCCT large data set. Basically - forget p95 - it's from the Jurassic silicon era.


Just a quick update on this short discussion:
My suspicions were correct... The H100i v2 I had bought from Amazon was broken. Friends over here kept telling me that I was imagining the pump noise, but I knew something was wrong. I tried another H100i and voila! The temps no longer climb as high as they did when I do the Prime95 small FFTs test...








They used to go as high as 85, but now the temperatures barely crack 60 degrees and the fan's exhaust air is relatively cool (where as it was hot before).


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Detrini1001*
> 
> Is there a large difference between overclocks on different boards?


It's hard to measure because it depends on many variables but I seem to have an easier time with rampage vs sabertooth but I don't see a massive difference.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

I'm finally moving to the Broadwell-E club, just pulled the trigger on a delidded 6950X!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> I'm finally moving to the Broadwell-E club, just pulled the trigger on a delidded 6950X!


that's one hellofa trigger pull!


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's one hellofa trigger pull!


Black Friday price sucked me in. I'm going to have some fun with this naked behemoth.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Black Friday price sucked me in. I'm going to have some fun with this naked behemoth.


Direct to die cooling?


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Direct to die cooling?


That's the plan. Going to stick with my R5E.


----------



## done12many2

Now this sounds interesting. Looking forward to reading more!


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Black Friday price sucked me in. I'm going to have some fun with this naked behemoth.


Silicon Lottery?

Was tempted by their sale as well, but the lower end BW-Es didn't seem binned tightly enough to justify paying a premium and I already ruled out dropping a large sum on an 6900 or 6950 with Zen and next gen Intel parts on the Horizon...ended up getting a 6800K when Newegg cut the price to $380 (I don't live in easy reach of a Microcenter anymore).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mehran*
> 
> The H100i v2 I had bought from Amazon was broken. Friends over here kept telling me that I was imagining the pump noise, but I knew something was wrong. I tried another H100i and voila! The temps no longer climb as high as they did when I do the Prime95 small FFTs test...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to go as high as 85, but now the temperatures barely crack 60 degrees and the fan's exhaust air is relatively cool (where as it was hot before).


What CPU was this, and what clocks/volts?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> It is really not a good stress test for BWE (or HWE for that matter) as it only loads the FPU. MOre of a test of your cooling than processor logioc/overclock.


You can't run 256-bit AVX on Intel processors without loading the integer SIMD execution units because Intel processors with AVX-256 capability borrow 128 of those bits from the integer SIMD pipeline (saves a lot of transistors/die area). It's been this way since Sandy Bridge and though Haswell did introduce another ALU, AVX only code can still tie up the majority of the execution units. The whole reason tests like Prime95 and Intel's LINPACK builds run so damn hot is because they utilize so much of the core simultaneously.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3922/intels-sandy-bridge-architecture-exposed/3

The only real argument against these tests is that many people may be able to achieve good enough stability in the overwhelming majority of applications at clock speeds beyond what is safe to test with things like P95, not that these tests are outdated or that they don't test as much CPU logic as other tests.


----------



## Mehran

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> What CPU was this, and what clocks/volts?


It is a 6850K, stock frequency and voltage.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mehran*
> 
> It is a 6850K, stock frequency and voltage.


Yeah, even as demanding as it is, you should be able to run P95 forever at stock clocks and volts on a working H100i without temps being problematic.

Might be a different story OCed though.


----------



## Mehran

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Yeah, even as demanding as it is, you should be able to run P95 forever at stock clocks and volts on a working H100i without temps being problematic.
> 
> Might be a different story OCed though.


True... The problem was, with that H100i that I had, even at stock clocks and voltage, it was climbing as high as 80 with P95!
As I mentioned, the problem was the faulty H100i...


----------



## Silent Scone

I looked at buying a Silicon Lottery BWE, it's really not worth it IMO. The limit on these is a wall that cannot really be overcome. I've delidded a 6850K here, temps at 4.4Ghz with 1.3v are 50c in RB and x265 bench, but you're still stuck with the 4.4 wall...


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I looked at buying a Silicon Lottery BWE, it's really not worth it IMO. The limit on these is a wall that cannot really be overcome. I've delidded a 6850K here, temps at 4.4Ghz with 1.3v are 50c in RB and x265 bench, but you're still stuck with the 4.4 wall...


Can you hit 4.5 around 1.4? I know the wall is hard on these chips. The 4.4 6950X is just a little over $100 more than what other places are selling right now, which seemed like a good deal to me. I've always had good luck with their CPUs in the past.

Delidding on the other hand- I know that it's probably fairly worthless, just something I wanted to try.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Can you hit 4.5 around 1.4? I know the wall is hard on these chips. The 4.4 6950X is just a little over $100 more than what other places are selling right now, which seemed like a good deal to me. I've always had good luck with their CPUs in the past.
> 
> Delidding on the other hand- I know that it's probably fairly worthless, just something I wanted to try.


Honestly not tried yet, only delidded it yesterday. I'll give it a go over the weekend. Seems like straining one out for the sake of making a point though IMO. A 5820K at 4.7 will still be quicker in certain instances lol.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Honestly not tried yet, only delidded it yesterday. I'll give it a go over the weekend. Seems like straining one out for the sake of making a point though IMO. A 5820K at 4.7 will still be quicker in certain instances lol.


Yeah, Haswell-E was certainly strong, but there's no 10 core there.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Silicon Lottery?
> 
> Was tempted by their sale as well, but the lower end BW-Es didn't seem binned tightly enough to justify paying a premium and I already ruled out dropping a large sum on an 6900 or 6950 with Zen and next gen Intel parts on the Horizon...ended up getting a 6800K when Newegg cut the price to $380 (I don't live in easy reach of a Microcenter anymore).
> What CPU was this, and what clocks/volts?
> You can't run 256-bit AVX on Intel processors without loading the integer SIMD execution units because Intel processors with AVX-256 capability borrow 128 of those bits from the integer SIMD pipeline (saves a lot of transistors/die area). It's been this way since Sandy Bridge and though Haswell did introduce another ALU, AVX only code can still tie up the majority of the execution units. The whole reason tests like Prime95 and Intel's LINPACK builds run so damn hot is because they utilize so much of the core simultaneously.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3922/intels-sandy-bridge-architecture-exposed/3
> 
> The only real argument against these tests is that many people may be able to achieve good enough stability in the overwhelming majority of applications at clock speeds beyond what is safe to test with things like P95, *not that these tests are outdated or that they don't test as much CPU logic as other tests.*


Yes, it will parse the load to available execution units. But, like I've been sayin, p95 et al really do not stress the OC/logic any more than a contemporary _set_ of stability tests, they simply load the processor in an unjustifiable manner unlike anything one may encounter... forcing a lower OC, well unless one actually _is_ hunting primes full out.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Can you hit 4.5 around 1.4? I know the wall is hard on these chips. The 4.4 6950X is just a little over $100 more than what other places are selling right now, which seemed like a good deal to me. I've always had good luck with their CPUs in the past.
> 
> Delidding on the other hand- I know that it's probably fairly worthless, just something I wanted to try.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Honestly not tried yet, only delidded it yesterday. I'll give it a go over the weekend. Seems like straining one out for the sake of making a point though IMO. A 5820K at 4.7 will still be quicker in certain instances lol.


Hat's off to you two guys...


IHS has just left the plane!


----------



## Timmaigh!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> room for voltage does not necessarily mean room for OC but yes you should be able to. XMP does not usually mean the limit to OCing your chip but watch the other voltages it puts on it because they are sometimes scary high.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> increase the multiplier until it becomes unstable...


Thank you both.

I still did not deal with it, cause i now need to work on the computer and i am afraid to cause instability by trying to mess with BIOS any further... additionally, i actually had issue to get into BIOS/UEFI, i rebooted the computer about 10 times in a row and it would go straight to Windows, despite me pressing the Del like crazy... i almost wonder how i managed to get there the first time, when i activated that profile.

That said, i actually had my first BSOD today, first time in 2 weeks of use of this computer and 4th day with the XMP on/CPU overclock. It happened as i was starting up Skype call, maybe 5 seconds into the call itself and the message was classic Driver IRQL no less or equal... and it concerned some USB driver (not exactly sure but it could have been usbport.sys). Do you think this could be caused by the instability from the XMP/overclock, or its more likely to be some driver issue? The truth is, i had some issues with the cam (Logitech one) before, not crashes, but it would not show any picture, when i skyped, so i had to plug it off and on USB, but then i would lose sound, while gaining picture, so had to restart the whole Skype call anyway... simply it seemed to be kinda buggy before, could this have been the source of the crash, rather than my OC?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> Thank you both.
> 
> I still did not deal with it, cause i now need to work on the computer and i am afraid to cause instability by trying to mess with BIOS any further... additionally, i actually had issue to get into BIOS/UEFI, i rebooted the computer about 10 times in a row and it would go straight to Windows, despite me pressing the Del like crazy... i almost wonder how i managed to get there the first time, when i activated that profile.
> 
> That said, i actually had my first BSOD today, first time in 2 weeks of use of this computer and 4th day with the XMP on/CPU overclock. It happened as i was starting up Skype call, maybe 5 seconds into the call itself and the message was classic Driver IRQL no less or equal... and it concerned some USB driver (not exactly sure but it could have been usbport.sys). Do you think this could be caused by the instability from the XMP/overclock, or its more likely to be some driver issue? The truth is, i had some issues with the cam (Logitech one) before, not crashes, but it would not show any picture, when i skyped, so i had to plug it off and on USB, but then i would lose sound, while gaining picture, so had to restart the whole Skype call anyway... simply it seemed to be kinda buggy before, could this have been the source of the crash, rather than my OC?


google "who crashed". and DL that tool. It will show the "culprit".


----------



## shonik09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Honestly not tried yet, only delidded it yesterday. I'll give it a go over the weekend. Seems like straining one out for the sake of making a point though IMO. A 5820K at 4.7 will still be quicker in certain instances lol.


Yeah I actually got [email protected] with my 6850k. My max temps were still under 85 when using IBT with my custom loop, but I was worried the high voltage could hurt in the long run. Decided to stick with [email protected] instead (no way I could get 4.4 stable less than that). Still a bit high, but a whole 0.07v less than I needed for 4.5.


----------



## Blameless

My new 6800K just got here. Anyone know of any clocking trends pertaining to the Malaysia L-batches?

Edit: Also, this is the first time I've seen a part where the second letter of the batch was an F.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I looked at buying a Silicon Lottery BWE, it's really not worth it IMO. The limit on these is a wall that cannot really be overcome. I've delidded a 6850K here, temps at 4.4Ghz with 1.3v are 50c in RB and x265 bench, but you're still stuck with the 4.4 wall...


The lower end BW-E they sell state something like best 56% of chips.

Even with a clock wall, I'd be willing to pay for a best 20% sample, so I can reduce power/heat, for example, but a best 56%? Not enough value added there when I can just buy one from anywhere for $380 and use the tuning plan if it turns out to be a lemon.


----------



## Blameless

New 6800K seems to be a bit of a lemon. Very low leakage sample that needs a lot of vcore to scale. IHS also seems like it's attached incorrectly; one side is lifted off the substrate more than the other. I don't think it's been delidded or tampered with, just iffy QA. 17C spread between hottest and coldest cores as well.


----------



## josephimports

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> New 6800K seems to be a bit of a lemon. Very low leakage sample that needs a lot of vcore to scale. IHS also seems like it's attached incorrectly; one side is lifted off the substrate more than the other. I don't think it's been delidded or tampered with, just iffy QA. 17C spread between hottest and coldest cores as well.






Whats your min. vcore to pass x265 bench at 42x? my 6800k requires 1.27v with 43x near 1.4v. The core temp spread appears to be normal among these chips.


----------



## Raghar

Actually I kinda wonder how many buyers of BW-E actually looked at overclocking potential of a standard Broadwell. It was limited by 4GHz - 4.2 GHz.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *josephimports*
> 
> 
> Whats your min. vcore to pass x265 bench at 42x? my 6800k requires 1.27v with 43x near 1.4v. The core temp spread appears to be normal among these chips.


Slightly less than that.

Uncore seems especially weak. Having major difficulty stabilizing even 3.5GHz. On top of that the 24/7 stable memory settings I was using with my 5820K and the same DIMMs won't even POST without huge VCCSA/VCCU offsets and even then I'm losing random DIMMs.

Leakage on this thing is absurdly low. Distance to TJmax in Prime95 28.10 128k inplace FFTs at stock clocks is upwards of 60C and the CPU is barely pulling 90 watts. Not what I'm looking for in a HEDT part though.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> New 6800K seems to be a bit of a lemon. Very low leakage sample that needs a lot of vcore to scale. *IHS also seems like it's attached incorrectly; one side is lifted off the substrate more than the other.* I don't think it's been delidded or tampered with, just iffy QA. 17C spread between hottest and coldest cores as well.


Sad to hear this. I believe this can be returned as a defective part.


----------



## tistou77

The current 6950X (recent batch) are a little better than the 1st or not (usually of course) ?


----------



## SauronTheGreat

is running realbench for 8 hours successfully good enough ?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> is running realbench for 8 hours successfully good enough ?


For me, two hours is good, but that's just me







.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> For me, two hours is good, but that's just me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


ASUS advises beetwen 4 hours and 8 hours :

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/7/


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> ASUS advises beetwen 4 hours and 8 hours :
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/7/


That's why I said it's just me







. I've never had a problem in my 24/7 life with at least two hours.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> That's why I said it's just me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I've never had a problem in my 24/7 life with at least two hours.


----------



## djgar

Happy Thanksgiving!

(With apologies to the turkeys!)


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Sad to hear this. I believe this can be returned as a defective part.


Yeah that's what I ended up doing. Dodgiest new retail CPU I've seen in quite a while.

At least I got a few days of experience out of an F-lot part.

Will need more F lots (and some of the other lot designations that have been introduced recently) to confirm, but it seems to me that the letter in the lot part of the FPO/batch number indicates leakage trends, highest to lowest:

A
C
B
F

Doesn't necessarily mean much with regards to OCing, as there are certainly other factors, but in my experience A lot parts will be lower voltage, higher current, with the trends reversing as you go down this list.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Yeah that's what I ended up doing. Dodgiest new retail CPU I've seen in quite a while.
> 
> At least I got a few days of experience out of an F-lot part.
> 
> Will need more F lots (and some of the other lot designations that have been introduced recently) to confirm, but it seems to me that the letter in the lot part of the FPO/batch number indicates leakage trends, highest to lowest:
> 
> A
> C
> B
> F
> 
> Doesn't necessarily mean much with regards to OCing, as there are certainly other factors, but in my experience A lot parts will be lower voltage, higher current, with the trends reversing as you go down this list.


Is this similar to what the ASIC quality on GPU's so higher leakage on chips was = better OC under water/dice/ln2 etc, lesser leakage was lower VID etc?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Is this similar to what the ASIC quality on GPU's so higher leakage on chips was = better OC under water/dice/ln2 etc, lesser leakage was lower VID etc?


Yes, it's similar, though the correlation seems to be looser with these CPUs. Batch/lot isn't a sure indicator, just a trend.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> That's why I said it's just me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I've never had a problem in my 24/7 life with at least two hours.


Or one if you're feeling brave. Normally telling enough, but when doing write ups like that one it's good to cover all bases. 4 hours is good insurance.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> ASUS advises beetwen 4 hours and 8 hours :
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/7/


i also run it for complete 8 hours with the full 64gb ram


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Or one if you're feeling brave. Normally telling enough, but when doing write ups like that one it's good to cover all bases. 4 hours is good insurance.


As always, better safe than sorry, unless you like to live on the edge


----------



## SauronTheGreat

apparently i have found the stable voltage of my 6850k , at 4.2Ghz with 1.340v i ran real bench for 8 hours with all my 64gb ram, the test was successful, but can someone tell me is 1.340v dangerous ? i have corsair h115i AIO cooler, it has a radiator of 280mm, the max temp i had on real bench was 75C .....


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> apparently i have found the stable voltage of my 6850k , at 4.2Ghz with 1.340v i ran real bench for 8 hours with all my 64gb ram, the test was successful, but can someone tell me is 1.340v dangerous ? i have corsair h115i AIO cooler, it has a radiator of 280mm, the max temp i had on real bench was 75C .....


Dangerous to whom?









1.34v will be fine. 6850K here running 4.4 at 1.33v.

You may be able to lower yours slightly with better aftermarket cooling.


----------



## Blameless

Probably depends on the leakage of your sample.

Use temperatures as a guide. If it's getting super hot at low voltage and you know your cooling is solid, the part probably isn't going to be tolerant of high volts. If it's low leakage part that needs volts to scale, but barely gets warm, it can probably handle it.


----------



## tistou77

For you it's good (temperature, voltage) for h24 ?


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Dangerous to whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.34v will be fine. 6850K here running 4.4 at 1.33v.
> 
> You may be able to lower yours slightly with better aftermarket cooling.


i wish my CPU was as good as yours







, as far as custom cooling is concerned its very complicated for me :'( ... i just asked because i thought maybe 1.34v is dangerous or a bit too high , although i am quite sure that 75C during real bench, is not likely a temp i will get during gaming ... thanks for the help


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Ok I gave up fighting with the CPU's VID which doesn't go any lower than 1.268v, so I thought I'd just increase my core clock to match.
I went from 4.2Ghz to 4.3Ghz (4.2Ghz is stable even with AVX at 1.256v), I've set my AVX load to 4.1Ghz and now I'm wanting to stress the cpu without a AVX load.

What do we use for that, everything we normally use puts a AVX load on the cpu, though it seems Cinebench doesn't.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Ok I gave up fighting with the CPU's VID which doesn't go any lower than 1.268v, so I thought I'd just increase my core clock to match.
> I went from 4.2Ghz to 4.3Ghz (4.2Ghz is stable even with AVX at 1.256v), I've set my AVX load to 4.1Ghz and now I'm wanting to stress the cpu without a AVX load.
> 
> What do we use for that, everything we normally use puts a AVX load on the cpu, though it seems Cinebench doesn't.


Prime95 26.6 was the last stable version with no AVX capability.

Older versions of many programs will also lack AVX. x264 from before 2013 lacks AVX; if I recall correctly support was introduced in build 2334 or thereabouts...any 22xx build should work.

If you are comfortable compiling things yourself, you can build any open source program without the AVX switches in the compiler.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Prime95 26.6 was the last stable version with no AVX capability.
> 
> Older versions of many programs will also lack AVX. x264 from before 2013 lacks AVX; if I recall correctly support was introduced in build 2334 or thereabouts...any 22xx build should work.
> 
> If you are comfortable compiling things yourself, you can build any open source program without the AVX switches in the compiler.


I had a duh moment, Realbench doesn't use AVX either.
Had the [email protected] fail (BSOD) within a 15 minute test, but [email protected] is stable.

Guess I need to up the voltages a bit, not sure it's worth it at this point as package temps are hitting 77c, might wait till I can get some custom water on this in the new year.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I had a duh moment, Realbench doesn't use AVX either.


Really? That's surprising. I was sure they used a recent version of x264.

What version of RealBench are you using?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Really? That's surprising. I was sure they used a recent version of x264.
> 
> What version of RealBench are you using?


Realbench 2.44.
The only reason I noticed is my clock speeds were 4.3Ghz not the 4.1Ghz I've got set for AVX.
But It does put a mixed load on the system so maybe the winrar benchmark made it run at the higher clocks.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Realbench 2.44.
> The only reason I noticed is my clock speeds were 4.3Ghz not the 4.1Ghz I've got set for AVX.
> But It does put a mixed load on the system so maybe the winrar benchmark made it run at the higher clocks.


it will use up to AVX during x264.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






you can use any recent p95 version (bug fixes)... open the local.txt file and add the following line to the command list:

_CpuSupportsAVX=0 or 1
CpuSupportsFMA3=0 or 1_

Of course."1" = enabled, "0"=disabled, it's all explained in the undoc file.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you can use any recent p95 version (bug fixes)... open the local.txt file and add the following line to the command list:
> 
> _CpuSupportsAVX=0 or 1
> CpuSupportsFMA3=0 or 1_
> 
> Of course."1" = enabled, "0"=disabled, it's all explained in the undoc file.


Good info.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> it will use up to AVX during x264.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can use any recent p95 version (bug fixes)... open the local.txt file and add the following line to the command list:
> 
> _CpuSupportsAVX=0 or 1
> CpuSupportsFMA3=0 or 1_
> 
> Of course."1" = enabled, "0"=disabled, it's all explained in the undoc file.


Yeah I saw that info in Realbench after I opened it again.
The other tests pushed the clocks higher and h.264 used up to 4.1Ghz.

I was having a little duh moment lastnight..


----------



## rolldog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm... why so long?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> You change CPU every 6 months ?


Sometimes it's best to upgrade while you can still get a good price on your current CPU & MB. Would you rather upgrade when a new CPU costs $1000 and you can still sell your current CPU for $800 or wait till the price of the new CPU drops to $800 and then your current CPU can only fetch $200? Then you end up paying 300% more for the upgrade.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Just a quick related question.
Hows this for noobs first watercooling kit?

https://www.pccasegear.com/wish_lists/632965/Watercooling

Don't plan on doing the GPU because I don't overclock the GTX1080 Strix and I'm sure by July next year there will be something new..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Just a quick related question.
> Hows this for noobs first watercooling kit?
> 
> https://www.pccasegear.com/wish_lists/632965/Watercooling
> 
> Don't plan on doing the GPU because I don't overclock the GTX1080 Strix and I'm sure by July next year there will be something new..


did you look at this EK kit: http://www.microcenter.com/product/455957/EK-XLC_Predator_360_Water_Cooling_System
or:

https://shop.aquacomputer.de/index.php?cPath=7_31_838_855&XTCsid=b9vldust64d6iibbjbqpbieohbp77rc2


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> did you look at this EK kit: http://www.microcenter.com/product/455957/EK-XLC_Predator_360_Water_Cooling_System
> or:
> 
> https://shop.aquacomputer.de/index.php?cPath=7_31_838_855&XTCsid=b9vldust64d6iibbjbqpbieohbp77rc2


Yeah I looked at the Predator when I was building this system, but after seeing the reviews it wasn't that much better than the Kraken x61.
I was looking at a kit to start, then maybe a second RAD as I have a Primo and plenty of room to expand.
But then again I could invest in a 480mm RAD that will fit perfectly too.

Currently my package temp is maxing out at 77c, 83c if running OCCT, y-cruncher or any of those heavy tests.

I could get a little creative as the split system air con is right above my head, I could run a pipe to blow directly onto the X61's RAD, that would keep things cool...


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Yeah I looked at the Predator when I was building this system, but after seeing the reviews it wasn't that much better than the Kraken x61.
> I was looking at a kit to start, then maybe a second RAD as I have a Primo and plenty of room to expand.
> But then again I could invest in a 480mm RAD that will fit perfectly too.
> 
> Currently my package temp is maxing out at 77c, 83c if running OCCT, y-cruncher or any of those heavy tests.
> 
> I could get a little creative as the split system air con is right above my head, I could run a pipe to blow directly onto the X61's RAD, that would keep things cool...


The Predator seems even lower than H110i GT...

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ek_predator_360_aio_cpu_gpu_liquid_cooling_review,10.html


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> The Predator seems even lower than H110i GT...
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ek_predator_360_aio_cpu_gpu_liquid_cooling_review,10.html


The H110iGT is at 65c and the Predator is at 67c with 100% load.
The Predator is a premium product, but doesn't product premium numbers for the price, throw a GPU block into the mix and the temps go up again.

I researched this when I bought the Broadwell-E setup, hence why I went with the cheaper Kraken x61 for now then custom water later.

When I said noob, we did build a water loop out of fish tank hose, fish tank filter/pump fish tank and a Zalman 9500 back when I had my Athlon x2.
We cut the heat pipes, liquid welded the pipes back to the block, fed water through the 3 of them and back to the fish tank (with ice in it...lol)..


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> i wish my CPU was as good as yours
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , as far as custom cooling is concerned its very complicated for me :'( ... i just asked because i thought maybe 1.34v is dangerous or a bit too high , although i am quite sure that 75C during real bench, is not likely a temp i will get during gaming ... thanks for the help


Temps can really help with some of these CPU.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Yeah I looked at the Predator when I was building this system, but after seeing the reviews it wasn't that much better than the Kraken x61.
> I was looking at a kit to start, then maybe a second RAD as I have a Primo and plenty of room to expand.
> But then again I could invest in a 480mm RAD that will fit perfectly too.
> 
> Currently my package temp is maxing out at 77c, 83c if running OCCT, y-cruncher or any of those heavy tests.
> 
> I could get a little creative as the split system air con is right above my head, I could run a pipe to blow directly onto the X61's RAD, that would keep things cool...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> The Predator seems even lower than H110i GT...
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ek_predator_360_aio_cpu_gpu_liquid_cooling_review,10.html


what I find disappointing about all reviews of this type is that they compare cpu temperature which is very biased by the block and mount (and mounting skill) rather than the cold-side water temp. Sure they are related, but may not be equivalent across test mounts. the job of a pump and rad is to shed heat from the coolant, and with the exception of martinsliquidlab, no body tests this... tisk-tisk.









no doubt - a custom loop with hand-picked components is the best way to go.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what I find disappointing about all reviews of this type is that they compare cpu temperature which is very biased by the block and mount (and mounting skill) rather than the cold-side water temp. Sure they are related, but may not be equivalent across test mounts. the job of a pump and rad is to shed heat from the coolant, and with the exception of martinsliquidlab, no body tests this... tisk-tisk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no doubt - a custom loop with hand-picked components is the best way to go.


And what I don't understand also is that they never mention and monitor CPU Package temp in all these benchmarks...
Only Core temperature is checked.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hello mates,
I really need help for stabilizing my build because I am having big problems getting to that point.
I will try to explain the case here but first I will detail the rig:

6850K @ 4.4 GHz binned from silliconlotery
Asus RE 10
2xTitan X Pascal
32 GB 3200 MHz GSkill CL 14
Watercooled (EK)

Current CPU config:

CPU ratio x44
Cache ratio x34

Voltages (only the one I have touched):
CPU - 1.35312 - Reading = 1.353
Ram 1.35
System Agent - 1.21562 - Reading = 1.224
VTTDDR - 0.68125
CPU Input Voltage 1.95 - Reading = 1.936
CPU Cache Voltage - 1.22188 - Reading = 1.256
PCH I/O - 1.6000

With those settings I am able to pass H265 like this:



While overclocking the titans and score like this on 3DMark 11 & FS:





The problem is that as soon as I try to run OCCT or similar it will crash no matter what I have tried. And as soon as I lower some settings as Input voltage the result turns like this:



I have no clue why this is happening :|

Also I do not know if I have set some values too high or too low. :S

CPU Input Voltage 1.95 - Is this the max? According to this guide

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/

it is not recommended to go any higher :/

System Agent = 1.21562 -> Not a clue if this is good at this point or too high or do not know.

If you could please give me some hint or anything that might help me It will be much appreciated









Thanks in advance mates


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello mates,
> I really need help for stabilizing my build because I am having big problems getting to that point.
> I will try to explain the case here but first I will detail the rig:
> 
> 6850K @ 4.4 GHz binned from silliconlotery
> Asus RE 10
> 2xTitan X Pascal
> 32 GB 3200 MHz GSkill CL 14
> Watercooled (EK)
> 
> Current CPU config:
> 
> CPU ratio x44
> Cache ratio x34
> 
> Voltages (only the one I have touched):
> CPU - 1.35312 - Reading = 1.353
> Ram 1.35
> System Agent - 1.21562 - Reading = 1.224
> VTTDDR - 0.68125
> CPU Input Voltage 1.95 - Reading = 1.936
> CPU Cache Voltage - 1.22188 - Reading = 1.256
> PCH I/O - 1.6000
> 
> With those settings I am able to pass H265 like this:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While overclocking the titans and score like this on 3DMark 11 & FS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that as soon as I try to run OCCT or similar it will crash no matter what I have tried. And as soon as I lower some settings as Input voltage the result turns like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no clue why this is happening :|
> 
> Also I do not know if I have set some values too high or too low. :S
> 
> CPU Input Voltage 1.95 - Is this the max? According to this guide
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/
> 
> it is not recommended to go any higher :/
> 
> System Agent = 1.21562 -> Not a clue if this is good at this point or too high or do not know.
> 
> If you could please give me some hint or anything that might help me It will be much appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance mates


try setting the values in these two screenshots as shown...



the other thing to consider if you want OCCT to pass is lower your OC one multiplier...


----------



## mrkambo

What does the PLL adjustment do?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> What does the PLL adjustment do?


use only one notch... "improves stability".


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> use only one notch... "improves stability".


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> use only one notch... "improves stability".


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*


It's reference to Asus BIOSes. They are using these words for description of changes and improvements.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello mates,
> I really need help for stabilizing my build because I am having big problems getting to that point.
> I will try to explain the case here but first I will detail the rig:
> 
> 6850K @ 4.4 GHz binned from silliconlotery
> Asus RE 10
> 2xTitan X Pascal
> 32 GB 3200 MHz GSkill CL 14
> Watercooled (EK)
> 
> Current CPU config:
> 
> CPU ratio x44
> Cache ratio x34
> 
> Voltages (only the one I have touched):
> CPU - 1.35312 - Reading = 1.353
> Ram 1.35
> System Agent - 1.21562 - Reading = 1.224
> VTTDDR - 0.68125
> CPU Input Voltage 1.95 - Reading = 1.936
> CPU Cache Voltage - 1.22188 - Reading = 1.256
> PCH I/O - 1.6000
> 
> With those settings I am able to pass H265 like this:
> 
> 
> 
> While overclocking the titans and score like this on 3DMark 11 & FS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that as soon as I try to run OCCT or similar it will crash no matter what I have tried. And as soon as I lower some settings as Input voltage the result turns like this:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no clue why this is happening :|
> 
> Also I do not know if I have set some values too high or too low. :S
> 
> CPU Input Voltage 1.95 - Is this the max? According to this guide
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/
> 
> it is not recommended to go any higher :/
> 
> System Agent = 1.21562 -> Not a clue if this is good at this point or too high or do not know.
> 
> If you could please give me some hint or anything that might help me It will be much appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance mates


What bin did you end up buying? I couldn't justify the price on the 6850K from SL so just bought one and delidded it. Does 4.4 at 1.33v with no issues in the tests you've shown there.

To touch on your question, either stop running OCCT, or increase vcore. Failing that, drop back to 4.3 as JP has suggested. You can likely reduce the System Agent voltage but this will require you to re-run stability tests, and more importantly run a recommended memory stress test.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> It's reference to Asus BIOSes. They are using these words for description of changes and improvements.


Figured it would be a stupid Asus thing!


----------



## slvr

Hello!

I need an advice how to overclock my 6800k properly.

Other setup:
- Thermalright Macho rev.B
- MSI X99A Krait

Right now I'm running it at 40x100 with 30x100 cache;
voltages:
vcore 1.26 (tried to lower, but got unstability under the prime95 with 1.25)
cache 1.1
vccin 1.8
pch fixed at 1.05 & 1.5

Can't get it stable to 4.2ghz even with 1.36vcore - Windows keep freezing right after the boot.
I think that 4.0ghz is pretty poor result but what else I can try?

Second question I've got is about bus speed. This is CPU-Z screenshot with prime95 running


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!














Bus speed is at 97.1-98.0mhz. Isn't that abnormal?

And finally - is it possible to reduce voltage to nominal (like 0.95v or so for 1.2ghz mode) with enabled overclocking?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## ttg35fort

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello mates,
> I really need help for stabilizing my build because I am having big problems getting to that point.
> I will try to explain the case here but first I will detail the rig:
> 
> 6850K @ 4.4 GHz binned from silliconlotery
> Asus RE 10
> 2xTitan X Pascal
> 32 GB 3200 MHz GSkill CL 14
> Watercooled (EK)
> 
> Current CPU config:
> 
> CPU ratio x44
> Cache ratio x34
> 
> Voltages (only the one I have touched):
> CPU - 1.35312 - Reading = 1.353
> Ram 1.35
> System Agent - 1.21562 - Reading = 1.224
> VTTDDR - 0.68125
> CPU Input Voltage 1.95 - Reading = 1.936
> CPU Cache Voltage - 1.22188 - Reading = 1.256
> PCH I/O - 1.6000
> 
> I have no clue why this is happening :|
> 
> Also I do not know if I have set some values too high or too low. :S
> 
> CPU Input Voltage 1.95 - Is this the max? According to this guide
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/
> 
> it is not recommended to go any higher :/
> 
> System Agent = 1.21562 -> Not a clue if this is good at this point or too high or do not know.
> 
> If you could please give me some hint or anything that might help me It will be much appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance mates


I have a 6800k. I originally had 1.23 for the System Agent Voltage (VSA), but I had instability:

Play with the VCCIO CPU. Mine is set to 1.1V.

Then, try reducing the System Agent Voltage (VSA) from your current setting. Mine is set to 1.05V.

My DRAM Voltage is set to 1.32 V.

You also may play with the CPU Cache Voltage some more. If I remember correctly, mine is set to 1.30 V.

I am stable at 4.5 GHz on the CPU (1.39 V) and 3.2 GHz on the RAM.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> try setting the values in these two screenshots as shown...
> 
> 
> 
> the other thing to consider if you want OCCT to pass is lower your OC one multiplier...


Tested but no luck :/
I will let this option as the last one :/ as the CPU is binned and should match 4.4 GHz (I mean lower the multiplier)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What bin did you end up buying? I couldn't justify the price on the 6850K from SL so just bought one and delidded it. Does 4.4 at 1.33v with no issues in the tests you've shown there.
> 
> To touch on your question, either stop running OCCT, or increase vcore. Failing that, drop back to 4.3 as JP has suggested. You can likely reduce the System Agent voltage but this will require you to re-run stability tests, and more importantly run a recommended memory stress test.


I bought 4.4 bin. It was almost same price to me as buying regular one in Euros so I decided to buy one there to try. Maybe I do have other issues I am not able to detect :/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*
> 
> I have a 6800k. I originally had 1.23 for the System Agent Voltage (VSA), but I had instability:
> 
> Play with the VCCIO CPU. Mine is set to 1.1V.
> 
> Then, try reducing the System Agent Voltage (VSA) from your current setting. Mine is set to 1.05V.
> 
> My DRAM Voltage is set to 1.32 V.
> 
> You also may play with the CPU Cache Voltage some more. If I remember correctly, mine is set to 1.30 V.
> 
> I am stable at 4.5 GHz on the CPU (1.39 V) and 3.2 GHz on the RAM.


Can you please share AI Suite screenshots?

I am really stuck right now. :|

I'm making a table to keep track on the values so I did not go crazy. But No luck at the moment.

Thanks everybody for the help








I will come back with more info asap


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Tested but no luck :/
> I will let this option as the last one :/ as the CPU is binned and should match 4.4 GHz (I mean lower the multiplier)
> I bought 4.4 bin. It was almost same price to me as buying regular one in Euros so I decided to buy one there to try. Maybe I do have other issues I am not able to detect :/
> Can you please share AI Suite screenshots?
> 
> I am really stuck right now. :|
> 
> I'm making a table to keep track on the values so I did not go crazy. But No luck at the moment.
> 
> Thanks everybody for the help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will come back with more info asap


OCCT is just more stressful than Realbench. Raise that Vcore a little or use a negative AVX offset.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> *OCCT is just more stressful than Realbench. Raise that Vcore a little or use a negative AVX offset.*


^^ This.


----------



## ttg35fort

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Can you please share AI Suite screenshots?


FYI, Jpmboy gave me the guidance to play with the VCCIO CPU and reduce the VSA, and on my system it worked like a charm. Again, thank you Jpmboy.

I will try to get you screen shots this evening.


----------



## ttg35fort

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Can you please share AI Suite screenshots?
> 
> I am really stuck right now. :|
> 
> I'm making a table to keep track on the values so I did not go crazy. But No luck at the moment.
> 
> Thanks everybody for the help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will come back with more info asap


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> OCCT is just more stressful than Realbench. Raise that Vcore a little or use a negative AVX offset.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*
> 
> FYI, Jpmboy gave me the guidance to play with the VCCIO CPU and reduce the VSA, and on my system it worked like a charm. Again, thank you Jpmboy.
> 
> I will try to get you screen shots this evening.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*


First of all thanks for your support and your time









With this config I was able to pass OCCT 1 hour (I ended it manually because 1 hour is more than ok to me at first):


I see that I need a lot of voltage on the RAM (they are certified by Gskill to work @ 3200 1.35V.
VCCIO on AISuite = VCCIO CPU 1.05 Voltage ?

Which is a good value for VCCIO to start with?
Any idea which way to go now?

So much thanks again for your time and your advices.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> First of all thanks for your support and your time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With this config I was able to pass OCCT 1 hour (I ended it manually because 1 hour is more than ok to me at first):
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that I need a lot of voltage on the RAM (they are certified by Gskill to work @ 3200 1.35V.
> VCCIO on AISuite = VCCIO CPU 1.05 Voltage ?
> 
> Which is a good value for VCCIO to start with?
> Any idea which way to go now?
> 
> So much thanks again for your time and your advices.


\

1.37V is not a lot of dram voltage (for instance, I've been running above 1.4V... for ever. Currently at 1.45V with 64GB for many months). Increase CPU VCCIO 1-2 notches, 1.075V should be plenty. You really should try to lower that VCCSA. A normal range is 0.95V to 1.10V.


----------



## enyceedanny

Have a super weird issue and it's bugging me out.

I can pass RB 8 hours, OCCT 10 hours, HCI 1000%, then after trying to tweak memory timings I'll go back to the previously stable timings, I can fail the next OCCT run randomly, sometimes even within 30 minutes - yet it will pass RB just fine.

Also, 1000% coverage of HCI is possible with +0.15 Cache voltage, yet when I run GSAT it will crash until I give it +0.175 - which I find a bit off as HCI stresses the cache more.

Any suggestions?

multi: 44x
cache: 37
vcore: 1.335
cache: +0.15
vccsa: +0.016
vccio: 1.15
dram: 1.35
vrin: 1.92


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Have a super weird issue and it's bugging me out.
> 
> I can pass RB 8 hours, OCCT 10 hours, HCI 1000%, then after trying to tweak memory timings I'll go back to the previously stable timings, I can fail the next OCCT run randomly, sometimes even within 30 minutes - yet it will pass RB just fine.
> 
> Also, 1000% coverage of HCI is possible with +0.15 Cache voltage, yet when I run GSAT it will crash until I give it +0.175 - which I find a bit off as HCI stresses the cache more.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> multi: 44x
> cache: 37
> vcore: 1.335
> cache: +0.15
> vccsa: +0.016
> vccio: 1.15
> dram: 1.35
> vrin: 1.92


HCI stresses the memory and cache interaction more which can result in picking up instability on either or. If you're unsure of what you've done, you can return the cache voltage and either raise key timings, or increase memory voltage running GSAT again.

Don't care for OCCT, but if it's imperative you need to pass this for whatever reasoning you have of your own, then you'll need to raise vcore or reduce core frequency.


----------



## ttg35fort

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Have a super weird issue and it's bugging me out.
> 
> I can pass RB 8 hours, OCCT 10 hours, HCI 1000%, then after trying to tweak memory timings I'll go back to the previously stable timings, I can fail the next OCCT run randomly, sometimes even within 30 minutes - yet it will pass RB just fine.
> 
> Also, 1000% coverage of HCI is possible with +0.15 Cache voltage, yet when I run GSAT it will crash until I give it +0.175 - which I find a bit off as HCI stresses the cache more.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> multi: 44x
> cache: 37
> vcore: 1.335
> cache: +0.15
> vccsa: +0.016
> vccio: 1.15
> dram: 1.35
> vrin: 1.92


I adjusted it directly, so I don't recall to what voltage +0.15 equates. I had to adjust my cache voltage up to 1.32V to get stability.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> HCI stresses the memory and cache interaction more which can result in picking up instability on either or. If you're unsure of what you've done, you can return the cache voltage and either raise key timings, or increase memory voltage running GSAT again.
> 
> Don't care for OCCT, but if it's imperative you need to pass this for whatever reasoning you have of your own, then you'll need to raise vcore or reduce core frequency.


The thing is that it will pass 8+ hours sometimes, and yet, will fail the next time with the same settings. What I'm curious is.. This seems to happen after playing with the DRAM timings. Even when I set it back to where it was, maybe the secondary timings aren't fully trained? Could that be the issue? I did try and disable fast boot, and enabled the training within the bios settings to no avail.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*
> 
> I adjusted it directly, so I don't recall to what voltage +0.15 equates. I had to adjust my cache voltage up to 1.32V to get stability.


It's approx 1.185v


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> The thing is that it will pass 8+ hours sometimes, and yet, will fail the next time with the same settings. What I'm curious is.. This seems to happen after playing with the DRAM timings. Even when I set it back to where it was, maybe the secondary timings aren't fully trained? Could that be the issue? I did try and disable fast boot, and enabled the training within the bios settings to no avail.


Who knows...training drift is a possibility. Although not sure I follow what you are saying - exact same settings, yet it happens after you play with DRAM timings? lol.

Difficult to say, maybe something getitng stuck in NVRAM. Maybe just reduce key timings as suggested as I'd wager it's memory instability regardless of what you are doing to make it happen.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Who knows...training drift is a possibility. Although not sure I follow what you are saying - exact same settings, yet it happens after you play with DRAM timings? lol.
> 
> Difficult to say, maybe something getitng stuck in NVRAM. Maybe just reduce key timings as suggested as I'd wager it's memory instability regardless of what you are doing to make it happen.


So for example:

I pass OCCT (multiple times just to be sure), RB, HCI, etc 8+ hours, then I decide to tighten my timings. So I bring CAS down from 14 -> 13, bump up vdimm from 1.35 -> 1.375, boot into linux and run some GSAT, then I boot back into windows and run OCCT, it fails. So I go back into the BIOS and bump cas up to 14, and vdimm back to 1.35 (which is the same settings that were stable before), still fails OCCT.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> The thing is that it will pass 8+ hours sometimes, and yet, will fail the next time with the same settings. What I'm curious is.. This seems to happen after playing with the DRAM timings. Even when I set it back to where it was, maybe the secondary timings aren't fully trained? Could that be the issue? I did try and disable fast boot, and enabled the training within the bios settings to no avail.


Many times when playing with ram timings.. if a bad set is loaded, simply entering bios and returning the timings back to what "was" good may not be enough to clear out all any dependent backgroung adjustments made by the bios. After such an event, best to load opt defaults post back to bios and re-enter or load a clean saved overclock.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Many times when playing with ram timings.. if a bad set is loaded, simply entering bios and returning the timings back to what "was" good may not be enough to clear out all any dependent backgroung adjustments made by the bios. After such an event, best to load opt defaults post back to bios and re-enter or load a clean saved overclock.


Saving and restoring the OC profile should also do that, no?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Saving and restoring the OC profile should also do that, no?


I have had instances where only a clear cmos brought things back to "good behavior".


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I have had instances where only a clear cmos brought things back to "good behavior".


Thanks! Good to know


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Thanks! Good to know


and real fun to find out.


----------



## Timmaigh!

Can anyone of you with 6850k´s or 6800k´s please share your OC settings, all the voltages you changed and whatnot?

Currently i am running my 6850k at 4GHz, which OCed itself just to this value just by me activating XMP profile. Curiously, despite that, BIOS/UEFI still reports the CPU clock ratio as 36x, not 40x. The Vcore is set to Auto and reports as 1,269V (1,272V during load in CPU-Z).

I would like to try to increase the clock ratio to at least 42x, or ideally 44x, but since the vcore is auto, i assume i need to set it manually to another value, cause with auto it would get too high at those clock ratios.... and obviously i really dont know these values, especially if those are offset ones and concern other voltages beyond vcore...

So if you could share settings, which work for you, i would really appreciate it. I realize those may not be stable for you.

Thanks


----------



## ttg35fort

Mine are listed in post #3889. 6800k.


----------



## mickeykool

Mine is a 6800K @ 42 w/ volts @ 1.235 and ram set at 3200. Rest of the setting is all on auto or default. Tried 43 but took the volts above 1.3X to get stable so I just went back to 42 for 24/7 stuff.


----------



## Timmaigh!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> Mine is a 6800K @ 42 w/ volts @ 1.235 and ram set at 3200. Rest of the setting is all on auto or default. Tried 43 but took the volts above 1.3X to get stable so I just went back to 42 for 24/7 stuff.


Thank you. Could you be more specific in regard to that Vcore voltage? I mean is that manually set as 1,235 or is there some offset to get to those 1,235 under load, or something else? Honestly, this kinda suits me, changing literally single setting, i was bit scared to change just the vcore and keep everything else on auto, not sure if increasing one voltage does not increase automatically all the others and dangerously high if left alone... therefore i asked.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*
> 
> Mine are listed in post #3889. 6800k.


Thanks. Do i understand it right you have all these voltages set as pretty much static, i mean not using those fancy offsets? So is your Vcore for example 1,39 even at ldle?


----------



## ttg35fort

Yes


----------



## ttg35fort

I had some stability issues using the offsets. Not sure why. I switched to static voltages, and tuning went smoother.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I have had instances where only a clear cmos brought things back to "good behavior".


The MSI board was bad for this, any failed overclock resulted in having to clear the CMOS or it wouldn't boot after exiting the BIOS.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Many times when playing with ram timings.. if a bad set is loaded, simply entering bios and returning the timings back to what "was" good may not be enough to clear out all any dependent backgroung adjustments made by the bios. After such an event, best to load opt defaults post back to bios and re-enter or load a clean saved overclock.


I was thinking that too. I'll try it out and report back. Changing the DRAM frequency shouldn't need a clear right? Just timings?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I was thinking that too. I'll try it out and report back. Changing the DRAM frequency shouldn't need a clear right? Just timings?


IMO, if the board passes training but fails in bios or when loading windows, I would LOD or clrcmos. If the change in freq just fails stability testing what you suggest _may_ be fine... best way to remove any ghosts in the machine is to flush all settings.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

6800k @ 4.5 ghz all cores @ 1.41v set to manual OC on ASUS X99-A II Bios rev. 1401
Uncore 37 @ 1.32v
VCCIO 1.05v @ 1.15v
Viper 3400 CAS 16 DDR4 mem run in XMP mode but @ 1.37v
Everything else left the same. Spectrum off, Dram training on ignore, Memory test off, to speed up boot times.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Realbench 2.44.
> The only reason I noticed is my clock speeds were 4.3Ghz not the 4.1Ghz I've got set for AVX.
> But It does put a mixed load on the system so maybe the winrar benchmark made it run at the higher clocks.


My 6800k does the same max OC for AVX as it does any other workload.

Completely against this new feature.

Different multipliers for different software? Please. The fact that any of you gurus are even down with this going forward is ridiculous. I don't understand you at all.

Don't bother trying to explain this to me either like I don't already know exactly what it does....









/rant over.


----------



## xarot

I think AVX multiplier is a great feature for any 6950X user.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I think AVX multiplier is a great feature for any 6950X user.


Agreed. Very glad Intel opened it up for us.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I think AVX multiplier is a great feature for any 6950X user.


Hello

AVX Offset can be very useful. Some users are not really concerned about a fully optimized system or don't fully understand what the offset does/provides. For theses users it is not a needed or wanted feature.


----------



## Jpmboy

Agreed, AVX offset and the ASUS TCT allow for a variety of overclocks with different advantages.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> My 6800k does the same max OC for AVX as it does any other workload.
> Completely against this new feature.
> Different multipliers for different software? Please. The fact that any of you gurus are even down with this going forward is ridiculous. I don't understand you at all.
> Don't bother trying to explain this to me either like I don't already know exactly what it does....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /rant over.


I know the post was basically a drive-by, but I'd wager using the above tools I could get a higher performance out of your rig than without either.


----------



## Timmaigh!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*
> 
> I had some stability issues using the offsets. Not sure why. I switched to static voltages, and tuning went smoother.


This running at static voltages, is it safe? Does it not shorten the lifespan of the CPU? I thought everyone and his mother were OCing using those offsets

If i set vcore to static value, say 1,3v for 42x/43x OC, but keep all the power saving stuff on (EIST, all the C-states), is the power saving still happening, even if the voltage is constant no matter situation?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> *This running at static voltages, is it safe*? Does it not shorten the lifespan of the CPU? I thought everyone and his mother were *OCing using those offsets*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If i set vcore to static value, say 1,3v for 42x/43x OC, but keep all the power saving stuff on (EIST, all the C-states), *is the power saving still happening, even if the voltage is constant no matter situation*?


yes.
no (better to use adaptive)
depends on what c-state limit you set.


----------



## ttg35fort

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> This running at static voltages, is it safe? Does it not shorten the lifespan of the CPU? I thought everyone and his mother were OCing using those offsets
> 
> If i set vcore to static value, say 1,3v for 42x/43x OC, but keep all the power saving stuff on (EIST, all the C-states), is the power saving still happening, even if the voltage is constant no matter situation?


I have not yet killed a processor overclocking (knock on wood). I have a system with a Core I7 920 processor, 2.66 GHz base and 2.93 GHz turbo, which I ran for 7 years at 4.0 GHz using static voltage and a Noctua NH-D14 air cooler. Up until I built my new system a few months ago, it was used daily. For the first 3 years I used it 8+ hours a day at work, and for the last 4 years it has been used daily by myself and my son gaming (mostly my son). It is still solid as a rock and I am giving it to my older son who is out on his own.

I think the key is making sure that you are not constantly overheating the processor. With the Noctua on my 920 processor, that was not an issue. On my new build, with water cooling, it is not an issue.

Adaptive voltage probably is better, as noted by Jpmboy. On my system, I had a hard time getting stability past 4.2 GHz using the offset mode (using IntelBurn Test to test stability). I switched to static voltage, and I was able achieve stability at 4.5 GHz. I don't know why. Very strange. Maybe it was a setting somewhere I missed, I'm not sure. I actually plan on playing with another overclock profile to see if I can reach my current settings (4.5 GHz core, 3.7 GHz cache and 3.2 GHz memory) using the offset mode. I just haven't yet taken the time to play with it further.


----------



## Timmaigh!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes.
> no (better to use adaptive)
> depends on what c-state limit you set.


Thank you!

So i just tried something:

set voltage to manual and 1,33v
and clock ratio to manual, then left the base clock at 36x, but increased the turbo boost for each core to 44x

first i tried just with 1,3v, would get to win, but it would BSOD while trying Cinebench
so increased to 1,33v

and now i could pass Cinebench with score of 1364. The temps via Realtemp were in 55-60 range. Actually did not see 60 at all, but i recall on longer load it would raise somewhat past 60. BTW how do i check package temps? Realtemp does not show it.

I realize it may not be stable, just cause i passed CB, abou to try some IBT now.

I did not change any other voltage except vcore for now, is that OK, if its stable? Or do i risk some damage by leaving the rest on Auto?

Last question, if i wanted to go Adaptive to keep my power saving, does that mean i should set the offset value to difference between 1,152 (which seems to be stock voltage per BIOS) and 1.33 to get that 1,33 under load?

Thanks for your response and help

EDIT: Well, IBT failed on second run. Too bad. Seemed to be too good to be true to get 4400 at 1,33. The highest temp i saw was 73. Thats still acceptable, right? Anyway, straight 15 score on CB 11,5







Thats about 5,5 more than on my previous 980x @ 3,8GHz.

EDIT no2.: So i could not pass IBT even at 1,35v and 44x, i could however do so (10 runs at High difficulty 2048 MB) at 42x and 1,3v. So perhaps its stable at these settings and i could actually try to lower vcore or try to bump to 43x... anyway not sure if those additional 200MHz against my previous 4GHz OC are worth it, especially with fixed voltage now.


----------



## Yomny

This must sound dumb and I've done a fair amount of reading but can't figure out why my vcore wont change when not at full loads. I come from the q6600 and older cpus and that was basically all taken care of the the c1/c3 and eist functions. Manual vcore will leave a fixed vcore. How can i get it to fluctuate as when running in auto mode?

Considering using adaptive voltage but will this allow the cpu to drop all the way down like stock speeds? My vcore drops to .771 at stock speeds with a max of 1.155, my concern is that setting adaptive mode wont allow it to go as low as .771 with the higher ratio or clock speed of 4.3ghz.

Really appreciate your help guys, I'm losing my mind over this. I'm overclocked to 4.3 with 1.25vcore but thats manually.


----------



## ttg35fort

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> EDIT no2.: So i could not pass IBT even at 1,35v and 44x, i could however do so (10 runs at High difficulty 2048 MB) at 42x and 1,3v. So perhaps its stable at these settings and i could actually try to lower vcore or try to bump to 43x... anyway not sure if those additional 200MHz against my previous 4GHz OC are worth it, especially with fixed voltage now.


Jpmboy knows his *****. So, if anything I present differs from his recommendation, go with his.

Start with your DIMM and cache frequencies at stock settings. Play with your core clock and voltage until it is stable. (That is where I ran into problems past 4.2 GHz and switched to static voltages, but I'm sure, based on Jpmboy's input, there is a way around it.)

Once that is stable, then play with your cache frequency and voltage.

Once you are stable with the CPU and cache, then play with your DIMM frequency and voltage. Edit: Here you may also increase CPU VCCIO up a notch or two (advise I got from Jpmboy on my build) and system agent voltage a notch or two.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> So i just tried something:
> 
> set voltage to manual and 1,33v
> and clock ratio to manual, then left the base clock at 36x, but increased the turbo boost for each core to 44x
> 
> first i tried just with 1,3v, would get to win, but it would BSOD while trying Cinebench
> so increased to 1,33v
> 
> and now i could pass Cinebench with score of 1364. The temps via Realtemp were in 55-60 range. Actually did not see 60 at all, but i recall on longer load it would raise somewhat past 60. BTW how do i check package temps? Realtemp does not show it.
> 
> I realize it may not be stable, just cause i passed CB, abou to try some IBT now.
> 
> I did not change any other voltage except vcore for now, is that OK, if its stable? Or do i risk some damage by leaving the rest on Auto?
> 
> Last question, if i wanted to go Adaptive to keep my power saving, does that mean i should set the offset value to difference between 1,152 (which seems to be stock voltage per BIOS) and 1.33 to get that 1,33 under load?
> 
> Thanks for your response and help
> 
> EDIT: Well, IBT failed on second run. Too bad. Seemed to be too good to be true to get 4400 at 1,33. The highest temp i saw was 73. Thats still acceptable, right? Anyway, straight 15 score on CB 11,5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats about 5,5 more than on my previous 980x @ 3,8GHz.
> 
> EDIT no2.: So i could not pass IBT even at 1,35v and 44x, i could however do so (10 runs at High difficulty 2048 MB) at 42x and 1,3v. So perhaps its stable at these settings and i could actually try to lower vcore or try to bump to 43x... anyway not sure if those additional 200MHz against my previous 4GHz OC are worth it, especially with fixed voltage now.


check the VCCIN voltage. At that frequency and load (IBT - why? Use asus realbench x264 bench module for a quick test and full stability test when ready) vccin may need to be upo in the 1.95 range with LLC set at a mid level (allow some droop of input voltage). Disable VRM spreadspectrum and VRM Fault. 4.4 is a high OC on BWE.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> This must sound dumb and I've done a fair amount of reading but can't figure out why my vcore wont change when not at full loads. I come from the q6600 and older cpus and that was basically all taken care of the the c1/c3 and eist functions. Manual vcore will leave a fixed vcore. How can i get it to fluctuate as when running in auto mode?
> 
> Considering using adaptive voltage *but will this allow the cpu to drop all the way down like stock speeds*? My vcore drops to .771 at stock speeds with a max of 1.155, my concern is that setting adaptive mode wont allow it to go as low as .771 with the higher ratio or clock speed of 4.3ghz.
> 
> Really appreciate your help guys, I'm losing my mind over this. I'm overclocked to 4.3 with 1.25vcore but thats manually.


yes. do not use an offset, just use tirbo voltage. (I'm not very familiar with Gigabyte bios on you guys boards. Othyers here are tho).


----------



## ttg35fort

73 is acceptable in an IBT. Most processors are not pushed that hard during normal use.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*
> 
> 73 is acceptable in an IBT. Most processors are not pushed that hard during normal use.


^^ This.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> check the VCCIN voltage. At that frequency and load (IBT - why? Use asus realbench x264 bench module for a quick test and full stability test when ready) vccin may need to be upo in the 1.95 range with LLC set at a mid level (allow some droop of input voltage). Disable VRM spreadspectrum and VRM Fault. 4.4 is a high OC on BWE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. do not use an offset, just use tirbo voltage. (I'm not very familiar with Gigabyte bios on you guys boards. Othyers here are tho).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> check the VCCIN voltage. At that frequency and load (IBT - why? Use asus realbench x264 bench module for a quick test and full stability test when ready) vccin may need to be upo in the 1.95 range with LLC set at a mid level (allow some droop of input voltage). Disable VRM spreadspectrum and VRM Fault. 4.4 is a high OC on BWE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. do not use an offset, just use tirbo voltage. (I'm not very familiar with Gigabyte bios on you guys boards. Othyers here are tho).


So you OC the turbo and not the regular multiplier? From what i see i cannot set the turbo voltage only the multiplier. See my main options for voltage control.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> So you OC the turbo and not the regular multiplier? From what i see i cannot set the turbo voltage only the multiplier. See my main options for voltage control.


those turbo multis are for a "per core" OC. you want each of those to be identical or Auto and the same as the clock ratio. Also ring voltage is the cache voltage, VCCIN isVRIN external (I think). Best to get a Gigabyte guy (sorry - Asus and asrock I know a little about, Giga is a new language for me). ping lilchronic or blameless - they know gigabyte!


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> This must sound dumb and I've done a fair amount of reading but can't figure out why my vcore wont change when not at full loads. I come from the q6600 and older cpus and that was basically all taken care of the the c1/c3 and eist functions. Manual vcore will leave a fixed vcore. How can i get it to fluctuate as when running in auto mode?
> 
> Considering using adaptive voltage but will this allow the cpu to drop all the way down like stock speeds? My vcore drops to .771 at stock speeds with a max of 1.155, my concern is that setting adaptive mode wont allow it to go as low as .771 with the higher ratio or clock speed of 4.3ghz.
> 
> Really appreciate your help guys, I'm losing my mind over this. I'm overclocked to 4.3 with 1.25vcore but thats manually.


Change the vcore to normal then you can set the cpu vcore offset.

Adjust offset off of your stock VID. Mine is .995v-1.0v so +240 gives me 1.235v-1.24v
should look like this


You have broadwell-E and im pretty sure the stock VID is higher so i would not recommend +240, see what yours is stock.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> those turbo multis are for a "per core" OC. you want each of those to be identical or Auto and the same as the clock ratio. Also ring voltage is the cache voltage, VCCIN isVRIN external (I think). Best to get a Gigabyte guy (sorry - Asus and asrock I know a little about, Giga is a new language for me). ping lilchronic or blameless - they know gigabyte!


I haven't yet messed with the ring volt as im not touching the uncore. The vrin is the total coming in to the cpu which i have set to auto, this im monitoring and its using 1.85 or so which is still much lower that suggested. I really do appreciate your help. When your heads melting trying to get that OC, any little input helps.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Change the vcore to normal then you can set the cpu vcore offset.
> 
> Adjust offset off of your stock VID. Mine is .995v-1.0v so +240 gives me 1.235v-1.24v
> should look like this
> 
> 
> You have broadwell-E and im pretty sure the stock VID is higher so i would not recommend +240, see what yours is stock.


Thanks for the screenshot. I figured this was the way to get the vcore to vary so i did just as you suggested. Set the offset to .15 or so which gets me total vcore of 1.31v. My VID is about 1.155v.

Just having trouble running intel burn test a few times at 4.3ghz, not even with 1.4vcore.
Came back down to 4.2 with 1.3vcore and passed the 10 runs but i'm thinking thatss a bit high vcore(1.3v) for 4.2ghz, don you think?

I have VRIN external override on auto, which gets about 1.87. Should i set this to the recommended 1.9 or 2.0? I haven't messed with the ring voltage yet as i haven't touched the uncore.
The PWM phase control, should i use exm perf, high or leave deafult? Not sure if even relevant but i read somewhere that it should be high.

Really appreciate your help, a lot! I've spent the whole day today just tweaking things and a few days reading around.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Thanks for the screenshot. I figured this was the way to get the vcore to vary so i did just as you suggested. Set the offset to .15 or so which gets me total vcore of 1.31v. My VID is about 1.155v.
> 
> Just having trouble running intel burn test a few times at 4.3ghz, not even with 1.4vcore.
> Came back down to 4.2 with 1.3vcore and passed the 10 runs but i'm thinking thatss a bit high vcore(1.3v) for 4.2ghz, don you think?
> 
> I have VRIN external override on auto, which gets about 1.87. Should i set this to the recommended 1.9 or *2.0?* I haven't messed with the ring voltage yet as i haven't touched the uncore.
> The PWM phase control, should i use exm perf, high or leave deafult? Not sure if even relevant but i read somewhere that it should be high.
> 
> Really appreciate your help, a lot! I've spent the whole day today just tweaking things and a few days reading around.


Not 2.0V for your 24/7. Input voltage should be fine at 1.9-1.95V. some samples need a little more but those are the exception. Remember LLC acts on Input voltage not vcore on this platform. The stock VID is what you see as the voltage in bios after a clrcmos or "load optimized defaults".


----------



## Yomny

Got it, I'm leaving the vrin on auto which takes ~1.86v and for now the overclock passes intel burn test on *high* at least 10x. This is [email protected] Will try to lower the voltage a bit and play around with the other voltages.


----------



## enyceedanny

Noticed that I can pass 8hrs of OCCT overnight with no programs running, but fail when GPU is even slightly loaded (i.e. having chrome open). Is it possible to need more vcore due to GPU usage?


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Noticed that I can pass 8hrs of OCCT overnight with no programs running, but fail when GPU is even slightly loaded (i.e. having chrome open). Is it possible to need more vcore due to GPU usage?


Anything is possible, the CPU is moving data through the PCIe lanes when your GPU is active.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Noticed that I can pass 8hrs of OCCT overnight with no programs running, but fail when GPU is even slightly loaded (i.e. having chrome open). Is it possible to need more vcore due to GPU usage?


chrome has it's own issues... more likely a resource clash than instability.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> chrome has it's own issues... more likely a resource clash than instability.


Hmm any way to find out for sure? The failing of OCCT is so sporadic, it's hard to find any conclusive stable settings.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Hmm any way to find out for sure? The failing of OCCT is so sporadic, it's hard to find any conclusive stable settings.


lol- don;t take this the wrong way, but if the settings are stable in other stability tests, reconsider whether OCCT should be a concern.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Agreed, AVX offset and the ASUS TCT allow for a variety of overclocks with different advantages.
> I know the post was basically a drive-by, but I'd wager using the above tools I could get a higher performance out of your rig than without either.


Haha.

I've always wanted to try this... have some other overclocker see if they can best me.

IPMI for workstation boards as standard can't come soon enough.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Haha.
> 
> I've always wanted to try this... have some other overclocker see if they can best me.
> 
> IPMI for workstation boards as standard can't come soon enough.


Best you in what? I think that might be pretty easy.


----------



## nexxusty

Yeah ok....
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Best you in what? I think that might be pretty easy.


LOL.

Overclocking the same rig.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Yeah ok....
> LOL.
> 
> Overclocking the same rig.


That's no fun. You even have the newer cpu / gpu architecture.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nexxusty*
> 
> Haha.
> 
> I've always wanted to try this... have some other overclocker see if they can best me.
> 
> IPMI for workstation boards as standard can't come soon enough.


lol - no, you misread that. It's whether i could do better using the tools vs without.


----------



## nexxusty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - no, you misread that. It's whether i could do better using the tools vs without.


Ahhh. Yeah I did. Was tired as hell last night... woke up at 5am today because I went to sleep so early... lol.

Still I'd love to try this in some capacity.... would be fun.

Sitting there having someone OC your system while you watch? I can just imagine now "Hey man I need a CMOS reset, went a bit too far, effed up".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> That's no fun. You even have the newer cpu / gpu architecture.


Yeah that's true. Hehe.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hello again mates,

Having issues with the RAM (using 3200 MHz XMP profile):



I do have the following values:







Any idea which values should I bump or tweak?

Thanks people


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Good evening.

Just picked up a 6950x. Im seeing a discrepancy in higher temps on core's 1-5 compared to 6-10.

Is that normal?


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maintenance Bot*
> 
> Good evening.
> 
> Just picked up a 6950x. Im seeing a discrepancy in higher temps on core's 1-5 compared to 6-10.
> 
> Is that normal?


Yeah, mine do the same thing.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Yeah, mine do the same thing.


Ok thank you.

I have a 6900k for sale if anyone is looking for one http://www.overclock.net/t/1617578/6900k


----------



## Seus

Hello everyone,

After running great for about 2-3 weeks my system had the most random shut down as if the power was cut off.
I'm on i7 6800k and rog strix mobo. Overclocked to 4.2ghz with everything at auto and ram set to 3200 and 1.35v

I'm clueless right now. I tried to start it back up but it couldn't even get to the BIOS. I then cycled the PSU and it turned back on.


----------



## Yomny

Anyone could tell me where i could monitor the RING/cache voltage? Whats it called, I'm using hwinfo64. Much appreciated.


----------



## DMac84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello again mates,
> 
> Having issues with the RAM (using 3200 MHz XMP profile):
> 
> I do have the following values:
> 
> Any idea which values should I bump or tweak?
> 
> Thanks people


I was also having lots of issues with my Ram at 3200... I was able to achieve stability by increasing my VCCIO CPU to 1.150 and my VCCSA to 1.250. Also, it seems like your RAM Voltage is kinda high at 1.375. Anytime I give my ram more than 1.365 it doesn't like it but I'm sure that varies from Set to Set.


----------



## Menthol

That's strange
I have never had to use VCCSA above 1.05 volts myself, and Dimm volts above 1.35 no problem whatsoever


----------



## DMac84

I had to increase the VCCSA when I went to 64GB of Ram 4x16. Leaving it at default would Post but not boot into Windows.


----------



## Nikos4Life

I am getting closer to solve the stability problem but not there yet:



Current settings [3h33m]:



The good part is that I was able to run 3H and a half with 1.350 on RAM and lowering a lot the VCCSA. I will try another run with less VCore and lowering as well the VCCSA a little bit.
Maybe lowering cache too? (changing just one value at a time).

Any suggestions till here?

Thanks, could not have gotten so far without your time and your expertise


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> After running great for about 2-3 weeks my system had the most random shut down as if the power was cut off.
> I'm on i7 6800k and rog strix mobo. Overclocked to 4.2ghz with everything at auto and ram set to 3200 and 1.35v
> 
> I'm clueless right now. I tried to start it back up but it couldn't even get to the BIOS. I then cycled the PSU and it turned back on.


This sounds like an issue I've had happen twice on my replacement motherboard after my first motherboard was RMA'd over the summer. They happened about 1-1.5 months apart from each other.

Both times the computer were sitting idle and when I came back the computer was off. I tried applying the latest BIOS (1401) to see if that helps.

The strangest part of the behaviour is turning on the PC after it's entered this state. I'll push the power switch and the PC will stay on slightly longer than the previous run. 1st attempt: 1 second. 2nd attempt: 1.3 seconds. 3rd attempt: 2 seconds, etc. This makes it very difficult to diagnose.

As you mentioned, I had to turn off the power supply for the PC to successfully boot again.

6850k on an X99 Strix motherboard.


----------



## mickeykool

My Corsair H100i pump died and in a process of RMA it but for now I need a cpu fan. Which ones do you guys recommend?

At this point my 6800K is overclocked to 4.2 @ 1.24 volts.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> My Corsair H100i pump died and in a process of RMA it but for now I need a cpu fan. Which ones do you guys recommend?
> 
> At this point my 6800K is overclocked to 4.2 @ 1.24 volts.


NH-D14


----------



## mickeykool

Thanks


----------



## Nikos4Life

Any idea why the sensor in my CPU named as "CPU Package" is showing numbers much higher than individual cores?
I mean, should I pay attention to CPU Package? or stick to core temp?
To show my point:
CPU Package = 91ºC (Under OCCT)
Core max = 80ºC

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to change my current CPU waterblock.
EK Plexi -> AquaComputer Kryos Next VARIO.

Do you think it will change anything?

Thanks in advance


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Any idea why the sensor in my CPU named as "CPU Package" is showing numbers much higher than individual cores?
> I mean, should I pay attention to CPU Package? or stick to core temp?
> To show my point:
> CPU Package = 91ºC (Under OCCT)
> Core max = 80ºC
> 
> I was wondering if it would be a good idea to change my current CPU waterblock.
> EK Plexi -> AquaComputer Kryos Next VARIO.
> 
> Do you think it will change anything?
> 
> Thanks in advance


Which OCCT test do you use ? Large data set ?
What is your ambient temperature ?
Whjat are your voltages ?

Then, people who have quite the same rig (CPU + cooling) can give their feedback.

It is not unusual to have Package 10°C above Core temps.
Mine is 18°C higher than coldest core at idle and 13°C higher than coldest core under full load (Realbench), and I am sure my NH-D15 mounting is "ok", as the coire temperatures are well cooled.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Any idea why the sensor in my CPU named as "CPU Package" is showing numbers much higher than individual cores?
> I mean, should I pay attention to CPU Package? or stick to core temp?
> To show my point:
> CPU Package = 91ºC (Under OCCT)
> Core max = 80ºC
> 
> I was wondering if it would be a good idea to change my current CPU waterblock.
> EK Plexi -> AquaComputer Kryos Next VARIO.
> 
> Do you think it will change anything?
> 
> Thanks in advance


The EK block is fine. package temp is the hottest sensor in the die (including cores) and yes, you should pay attention to this value. OCCT will run hot on any CPU not reflecting any thing the chip will experience for 99% of uses and users. 91C is hot IMO, the chip will trip prochot at 105....


----------



## musicclocks

Hey guys, in the process of setting up a new 6800k and I appear to have gotten a lousy chip but want to confirm a few things before I go through the exchange.

I currently can't get through more than a few minutes of OCCT Large Data or RealBench without blue screening or "Instability Detected" warnings with Multiplier 42, Voltage 1.35. Can't make it through more than a few seconds of OCCT with 41x @ 1.35v, either. FWIW I can get 5 hours of Aida 64 with the initial settings, and OCCT appears fine at stock settings.

Mobo is X99P-SLI, F23. Ram is Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB CL16 (XMP disabled). Cooling / temps are fine (DH-15).

Are these results bad enough that I should be questioning my mobo here? Or is it possible that a chip at the bottom of the barrel would perform like this?

I am also getting a strange error with RealBench: opens in a very small window, the maximize button is grayed out, and I can't manually resize. Can't seem to find any record of this happening to anyone else when I search.

Thanks for any suggestions you have!


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Which OCCT test do you use ? Large data set ?
> What is your ambient temperature ?
> Whjat are your voltages ?
> 
> Then, people who have quite the same rig (CPU + cooling) can give their feedback.
> 
> It is not unusual to have Package 10°C above Core temps.
> Mine is 18°C higher than coldest core at idle and 13°C higher than coldest core under full load (Realbench), and I am sure my NH-D15 mounting is "ok", as the coire temperatures are well cooled.


Sorry I could not provide the img at that time, here you have all the info, thanks for your help







(no idea about ambient temperature but I can guess something close to 30 or 28ºC)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> The EK block is fine. package temp is the hottest sensor in the die (including cores) and yes, you should pay attention to this value. OCCT will run hot on any CPU not reflecting any thing the chip will experience for 99% of uses and users. 91C is hot IMO, the chip will trip prochot at 105....


But I do not understand people here are showing much better results even with voltage close to 1.4








I think maybe the block it is getting overwhelmed or something :S

Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Sorry I could not provide the img at that time, here you have all the info, thanks for your help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (no idea about ambient temperature but I can guess something close to 30 or 28ºC)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I do not understand people here are showing much better results even with voltage close to 1.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think maybe the block it is getting overwhelmed or something :S
> 
> Thanks


with the range in core temperatures shown, you may want to check the block mount and TIM. Use something like gelid extreme or grizzly kryonaut, and tighten down the block evenly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Hey guys, in the process of setting up a new 6800k and I appear to have gotten a lousy chip but want to confirm a few things before I go through the exchange.
> I currently can't get through more than a few minutes of OCCT Large Data or RealBench without blue screening or "Instability Detected" warnings with Multiplier 42, Voltage 1.35. Can't make it through more than a few seconds of OCCT with 41x @ 1.35v, either. FWIW I can get 5 hours of Aida 64 with the initial settings, and OCCT appears fine at stock settings.
> Mobo is X99P-SLI, F23. Ram is Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB CL16 (XMP disabled). Cooling / temps are fine (DH-15).
> Are these results bad enough that I should be questioning my mobo here? Or is it possible that a chip at the bottom of the barrel would perform like this?
> I am also getting a strange error with RealBench: opens in a very small window, the maximize button is grayed out, and I can't manually resize. Can't seem to find any record of this happening to anyone else when I search.
> Thanks for any suggestions you have!


OCCT and realbench are fine at stock settings (after load optimized defaults or a clrcmos)???


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cryptopone*
> 
> This sounds like an issue I've had happen twice on my replacement motherboard after my first motherboard was RMA'd over the summer. They happened about 1-1.5 months apart from each other.
> 
> Both times the computer were sitting idle and when I came back the computer was off. I tried applying the latest BIOS (1401) to see if that helps.
> 
> The strangest part of the behaviour is turning on the PC after it's entered this state. I'll push the power switch and the PC will stay on slightly longer than the previous run. 1st attempt: 1 second. 2nd attempt: 1.3 seconds. 3rd attempt: 2 seconds, etc. This makes it very difficult to diagnose.
> 
> As you mentioned, I had to turn off the power supply for the PC to successfully boot again.
> 
> 6850k on an X99 Strix motherboard.


Thanks for replying. Did you find out what was the problem with the boards you RMA'd? What's freaking me out is I did all the standard stability tests, passed with no issues, and then out of nowhere it flat lined.

Mostly all of my settings were on auto for a 4.2ghz overclock. Going to actually try and manually tune the memory and see if that does the job. Though I don't know how I'll actually know if its ever stable at this point if it's passed extensive testing before.


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Thanks for replying. Did you find out what was the problem with the boards you RMA'd? What's freaking me out is I did all the standard stability tests, passed with no issues, and then out of nowhere it flat lined.
> 
> Mostly all of my settings were on auto for a 4.2ghz overclock. Going to actually try and manually tune the memory and see if that does the job. Though I don't know how I'll actually know if its ever stable at this point if it's passed extensive testing before.


My first motherboard became increasingly unstable until it outright stopped turning on again. When I got my RMA back, it was a completely different board with a different serial number. Even the removable plastic that covers some of the parts on the motherboard were untouched. They never commented on what the issue was but I assume it was not fixable.

I'm still on my second board (the one that sometimes shuts off on me or has problems turning on). I even swapped power supplies to rule out a power issue but no luck. I'm hopeful the latest BIOS addresses the problems I'm seeing but we'll see. It's unfortunate, since I don't really like leaving my X99 build on 24/7 since I can't trust that it's reliable yet.

I have a manual 4.2ghz overclock that is rock stable otherwise. Passed stress tests and can game on it for hours on end without any issue.


----------



## musicclocks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> OCCT and realbench are fine at stock settings (after load optimized defaults or a clrcmos)???


Yep, they don't fail until I try to clock.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Yep, they don't fail until I try to clock.


SL says 86% can do 4.2 1.312V realbench, so I guess you got one of those bottom 14%


----------



## musicclocks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> SL says 86% can do 4.2 1.312V realbench, so I guess you got one of those bottom 14%


Not even being able to do 4.1 @ 1.35v seems particularly horrid though, right? Or is it a case of when it's bad it's just really bad?


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Not even being able to do 4.1 @ 1.35v seems particularly horrid though, right? Or is it a case of when it's bad it's just really bad?


Somebody out there has to get the bottom of the barrel. It does seem pretty poor.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cryptopone*
> 
> My first motherboard became increasingly unstable until it outright stopped turning on again. When I got my RMA back, it was a completely different board with a different serial number. Even the removable plastic that covers some of the parts on the motherboard were untouched. They never commented on what the issue was but I assume it was not fixable.
> 
> I'm still on my second board (the one that sometimes shuts off on me or has problems turning on). I even swapped power supplies to rule out a power issue but no luck. I'm hopeful the latest BIOS addresses the problems I'm seeing but we'll see. It's unfortunate, since I don't really like leaving my X99 build on 24/7 since I can't trust that it's reliable yet.
> 
> I have a manual 4.2ghz overclock that is rock stable otherwise. Passed stress tests and can game on it for hours on end without any issue.


Well mine won't power on anymore. Went to save the overclock and that's all she wrote.


----------



## Cryptopone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Well mine won't power on anymore. Went to save the overclock and that's all she wrote.


Oh no... so when that happened with my first board, all I heard was a *click* sound when I pressed the power button. No lights, no fan movement. I would also need to turn off the power supply and turn it on again before pressing the power button would make the click sound.

The only thing that 'worked' on my board when it was completely dead was the BIOS flashback with a USB. No power otherwise, no RGB lighting, no diagnostic codes, no memory diagnostic lights.

I reviewed your other posts again and the only other thing I noticed was your comment about overclocking and leaving some settings at auto. I have to manually set my VCCIO CPU 1.05V Voltage to 1.05V otherwise the board tries sending 1.25V to that line which puts it in the purple/red (danger) territory when you enter it manually. I'd also keep an eye on CPU System Agent since that can also get some weird values.

Ironically enough, both of these issues can be seen in photos from this guide.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Yep, they don't fail until I try to clock.


here's some bios screenshots for a starting OC. Be sure begin from a clean slate (load opt defaults or clrcmos) simply entering defaults on a fouled OC may not wipe it clean.

160915174531.zip 1954k .zip file


160915174358.zip 1977k .zip file


6950x44a42c38m3400.zip 2553k .zip file


unless you post screenshots of the OC you are attempting, we really can;t help much.


----------



## musicclocks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> here's some bios screenshots for a starting OC. Be sure begin from a clean slate (load opt defaults or clrcmos) simply entering defaults on a fouled OC may not wipe it clean.
> 
> 160915174531.zip 1954k .zip file
> 
> 
> 160915174358.zip 1977k .zip file
> 
> 
> 6950x44a42c38m3400.zip 2553k .zip file
> 
> 
> unless you post screenshots of the OC you are attempting, we really can;t help much.


Thanks for these. On Gigabyte so I'll try to approximate. All I have been adjusting is the multiplier and the cpu voltage (e.g. to 41 and 1.35v)-- not adjusting any other settings. I know there's further tweaking I can do, but I thought just adjusting those two can still get me a stable system at 41?


----------



## musicclocks

[double post]


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cryptopone*
> 
> Oh no... so when that happened with my first board, all I heard was a *click* sound when I pressed the power button. No lights, no fan movement. I would also need to turn off the power supply and turn it on again before pressing the power button would make the click sound.
> 
> The only thing that 'worked' on my board when it was completely dead was the BIOS flashback with a USB. No power otherwise, no RGB lighting, no diagnostic codes, no memory diagnostic lights.
> 
> I reviewed your other posts again and the only other thing I noticed was your comment about overclocking and leaving some settings at auto. I have to manually set my VCCIO CPU 1.05V Voltage to 1.05V otherwise the board tries sending 1.25V to that line which puts it in the purple/red (danger) territory when you enter it manually. I'd also keep an eye on CPU System Agent since that can also get some weird values.
> 
> Ironically enough, both of these issues can be seen in photos from this guide.


This has me stumped honestly. After it originally flatlined I reset the overclock to default settings and was using my computer just fine for gaming and all for a couple days until I get some help. Now after that last reset it doesn't want to POST.


----------



## Silent Scone

What's the Q-Code displayed.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Thanks for these. On Gigabyte so I'll try to approximate. All I have been adjusting is the multiplier and the cpu voltage (e.g. to 41 and 1.35v)-- not adjusting any other settings. I know there's further tweaking I can do, but I thought just adjusting those two can still get me a stable system at 41?


yeah - that's why it's helpful to add your rig to your signature block.


----------



## musicclocks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> here's some bios screenshots for a starting OC. Be sure begin from a clean slate (load opt defaults or clrcmos) simply entering defaults on a fouled OC may not wipe it clean.
> 
> 160915174531.zip 1954k .zip file
> 
> 
> 160915174358.zip 1977k .zip file
> 
> 
> 6950x44a42c38m3400.zip 2553k .zip file
> 
> 
> unless you post screenshots of the OC you are attempting, we really can;t help much.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - that's why it's helpful to add your rig to your signature block.


Sorry about that. Done.

I exchanged chips This new one appears to be performing slightly better (can get it to pass 2 hours of Realbench with a 40 multiplier and adjusting to 1.256v) but I still can't get more than a minute or two of RealBench when I try to go to 41 or 42 before getting a BSOD, even with the voltage cranked to 1.35. It's like there's a hard wall. Very strange.

I've tried most of the resets imaginable -- load defaults from BIOS, shorted the CMOS clear on the mobo, reinstalled Windows 10, but nothing. Not sure if I should try a 3rd chip, RMA the mobo, or just take what I've got. I don't really need the 4.0 -> 4.2 speed bump as much as I need stability (music recording), but with all the reports of how easy it's supposed to be for 85%+ of 6800k chips to hit 4.2 I'm wondering if there's something more serious wrong with the system that I should try to address now?

Screen cap of monitor during RB (can't take bios just yet as I'm running the test, but all settings are left to auto / default save the multiplier and voltage


----------



## Fidelity21

What's the error message when it fails? It could be a number of problems as overclocking your CPU frequency also increases other voltages when you leave things on AUTO. For example, I was chasing stability for months until I realized that AUTO VCCIO and VCCSA were causing extremely high voltages and thus causing instability. I lowered them to where they were before overclocking and I have been stable ever since. Before this, I was getting failures in Realbench and random lockups or resets without any error messages or reasoning behind it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Sorry about that. Done.
> 
> I exchanged chips This new one appears to be performing slightly better (can get it to pass 2 hours of Realbench with a 40 multiplier and adjusting to 1.256v) but I still can't get more than a minute or two of RealBench when I try to go to 41 or 42 before getting a BSOD, even with the voltage cranked to 1.35. It's like there's a hard wall. Very strange.
> 
> I've tried most of the resets imaginable -- load defaults from BIOS, shorted the CMOS clear on the mobo, reinstalled Windows 10, but nothing. Not sure if I should try a 3rd chip, RMA the mobo, or just take what I've got. I don't really need the 4.0 -> 4.2 speed bump as much as I need stability (music recording), but with all the reports of how easy it's supposed to be for 85%+ of 6800k chips to hit 4.2 I'm wondering if there's something more serious wrong with the system that I should try to address now?
> 
> Screen cap of monitor during RB (can't take bios just yet as I'm running the test, but all settings are left to auto / default save the multiplier and voltage


when you get bios screenshots (F12 with a USb stick in any slot) post them up. Can;t tell anything from that picture... and hwinfo reads the voltages (vcore etc) in a different section than shown. (eg what's labeled "VCORE" is obviously not vcore).


----------



## Nikos4Life

I have started to try to get stable the CPU's Cache @ 3400MHz but I am not quite sure which values are the ones I should fine tune first to get it stable, after reading guides and so, I am using:

CPU Core Voltage = 1.36250
CPU Cache voltage = 1.23438 (reading 1.262)
VCCIO CPU 1.05 Voltage = 1.15000
CPU Input Voltage = 1.95 (reading 1.920)

But maybe I am losing something else :S

This config (img down below) is working right now for 3.400MHz but it is really hot so I would like to find the best values.



Thanks people


----------



## musicclocks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> when you get bios screenshots (F12 with a USb stick in any slot) post them up. Can;t tell anything from that picture... and hwinfo reads the voltages (vcore etc) in a different section than shown. (eg what's labeled "VCORE" is obviously not vcore).


Alright, here we go. These are screenshots of the BIOS as it is running stable (passed 8 hour realbench last night, and used all day today with no hiccups).

Very grateful for the help and don't want to make you guys do all the work -- is there a guide or video to these terms, generally, that I could be reading/watching? I kept searching variations of "X99 Gigabyte Overclock" but nothing I found was particularly detailed. Everyone seems to adjust the voltage and multiplier and call it a day.











Fidelity I think you may have a point with the auto settings potentially pushing something too high. Definitely felt less stable when I increased the voltage (apps lagging when opening, etc), which surprised me.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Alright, here we go. These are screenshots of the BIOS as it is running stable (passed 8 hour realbench last night, and used all day today with no hiccups).
> 
> Very grateful for the help and don't want to make you guys do all the work -- is there a guide or video to these terms, generally, that I could be reading/watching? I kept searching variations of "X99 Gigabyte Overclock" but nothing I found was particularly detailed. Everyone seems to adjust the voltage and multiplier and call it a day.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fidelity I think you may have a point with the *auto settings potentially pushing something too high*. Definitely felt less stable when I increased the voltage (apps lagging when opening, etc), which surprised me.


^^ This is very true!!
No guides for ghigabyte AFAIK (check with @lilchronic) for ASUS see: http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only/0_20#post_22778063

some suggestions:
VRIn ext override -> 1.92V
CPU System Agent -> adjust offset until the total SA voltage is 0.95-1.05V
CPU VCCIO -> 1.05V

these are all very conservative values - nothing is an overvolt situation. Also, if your cooling can handle it, 1.3V vcore is fine on that CPU.
CPU Ring Voltage -> 1.15 (stabilize cache)


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This is very true!!
> No guides for ghigabyte AFAIK (check with @lilchronic) for ASUS see: http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only/0_20#post_22778063
> 
> some suggestions:
> VRIn ext override -> 1.92V
> CPU System Agent -> adjust offset until the total SA voltage is 0.95-1.05V
> CPU VCCIO -> 1.05V
> 
> these are all very conservative values - nothing is an overvolt situation. Also, if your cooling can handle it, 1.3V vcore is fine on that CPU.
> CPU Ring Voltage -> 1.15 (stabilize cache)


Any idea about this buddy? Thanks









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> I have started to try to get stable the CPU's Cache @ 3400MHz but I am not quite sure which values are the ones I should fine tune first to get it stable, after reading guides and so, I am using:
> 
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.36250
> CPU Cache voltage = 1.23438 (reading 1.262)
> VCCIO CPU 1.05 Voltage = 1.15000
> CPU Input Voltage = 1.95 (reading 1.920)
> 
> But maybe I am losing something else :S
> 
> This config (img down below) is working right now for 3.400MHz but it is really hot so I would like to find the best values.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks people


----------



## tknight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Alright, here we go. These are screenshots of the BIOS as it is running stable (passed 8 hour realbench last night, and used all day today with no hiccups).
> 
> Very grateful for the help and don't want to make you guys do all the work -- is there a guide or video to these terms, generally, that I could be reading/watching? I kept searching variations of "X99 Gigabyte Overclock" but nothing I found was particularly detailed. Everyone seems to adjust the voltage and multiplier and call it a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fidelity I think you may have a point with the auto settings potentially pushing something too high. Definitely felt less stable when I increased the voltage (apps lagging when opening, etc), which surprised me.


Here is the Gigabyte x99 overclocking guide :

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=157669


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Any idea about this buddy? Thanks


on the R5E10, enter bios and set the two parameters as shown below... then work the cache as you have been. The vcore you are running is a little high for my tastes, but not out of bounds for 4.4. You should be able to get the cache up to 3.6 to 3.7 with under 1.3V once you set these parameters:

and frankly... there's not reason to limit your OC with OCCT. Use ASUS realbench, HWBOT x265 (4K mode) and HCI Memtest. If you MUST have a high current stress, then OCCT or IBT, but neither is necessary.
Lastly... make ALL voltage adjustments in BIOS when working at this level, not in the OS (in case you are using AIsuite in that way).








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tknight*
> 
> Here is the Gigabyte x99 overclocking guide :
> 
> http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=157669


thanks!


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Alright, here we go. These are screenshots of the BIOS as it is running stable (passed 8 hour realbench last night, and used all day today with no hiccups).
> 
> Very grateful for the help and don't want to make you guys do all the work -- is there a guide or video to these terms, generally, that I could be reading/watching? I kept searching variations of "X99 Gigabyte Overclock" but nothing I found was particularly detailed. Everyone seems to adjust the voltage and multiplier and call it a day.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G]
> 
> Fidelity I think you may have a point with the auto settings potentially pushing something too high. Definitely felt less stable when I increased the voltage (apps lagging when opening, etc), which surprised me.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This is very true!!
> No guides for ghigabyte AFAIK (check with @lilchronic) for ASUS see: http://www.overclock.net/t/1510328/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread-north-american-users-only/0_20#post_22778063
> 
> some suggestions:
> VRIn ext override -> 1.92V
> CPU System Agent -> adjust offset until the total SA voltage is 0.95-1.05V
> CPU VCCIO -> 1.05V
> 
> these are all very conservative values - nothing is an overvolt situation. Also, if your cooling can handle it, 1.3V vcore is fine on that CPU.
> CPU Ring Voltage -> 1.15 (stabilize cache)


I can add to that

disable spread spectrum = 0.01%
CPU VRIN LLC i'd stick with medium LLC


----------



## musicclocks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> some suggestions:
> VRIn ext override -> 1.92V
> CPU System Agent -> adjust offset until the total SA voltage is 0.95-1.05V
> CPU VCCIO -> 1.05V
> 
> these are all very conservative values - nothing is an overvolt situation. Also, if your cooling can handle it, 1.3V vcore is fine on that CPU.
> CPU Ring Voltage -> 1.15 (stabilize cache)


Thanks! Implemented these -- see below for pics. (Did not understand how to know what the SA voltage is in order to adjust the offset, so I left it auto).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tknight*
> 
> Here is the Gigabyte x99 overclocking guide :
> 
> http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=157669


Thanks!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> I can add to that
> 
> disable spread spectrum = 0.01%
> CPU VRIN LLC i'd stick with medium LLC


Thanks! I saw the VRIN LLC but not the disable spread spectrum setting. Quick google and it appears some boards have it and others don't.

Here's what I tried just now:

   

Got me to the desktop, but then BSOD with a CLOCK WATCHDOG TIMEOUT error as I was installing realbench... Any thoughts?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Thanks! Implemented these -- see below for pics. (Did not understand how to know what the SA voltage is in order to adjust the offset, so I left it auto).
> Thanks!
> Thanks! I saw the VRIN LLC but not the disable spread spectrum setting. Quick google and it appears some boards have it and others don't.
> 
> Here's what I tried just now:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got me to the desktop, but then BSOD with a CLOCK WATCHDOG TIMEOUT error as I was installing realbench... Any thoughts?


VCCSA is a offset setting, stock is usually around .90v so a +0.100 should give you 1.0v

also you have the option to change spread spectrum but you have to change cpu base clock to manual control.


----------



## Blameless

New 6800K arrived: J-batch/B-lot, made 33rd week of 2016.

Newegg didn't pack it particularly well and FedEx smacked it around a bit, so there is some very minor damage to the substrate's lacquer where the CPU case held it, but it's a CPU and should be fine. Heatspreader is actually attached correctly on this sample, so it's already better than my last one.


----------



## musicclocks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> New 6800K arrived: J-batch/B-lot, made 33rd week of 2016.
> 
> Newegg didn't pack it particularly well and FedEx smacked it around a bit, so there is some very minor damage to the substrate's lacquer where the CPU case held it, but it's a CPU and should be fine. Heatspreader is actually attached correctly on this sample, so it's already better than my last one.


Interested to see how this does for you. My chip is also JXXXBXXX -- I presume this is the same?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Interested to see how this does for you. My chip is also JXXXBXXX -- I presume this is the same?


Yeah.

What have you managed to get out of yours?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *musicclocks*
> 
> Interested to see how this does for you. My chip is also JXXXBXXX -- I presume this is the same?


Check this guide out
http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2016/06/gigabyte-x99-soc-champion-6950x.html
http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2015/03/gigabyte-x99-soc-champion-overclocking_27.html


----------



## musicclocks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> What have you managed to get out of yours?


Adjusting only Multiplier and cpu voltage, 8 hours of realbench stable @ 4.0 w 1.256v.

Any multiplier over 40 produces shaky boots, failed tests, etc. I would not be at all surprised to learn that these were down to user error or a bad mobo. I tried the suggested settings folks have been helping me with and still seeing BSODs. Don't understand enough yet to fully understand the guides so I've got some reading to do, but if you also struggle I'll feel a little better about it!


----------



## enyceedanny

Question

Since cache frequency doesn't benefit from being higher than core, with power savings enabled, should minimum cache multiplier be the same or lower than the lowest multiplier the CPU clocks down to? For example, my minimum cache ratio is set at 31x, but if the CPU is idle, and it clocks down to let's say 1.2ghz, shouldn't the cache be around that same range (12x)?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Question
> 
> Since cache frequency doesn't benefit from being higher than core, with power savings enabled, should minimum cache multiplier be the same or lower than the lowest multiplier the CPU clocks down to? For example, my minimum cache ratio is set at 31x, but if the CPU is idle, and it clocks down to let's say 1.2ghz, shouldn't the cache be around that same range (12x)?


if you have intel speedstep enabled set min cache to Auto.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you have intel speedstep enabled set min cache to Auto.


Guess that can work. I'll try it. Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Guess that can work. I'll try it. Thanks


lol - I know it works.


----------



## Blameless

Well, looks like the lot lettering trend regarding leakage is holding so far. This B lot part is lower leakage/higher voltage than the C lots I've seen on other BW-E parts, though doesn't seem to be quite as crazy as the F-lot 6800K I had previously.

Doing some preliminary testing now and 4GHz needs over 1.2v, but runs quite cold (I'm using an H55 for initial testing and the CPU barely gets warm). Actually, I think my old Westmere setup idles warmer than mild CPU stress tests get this 6800K.

Don't have high hopes for max OC with this part, but I'm hoping I'll be able to get it to at least 4.2GHz before I hit run away voltage scaling.

Edit: This sample is actually scaling much better than I expected it to. Took a bit of vcore to get going, but it's almost linear from there on out.

Edit2: 4.4GHz is where things start to break down. I can pass light stress tests with at 4.3GHz with ~1.34v, but need more than 1.4v for 4.4GHz. 4th core seems to be the weakest one.

Still need to do a lot of tweaking and tuning, but I think I'm going to aim for 4.2 or 4.3GHz with 4.1GHz for AVX.


----------



## cg4200

I picked up a 6850k LxxxGxxx 34th week.. My chip stock volts at auto was 1.044.. my friends chip same batch and lot 39 chips before mine was 1.112 volts at stock.. I can get 4.6 but at 1.40 volts.. I am running at 4.5 1.283 and cache 1.20 @36 asus realbench I hr ..did 4hrs @4.6 1.40 don't like temps going in 80's..my friends only gets 4.5 with 1.44 volts crazy chips so close change so much.... I was wondering avx offset I left to auto I see some people put -2 why?? Also Goes cache overclock mean much with these chips?? On my skylake not so much.. still testing my chip to get lowest voltages. Thanks for any feedback

Screenshot8.png 6229k .png file


----------



## tux1989

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Well, looks like the lot lettering trend regarding leakage is holding so far. This B lot part is lower leakage/higher voltage than the C lots I've seen on other BW-E parts, though doesn't seem to be quite as crazy as the F-lot 6800K I had previously.
> 
> Doing some preliminary testing now and 4GHz needs over 1.2v, but runs quite cold (I'm using an H55 for initial testing and the CPU barely gets warm). Actually, I think my old Westmere setup idles warmer than mild CPU stress tests get this 6800K.
> 
> Don't have high hopes for max OC with this part, but I'm hoping I'll be able to get it to at least 4.2GHz before I hit run away voltage scaling.
> 
> Edit: This sample is actually scaling much better than I expected it to. Took a bit of vcore to get going, but it's almost linear from there on out.
> 
> Edit2: 4.4GHz is where things start to break down. I can pass light stress tests with at 4.3GHz with ~1.34v, but need more than 1.4v for 4.4GHz. 4th core seems to be the weakest one.
> 
> Still need to do a lot of tweaking and tuning, but I think I'm going to aim for 4.2 or 4.3GHz with 4.1GHz for AVX.


Hello.I have almost the same problem.If i put one stick in A slot it runs stable but if i but same stick in C slot HCI test failed.


----------



## ESRCJ

My 6850K keeps bouncing between my OC clock speed (4400MHz) and 1200Mhz. It does this on each core while idle. Is this normal? Why 1200MHz? My old 3930K was usually sitting at a constant 4.6GHz.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> I picked up a 6850k LxxxGxxx 34th week.. My chip stock volts at auto was 1.044.. my friends chip same batch and lot 39 chips before mine was 1.112 volts at stock.. I can get 4.6 but at 1.40 volts.. I am running at 4.5 1.283 and cache 1.20 @36 asus realbench I hr ..did 4hrs @4.6 1.40 don't like temps going in 80's..my friends only gets 4.5 with 1.44 volts crazy chips so close change so much.... I was wondering avx offset I left to auto I see some people put -2 why?? Also Goes cache overclock mean much with these chips?? On my skylake not so much.. still testing my chip to get lowest voltages. Thanks for any feedback
> 
> Screenshot8.png 6229k .png file


AVX offset lowers the cpu frequency when AVX(2) in in the execution stack. SWo with a AVX offset of "1" your 4.6 would run at 4.5. Cache helps with memory bandwidth and I/O . Yes, it helps IMO, but core is much more important for most applications.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gridironcpj*
> 
> My 6850K keeps bouncing between my OC clock speed (4400MHz) and 1200Mhz. It does this on each core while idle. Is this normal? Why 1200MHz? My old 3930K was usually sitting at a constant 4.6GHz.


that's speedstep. either disable Intel Speedstep in bios or use windows high performance plan. That said... you have a BWE, why overclock it like a 5 year old 3930K? Use Adaptive with speedstep. the rig will idle at 1200 and ~ 0.8V with no loss in day driver performance. it's 1200 'cause that's the lowest multiplier. On 125 strap it will idle at 1500...


----------



## DADDYDC650

Figured out why my 6800k didn't want to run at 4.4Ghz anymore. The damn side panel for my case was either applying pressure to the sata power cables or it had pulled the cable out a bit and causing it to come a little loose. No wonder BF1 would crash mostly while loading levels after matches and some games would randomly crash once in awhile. Problem sovled!


----------



## cg4200

Thanks man.. Still playing with my settings.. I have SA volt set at auto seems to run 1.368 or so. Is anyone set there's manually or leave auto? And what volts are you running?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Thanks man.. Still playing with my settings.. I have SA volt set at auto seems to run 1.368 or so. Is anyone set there's manually or leave auto? And what volts are you running?


doubtful the rig needs excessive VCCSA like that. Common range is 0.95V to 1.1V. 1.3V is very high. With 64GB of ram @ 3400c13 I'm running 1.000V VCCSA.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@cg4200

My Strix set the VCCSA that high on Auto, same with the VCCIO, but currently I've got the VCCSA set to 0.968v for a 32GB 2800Mhz kit.


----------



## ESRCJ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's speedstep. either disable Intel Speedstep in bios or use windows high performance plan. That said... you have a BWE, why overclock it like a 5 year old 3930K? Use Adaptive with speedstep. the rig will idle at 1200 and ~ 0.8V with no loss in day driver performance. it's 1200 'cause that's the lowest multiplier. On 125 strap it will idle at 1500...


Thanks for the info. I'm having a very strange issue now. I was getting a little over 7100 for my CPU score in TimeSpy with my CPU at 4.4GHz, but now it is 6800-6900, tested 10 more times. Somehow my processor has gotten weaker, along with my Titan XP. I wonder if there's some weird setting on my motherboard (MSI X99 Titanium) that is somehow limiting performance.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gridironcpj*
> 
> Thanks for the info. I'm having a very strange issue now. I was getting a little over 7100 for my CPU score in TimeSpy with my CPU at 4.4GHz, but now it is 6800-6900, tested 10 more times. Somehow my processor has gotten weaker, along with my Titan XP. I wonder if there's some weird setting on my motherboard (MSI X99 Titanium) that is somehow limiting performance.


the cpu hasn;t gotten weaker, it probably just needs a tune-up.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the cpu hasn;t gotten weaker, it probably just needs a tune-up.


Tune up as in colder plugs and some timing advance?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Tune up as in colder plugs and some timing advance?


timing advance or advanced timing... one of those should do it.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> timing advance or advanced timing... one of those should do it.


Or maybe a bit richer mixture ...


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Or maybe a bit richer mixture ...


Being more lean produces better results







you know 14:7 and all that


----------



## cg4200

thanks guys have been busy ..I knew my vccsa volt seemed high and I am only currently running 32 gb g-skill


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Being more lean produces better results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you know 14:7 and all that


I tend to run a little rich, but I'm forcing air in.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Being more lean produces better results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you know 14:7 and all that


That would depend - if you're running a little too lean then a little richer would be good. As somebody once said, it's all relative


----------



## DADDYDC650

Anyone with a 6850k/6800k interested in AMD's 8 core/16 thread CPU? Going to be interesting live stream today.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Anyone with a 6850k/6800k interested in AMD's 8 core/16 thread CPU? Going to be interesting live stream today.


Actually I wan't interested even in 6800K. I looked at performance of normal broadwell. Found it lacking. And then it was either i7-5820K, or i5-6600K. They sold off X99 WS/SE in a horrible way, I'd need to place special order, wait about month for processing, and then about month for special delivery. Nice WS board without WiFi, or non WS board but cheaper (and still without WiFi) Ranger VIII.
Well. As disabled I have no money, and boards/CPU must last. Kinda like X79/X299 platform. X79 was reliable dinosaur. And when X299 would be lasting as well...

Intel, make affordable 6-core.


----------



## Vellinious

For anyone with a 6950X. What kinds of voltages are you seeing required for low load stability (Real Bench) to reach 4.6? I'm finding I need to run 1.455v to keep 4.6 stable in Real Bench....temps at that voltage are higher than I'd like to see (mid 70s).

Just wondering if anyone else has had similar, or vastly different experiences.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> For anyone with a 6950X. What kinds of voltages are you seeing required for low load stability (Real Bench) to reach 4.6? I'm finding I need to run 1.455v to keep 4.6 stable in Real Bench....temps at that voltage are higher than I'd like to see (mid 70s).
> 
> Just wondering if anyone else has had similar, or vastly different experiences.


Mine needed 1.45V to run realbench a bit, but it wasn't stable. I didn't want to use any more voltage than that, and temperatures start creeping up. I'm surprised you're able to stay in the 70s at that voltage without delidding!


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Mine needed 1.45V to run realbench a bit, but it wasn't stable. I didn't want to use any more voltage than that, and temperatures start creeping up. I'm surprised you're able to stay in the 70s at that voltage without delidding!


I've got a very good loop, use TGrizzly, and keep the ambients in the PC room at or just a shade below 15c.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I've got a very good loop, use TGrizzly, and keep the ambients in the PC room at or just a shade below 15c.


Nice and chilly!









I can't stand turning the heat down to less than 20C.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Nice and chilly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't stand turning the heat down to less than 20C.


I can drop it to 10c in that room pretty easy, but.....15c is a pretty decent temp for every day use. When I want it really cold, especially in winter, I just wheel the whole thing outside. My whole rig sits on a homemade stand with casters that I can move around at will. Love it. I plan to do some playing this weekend, with the outside temps at -6c. Should be fun.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I can drop it to 10c in that room pretty easy, but.....15c is a pretty decent temp for every day use. When I want it really cold, especially in winter, I just wheel the whole thing outside. My whole rig sits on a homemade stand with casters that I can move around at will. Love it. I plan to do some playing this weekend, with the outside temps at -6c. Should be fun.


BBBRRRRR!! You should change your user name to Chillynious


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> BBBRRRRR!! You should change your user name to Chillynious


Lol, I plan to be inside. The rig will do the freezin. = P


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Anyone with a 6850k/6800k interested in AMD's 8 core/16 thread CPU? Going to be interesting live stream today.


did you watch it?

okay, coming out of the closet - I've been toying with the idea of a crosshair formula and a 9590.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Lol, I plan to be inside. The rig will do the freezin. = P


Aahh! Very cool indeed!


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> did you watch it?
> 
> okay, coming out of the closet - I've been toying with the idea of a crosshair formula and a 9590.


Watched every minute. Sucked that they didn't announce any prices but whatevs.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> For anyone with a 6950X. What kinds of voltages are you seeing required for low load stability (Real Bench) to reach 4.6? I'm finding I need to run 1.455v to keep 4.6 stable in Real Bench....temps at that voltage are higher than I'd like to see (mid 70s).
> 
> Just wondering if anyone else has had similar, or vastly different experiences.


what do you mean by low load? the image editing portion of realbench benchmark?
If you mean the rb stresstest - it';s not exactly low load.


my chip needs 1.45V to max out this RB benchmark (for HWBOT comp. limited to ambient cooling with min temp at or above 20C). Gets hot quick!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Watched every minute. Sucked that they didn't announce any prices but whatevs.


daaum - any mention of a 10 or 12 core?


----------



## The EX1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> did you watch it?
> 
> okay, coming out of the closet - I've been toying with the idea of a crosshair formula and a 9590.


I did the same thing. The prices were super low so I picked up a Crosshair V Formula at Microcenter and a 9590 just to have fun with. That rig is sitting at 5.3GHz right now with a custom loop and 1.57v. It is like cooling a little volcano. I love it


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what do you mean by low load? the image editing portion of realbench benchmark?
> If you mean the rb stresstest - it';s not exactly low load.
> daaum - any mention of a 10 or 12 core?


Nope. All about their 8 core, 16 thread beast going up against the 6900k. Seems like it's faster in rendering AND gaming. Well, at least in BF1.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The EX1*
> 
> I did the same thing. The prices were super low so I picked up a Crosshair V Formula at Microcenter and a 9590 just to have fun with. That rig is sitting at 5.3GHz right now with a custom loop and 1.57v. It is like cooling a little volcano. I love it


lol - that was my plan.








care to give a little review?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Nope. All about their 8 core, 16 thread beast going up against the 6900k. Seems like it's faster in rendering at games. Well, at least in BF1.


really? faster? cool


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - that was my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> care to give a little review?
> really? faster? cool


Might be really tempted to buy it if it goes for under 600,


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what do you mean by low load? the image editing portion of realbench benchmark?
> If you mean the rb stresstest - it';s not exactly low load.
> 
> 
> my chip needs 1.45V to max out this RB benchmark (for HWBOT comp. limited to ambient cooling with min temp at or above 20C). Gets hot quick!
> daaum - any mention of a 10 or 12 core?


I just mean it's not an AVX workload. = )

Did you have all cores running @ 4.5? Or were some of them 4.6 / 4.4? I have 3 cores that like to run REALLY hot, so I usually try to run them .1 lower, and 2 cores that run extremely cool, so I run them .1 higher.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - that was my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> care to give a little review?
> really? faster? cool


Stock. Maybe 2133 mhz ddr4 ram too LOL


----------



## Blameless

Can someone with a 6900K or 6950X please run the AMD Blender benchmark demo?

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/new-horizon

You need Blender 2.78a: https://www.blender.org/download/

And the file AMD was using: http://download.amd.com/demo/RyzenGraphic_27.blend

Thanks.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Can someone with a 6900K or 6950X please run the AMD Blender benchmark demo?
> 
> http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/new-horizon
> 
> You need Blender 2.78a: https://www.blender.org/download/
> 
> And the file AMD was using: http://download.amd.com/demo/RyzenGraphic_27.blend
> 
> Thanks.


Rendered in 42 seconds with

6900k @ 4200mhz
3400mhz cl17-19-19 "stock"


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Can someone with a 6900K or 6950X please run the AMD Blender benchmark demo?
> 
> http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/new-horizon
> 
> You need Blender 2.78a: https://www.blender.org/download/
> 
> And the file AMD was using: http://download.amd.com/demo/RyzenGraphic_27.blend
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Rendered in 42 seconds with
> 
> 6900k @ 4200mhz
> 3400mhz cl17-19-19 "stock"
Click to expand...

What result do you get if you run your chip at its stock settings?


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> What result do you get if you run your chip at its stock settings?


This is not stock clock.net, and stock is against my religion


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> What result do you get if you run your chip at its stock settings?


Blender scales virtually linearly with core clock.

He would have gotten ~53 seconds at stock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> This is not stock clock.net, and stock is against my religion


Just to clarify, you had HT enabled and you were running Blender 2.78a x64 in Windows, correct?


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Blender scales virtually linearly with core clock.
> 
> He would have gotten ~53 seconds at stock.
> Just to clarify, you had HT enabled and you were running Blender 2.78a x64 in Windows, correct?


I downloaded from the links. Using win 10 x64 and HT=on

Blender 2.78a x64 yes
Strange that I get worse result than 6900k stock in the video


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> What result do you get if you run your chip at its stock settings?
> 
> 
> 
> This is not stock clock.net, and stock is against my religion
Click to expand...

lol the reason is to get a bit of a comparison to the results vs AMD's new horizon event Some people are saying that it seems like AMD's blender test doesn't make sense as far as scaling goes.

edit: lol i looked at the wrong test, hah


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I downloaded from the links. Using win 10 x64 and HT=on
> 
> Blender 2.78a x64 yes
> Strange that I get worse result than 6900k stock in the video


Got 45,8 seconds with default in bios. 3700mhz

The 6900k in the video looks like it got ~36 seconds... Something is not right....


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I downloaded from the links. Using win 10 x64 and HT=on
> 
> Blender 2.78a x64 yes
> Strange that I get worse result than 6900k stock in the video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got 45,8 seconds with default in bios. 3700mhz
> 
> The 6900k in the video looks like it got ~36 seconds... Something is not right....
Click to expand...

exactly. That's the issue people are having. The file they gave us has the settings possibly changed, so we can't get a comparable result using it, since to begin with their systems completed it faster than a setup exactly the same as theirs could do.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Can someone with a 6900K or 6950X please run the AMD Blender benchmark demo?
> 
> http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/new-horizon
> 
> You need Blender 2.78a: https://www.blender.org/download/
> 
> And the file AMD was using: http://download.amd.com/demo/RyzenGraphic_27.blend
> 
> Thanks.


6950x @ 4300 -- 31.96 seconds


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I just mean it's not an AVX workload. = )
> 
> Did you have all cores running @ 4.5? Or were some of them 4.6 / 4.4? I have 3 cores that like to run REALLY hot, so I usually try to run them .1 lower, and 2 cores that run extremely cool, so I run them .1 higher.


9 @45, [email protected] I think...
but RB x264 encode is an AVX load.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maintenance Bot*
> 
> 6950x @ 4300 -- 31.96 seconds


Thanks.

Any chance I could get you to run that test at 3.4GHz with two cores disabled?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Any chance I could get you to run that test at 3.4GHz with two cores disabled?


stock w10:


44a44c37m34:


rather than disable cores.. I could run it on my 5960X rig...


----------



## Blameless

Your stock 6950X is only about 3 seconds slower than AMD's stock 6900K...or AMD uploaded the wrong test files/gave the wrong settings.

Half the news thread wants to lynch me for pointing out this discrepancy.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Your stock 6950X is only about 3 seconds slower than AMD's stock 6900K...or AMD uploaded the wrong test files/gave the wrong settings.
> 
> Half the news thread wants to lynch me for pointing out this discrepancy.


that's one hellofa 6900K AMD has.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Your stock 6950X is only about 3 seconds slower than AMD's stock 6900K...or AMD uploaded the wrong test files/gave the wrong settings.
> 
> Half the news thread wants to lynch me for pointing out this discrepancy.


Yeah, this is the frustrating thing. Between AMD's testing and the file they provided something had to have been changed in the file. It sucks because it means there's no way for ANYONE to compare their benchmarks to their own systems.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> Yeah, this is the frustrating thing. Between AMD's testing and the file they provided something had to have been changed in the file. It sucks because it means there's no way for ANYONE to compare their benchmarks to their own systems.


eh... let's just wait for independent testing - maybe I'll wait till then before buying an AMD toy.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Any chance I could get you to run that test at 3.4GHz with two cores disabled?


Sure, why not.

I thought I heard Lisa mention ram was set at 2400mhz, so that's what I did here.

6950x -- 2 core's [email protected] 3400 -- 50.17 seconds.


----------



## Blameless

Thanks again.


----------



## skline00

I got a score of 41.54 seconds for my 5960x @4.4Ghz.


----------



## h2323

The scores are comparable though. They have better builders, better system, better ram, NVMe drives, less crap on windows, fresh windows installs, no junk in background.

They may have gone the extra mile to have the 6900k running as good as it possibly could. A lot of people think they have awesome systems but are actually riddled with inefficiency.


----------



## h2323

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> Yeah, this is the frustrating thing. Between AMD's testing and the file they provided something had to have been changed in the file. It sucks because it means there's no way for ANYONE to compare their benchmarks to their own systems.


Likely not, AMD has gone the extra mile to show transparency, likely inefficiency in your system. Someone needs to this off fresh windows install


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *h2323*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> Yeah, this is the frustrating thing. Between AMD's testing and the file they provided something had to have been changed in the file. It sucks because it means there's no way for ANYONE to compare their benchmarks to their own systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Likely not, AMD has gone the extra mile to show transparency, likely inefficiency in your system. Someone needs to this off fresh windows install
Click to expand...

the performance disparity just seems way too large to chock it up to "inefficiencies" (mine is a 6600k, there's no way it would be close anyways) when you're talking about a 6900k system rendering 15% slower than the 6900k at the same clock speed shown in amd's video.j

they got 36s at stock clocks. someone here ran their 6900k at 4.2ghz and only got 42s. at stock clocks, 45.8 seconds.


----------



## h2323

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> the performance disparity just seems way too large to chock it up to "inefficiencies" (mine is a 6600k, there's no way it would be close anyways) when you're talking about a 6900k system rendering 15% slower than the 6900k at the same clock speed shown in amd's video.j
> 
> they got 36s at stock clocks. someone here ran their 6900k at 4.2ghz and only got 42s. at stock clocks, 45.8 seconds.


I would wager that AMD would respond to an email io you asked how blender was setup, if any changes were made.

Also inefficiency are surprising taxing, especially when scaled across so many threads. Windows is still windows, many old school ways to grab performance when we had to. I tweeted them with a link to this forum.

https://i.redd.it/r39v4xwzre3y.jpg


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> stock w10:
> 
> 
> 44a44c37m34:
> 
> 
> rather than disable cores.. I could run it on my 5960X rig...


before judging, but you have 64GB. AMD used 2x8GB 2400MHz (dual channel ram).... AM4 support only dual channel.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *h2323*
> 
> The scores are comparable though. They have better builders, better system, better ram, NVMe drives, less crap on windows, fresh windows installs, no junk in background.
> 
> They may have gone the extra mile to have the 6900k running as good as it possibly could. A lot of people think they have awesome systems but are actually riddled with inefficiency.


That is not the problem... I have almost fresh install, sm961nvme ssd's, faster memory in quadchannel. Better in all ways, but still slower... AMD is scamming us


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *h2323*
> 
> The scores are comparable though. They have better builders, better system, better ram, NVMe drives, less crap on windows, fresh windows installs, no junk in background.
> 
> They may have gone the extra mile to have the 6900k running as good as it possibly could. A lot of people think they have awesome systems but are actually riddled with inefficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the problem... I have almost fresh install, sm961nvme ssd's, faster memory in quadchannel. Better in all ways, but still slower... AMD is scamming us
Click to expand...

run the stock clock test with a sample render size of 150. then again at 100. (default is 200)


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> run the stock clock test with a sample render size of 150. then again at 100. (default is 200)


where to change that?

Edit: Found it!

Tested 150, and got 34,59seconds with stock 6900k


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> run the stock clock test with a sample render size of 150. then again at 100. (default is 200)
> 
> 
> 
> where to change that?
Click to expand...

On the right, one of the little things says "Sampling" Change the 200 to 100. We found out (from an image snapped during the event) that they had changed the sampling size from 200 to 100. Most likely to speed up the test and make it look more exciting.


----------



## Nizzen

29seconds with 6900k @ 4300mhz and mem 3400 cl15


----------



## Nenkitsune

That looks more like it falls in line with the proper clock speed scaling that we saw in the presentation.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *h2323*
> 
> The scores are comparable though. They have better builders, better system, better ram, NVMe drives, less crap on windows, fresh windows installs, no junk in background.
> 
> They may have gone the extra mile to have the 6900k running as good as it possibly could. A lot of people think they have awesome systems but are actually riddled with inefficiency.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *h2323*
> 
> Likely not, AMD has gone the extra mile to show transparency, likely inefficiency in your system. Someone needs to this off fresh windows install


Better builders? Nonsense.

Better ram? Probably not.

NVMe drives? My 6800K has an NVMe drive, not that it matters. There is no difference between a 3600rpm IDE drive from 1994 and a ram drive in my fastest quad channel system when it comes to a pure CPU benchmark.

Less crap on Windows? Not less than my Windows.

Fresh windows installs? I have fresh Windows installs.

No junk in background? There are 29 processes running on my system, besides blender. My idle CPU utilization is 0. My network doesn't get used without me opening programs that need it. There are no mostly functional installs with less junk in the background than mine.

Blender is not particularly sensitive to any of this stuff and even if it were there is far less than a snowballs chance in hell of it being worth a 14 second differential on a 36 second test.

If this is sarcasm I've failed to recognize, I apologize. If not, get bent.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

my 6800k OC to 4.5ghz and 1080 gtx got a score of 52.65 at 200 image size and 26.82 at 100 image size


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> my 6800k OC to 4.5ghz and 1080 gtx got a score of 52.65


you have to change the render sampling down to 100 instead of 200 if you wanna compare it to AMD's testing.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> you have to change the render sampling down to 100 instead of 200 if you wanna compare it to AMD's testing.


100 is too small.

Closest I can estimate, with the hardware I have on hand, is 140 +/- 5 render size...if that's what they even changed.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

OK did it again and this time I got 26.73 with 100 sample


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> you have to change the render sampling down to 100 instead of 200 if you wanna compare it to AMD's testing.
> 
> 
> 
> 100 is too small.
> 
> Closest I can estimate, with the hardware I have on hand, is 140 +/- 5 render size...if that's what they even changed.
Click to expand...

http://cdn.overclock.net/f/f1/f1e01303_48054.jpeg

says right there 100 samples.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

I dont understand why I am getting better scores? Is quad channel ddr 3400mhz C16 the difference? My cache isnt even overclocked as I just got back my mobo from ASUS today. Wonder what that result would be..


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> I dont understand why I am getting better scores? Is quad channel ddr 3400mhz C16 the difference? My cache isnt even overclocked as I just got back my mobo from ASUS today. Wonder what that result would be..


I think your overclock is making up the difference.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

but I have less threads/cores. I would have thought that would be better than 1.1 ghz difference and less cores. Interesting.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Set it to 3.4ghz and see what score you get.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Thanks again.


Your welcome.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> 100 is too small.
> 
> Closest I can estimate, with the hardware I have on hand, is 140 +/- 5 render size...if that's what they even changed.


Read in page 407









Looks like 150 is the right.


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> 100 is too small.
> 
> Closest I can estimate, with the hardware I have on hand, is 140 +/- 5 render size...if that's what they even changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Read in page 407
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like 150 is the right.
Click to expand...

turns out at a press conference when they did the test, they ran it at 100 and got around 25s for the render time. Regardless, we do know that zen performs about the same, maybe with a slight edge against the 6900k, with zen at 3.4ghz locked and the 6900k running it's default settings.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> before judging, but you have 64GB. AMD used 2x8GB 2400MHz (dual channel ram).... AM4 support only dual channel.


judging what?


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> turns out at a press conference when they did the test, they ran it at 100 and got around 25s for the render time. Regardless, we do know that zen performs about the same, maybe with a slight edge against the 6900k, with zen at 3.4ghz locked and the 6900k running it's default settings.


The picture is not from live stream maybe? Does not look like it...


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> turns out at a press conference when they did the test, they ran it at 100 and got around 25s for the render time. Regardless, we do know that zen performs about the same, maybe with a slight edge against the 6900k, with zen at 3.4ghz locked and the 6900k running it's default settings.
> 
> 
> 
> The picture is not from live stream maybe?
Click to expand...

Right. the picture showing that they have a render time as around 35s is using different settings than the one where we see them clearly using a render sample setting of 100 (in that one, it's testing at around 25s)


----------



## tux1989

They say that i7 6900k runs at stock bios settings but...in heavy multithreaded app like blender im not sure that cpu boost to 3.7ghz..maybe 3.2ghz .am i right? Like in handbrake


----------



## Nenkitsune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tux1989*
> 
> They say that i7 6900k runs at stock bios settings but...in heavy multithreaded app like blender im not sure that cpu boost to 3.7ghz..maybe 3.2ghz .am i right? Like in handbrake


3.2 is the base clock. I think on all cores it boosts to 3.4ghz


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tux1989*
> 
> They say that i7 6900k runs at stock bios settings but...in heavy multithreaded app like blender im not sure that cpu boost to 3.7ghz..maybe 3.2ghz .am i right? Like in handbrake


Normal all-core Turbo is 3.4GHz on the 6900K, if I recall correctly. Turbo Core 3.0 settings, or BIOS "soft" OCs like multi-core enhancement can change this though.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Normal all-core Turbo is 3.4GHz on the 6900K, if I recall correctly. Turbo Core 3.0 settings, or BIOS "soft" OCs like multi-core enhancement can change this though.


Default settings in Rampage V extreme for 6900k is 3700mhz.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Default settings in Rampage V extreme for 6900k is 3700mhz.


the 6900K (and 6950X) at stock will run a "per core" boost. ASUS MCE and Intel MCE do this a little differently. At full load with AVX neither CPU will run the max turbo multiplier ... unless you change the bios settings.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Would raising my 6800k's uncore to 35/36 make any worthwhile difference in performance? Mostly gaming wise in particular.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Would raising my 6800k's uncore to 35/36 make any worthwhile difference in performance? Mostly gaming wise in particular.


would not likely be noticeable. If you hgave the ram cranked up, bringing the cache to 3.6 may seem more "snappy".


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> would not likely be noticeable. If you hgave the ram cranked up, bringing the cache to 3.6 may seem more "snappy".


Currently have my ram at stock 3200Mhz CAS14 CR1. Wonder if I'll gain any frames if I raise uncore to 35/36.


----------



## tux1989

Where we can find that handbrake file ?

i7 5960x @3.4 - 26.76sec - ram @ 2400mhz


i7 5960x @4.4 - 19.82sec - ram @ 2400mhz


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nenkitsune*
> 
> http://cdn.overclock.net/f/f1/f1e01303_48054.jpeg
> 
> says right there 100 samples.


but that test was done in 24-25 sec.
So AMD is speaking truth.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Currently have my ram at stock 3200Mhz CAS14 CR1. Wonder if I'll gain any frames if I raise uncore to 35/36.


a lot depends on the game etc. Give it a try.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Would raising my 6800k's uncore to 35/36 make any worthwhile difference in performance? Mostly gaming wise in particular.


It can if your running a game that uses all cores. One that uses all cores for me is Forza Horizon. You can test this example in time demo test. the difference isnt as high as raising a multiplier clock though.


----------



## Grenseal

Hey guys. I was wondering what is considered good OC for a 6800k?

I got mine to:

4.4GHz at 1.35v on the core
3.8GHz at 1.30v on the uncore
left the ram at 3200

Other voltages:
VCCIO: 1.05v this doesn't seem to matter
VCCSA: 1.20v
PCH I/O: default at 1.5v
PCH Core: 1.05v

Temps maxes out at 72C after 4 hours of RealBench.

Is this decent? Are the voltages too high?

Cooling is water, 360 rad + 240 rad. CPU and GPU(980Ti) in the same loop.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Grenseal*
> 
> Hey guys. I was wondering what is considered good OC for a 6800k?
> 
> I got mine to:
> 
> 4.4GHz at 1.35v on the core
> 3.8GHz at 1.30v on the uncore
> left the ram at 3200
> 
> Other voltages:
> VCCIO: 1.05v this doesn't seem to matter
> VCCSA: 1.20v
> PCH I/O: default at 1.5v
> PCH Core: 1.05v
> 
> Temps maxes out at 72C after 4 hours of RealBench.
> 
> Is this decent? Are the voltages too high?
> 
> Cooling is water, 360 rad + 240 rad. CPU and GPU(980Ti) in the same loop.


that's great (tho VSA is high)! What stability testing did you use?


----------



## Grenseal

I used RealBench. 30 mins when I was dialing it in. Then 8 hours overnight when I got to 4.4GHz. I also ran Heaven Bench at the same time with Aida64 CPU, FPU, Cache, and Memory for about 2 hours.
I'm new to X99 so I used this guide http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/

I was going to go with a 5820k, the OC numbers on the net seems better, but the 6800k was on sale for $100CAD less.


----------



## Grenseal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's great (tho VSA is high)! What stability testing did you use?


Cool, I will adjust the VCCSA.


----------



## Roaches

Crossposting from the Ryzen news thread, Reddit says its 150 Samples: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5idz87/ryzen_blender_benchmark_comparison_spreadsheet/db7s4hu/
Quote:


> [-]AMD_jamesAMD Employee 17 points 2 hours ago
> 
> Render sample size should be 150. New file with this preset will be uploaded. Sorry!


Heres my result:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Roaches*
> 
> Rerun the render at 150 Samples. Got 28.76 Seconds with dual Xeon E5-2670.
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting for the Haswell/Broadwell-E dudes results. @Jpmboy and others?


----------



## Blameless

Thanks for the update.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Thanks for the update.


so what's the summary conclusion... wait to see the OC headroom on the zen?


----------



## Blameless

Yeah, that's what it really comes down to.

Barring any radical pricing, or currently unforeseeable major performance, issues: If 4GHz+ (24/7), then I'll buy. If sub-4GHz, then pass.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Yeah, that's what it really comes down to.
> 
> Barring any radical pricing, or currently unforeseeable major performance, issues: If 4GHz+ (24/7), then I'll buy. If sub-4GHz, then pass.


I would be so bummed out if they couldn't hit a P95 stable 4GHz.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> I would be so bummed out if they couldn't hit a P95 stable 4GHz.


Yeah, I'm hoping for and tentatively expecting over 4GHz for an unconditionally stable OC without crazy cooling, and probably at least a few hundred MHz higher for benching. I'd be pretty dissapointed if this turns out to not be practical.

Anything more is bonus. Some of the crazies expecting to be able to run 24 hours of LINPACK at 4.5-5GHz with a Wraith cooler are setting themselves up for disappointment, I'd wager.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> so what's the summary conclusion... wait to see the OC headroom on the zen?


What voltage do you have your ram at when running 3200Mhz CAS 13? Got my 32GB kit @3200Mhz CAS 13, 13, 13, 33 CR1 @1.4v.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Roaches*
> 
> Crossposting from the Ryzen news thread, Reddit says its 150 Samples: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5idz87/ryzen_blender_benchmark_comparison_spreadsheet/db7s4hu/
> Heres my result:


We found out days ago









http://www.overclock.net/t/1601679/broadwell-e-thread/4060#post_25711143


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> What voltage do you have your ram at when running 3200Mhz CAS 13? Got my 32GB kit @3200Mhz CAS 13, 13, 13, 33 CR1 @1.4v.


3200c13 at 1.4V, 3400c13 at 1.45V. Both with the tightest secondaries I could manage:

with this 64GB kit I have to run 2T. 32GB 1T.







I use 3400 as the daily.

this was the 32GB kit:


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 3200c13 at 1.4V, 3400c13 at 1.45V. Both with the tightest secondaries I could manage:
> 
> with this 64GB kit I have to run 2T. 32GB 1T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use 3400 as the daily.
> 
> this was the 32GB kit:


Very nice! Doubt there's a performance difference between 1t and 2t right? You running Tridentz quad kit?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Doubt there's a performance difference between 1t and 2t right?


Not enough to make it worth while.

BW-E doesn't seem to like T1 very much, at least with any of the stuff I've got (though I've mostly got Micron ICs).


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Very nice! Doubt there's a performance difference between 1t and 2t right? You running Tridentz quad kit?


well... you _can_ measure an advantage with 1T, but it really does not end up meaningful in anything I do and have done with this kit.
Those settings are with single TZ kits. A 64GB kit and a 32GB kit (which I sold







)
Filling all 8 slots does help with ASUS x99 MBs in my experience.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Not enough to make it worth while.
> 
> BW-E doesn't seem to like T1 very much, at least with any of the stuff I've got (though I've mostly got Micron ICs).


It seems to be true for 64GB samsungs too. I would point out that there was a 1T "bug" in z170 bioses at 4000 and higher for ASUS and Asrock until recently.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Roaches*
> 
> Crossposting from the Ryzen news thread, Reddit says its 150 Samples: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5idz87/ryzen_blender_benchmark_comparison_spreadsheet/db7s4hu/
> Heres my result:


Well I got 39.59 while downloading Forza Blizzard pack and 3 google windows open and a qbasic program running.
6800k OCed 4.5ghz quad channel ddr 4 3400mhz Asus x99-A II bios 1401


----------



## enyceedanny

I don't get why I'm able to pass OCCT for 12 hours, then another 9 hours, then decide to fail randomly in less than 2 hours on some consecutive runs..Driving me nuts.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

probably ambient temps in consideration to the level of the OC. You might be right there on the edge. Happens to me all the time in winter months.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> probably ambient temps in consideration to the level of the OC. You might be right there on the edge. Happens to me all the time in winter months.


Can you elaborate? I idle at around 24-28, and load at around 70 on cores.


----------



## Timmaigh!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Grenseal*
> 
> Hey guys. I was wondering what is considered good OC for a 6800k?
> 
> I got mine to:
> 
> 4.4GHz at 1.35v on the core
> 3.8GHz at 1.30v on the uncore
> left the ram at 3200
> 
> Other voltages:
> VCCIO: 1.05v this doesn't seem to matter
> VCCSA: 1.20v
> PCH I/O: default at 1.5v
> PCH Core: 1.05v
> 
> Temps maxes out at 72C after 4 hours of RealBench.
> 
> Is this decent? Are the voltages too high?
> 
> Cooling is water, 360 rad + 240 rad. CPU and GPU(980Ti) in the same loop.


Seeing this, i tried today again 4,4 OC with my 6850k. Currently running 4,2GHz seemingly stable (as no BSODs in 2 weeks no matter what) at 1,3 Vcore, but obviously its not enough :-D

So i bumped vcore to 1,35V, left all other voltages at default. RAMs run at XMP - 3000 MHz. Tried to stress test it with RealBench instead of IBT. Temps were fairly good, 67C on the hottest core, but sadly BSOD after cca 10 minutes...

The question now is, should i tackle the other voltages - VCCIO and VCSSA and if so, to what value (if 1,2 VCCSA is apparently high?) or should i simply further bump Vcore? To 1,36V, 1,37V...up i find it to be stable? Obviously if stable is under 1,4V, would not go further for 24/7 OC.

Thanks


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Can you elaborate? I idle at around 24-28, and load at around 70 on cores.


Your temps on idle are good, about the same as mine. I have a lower load temp tho. But with ambient temps going up just 4 degrees, it will fail my 4.6 ghz OC, and also sometimes destabilize my Uncore OC of 3.7ghz when gaming for extended periods of time and of course long time stability testing.. Just trying to relate my experience with your issue, with info you have given. Are you sure when the OC fails, those temps are what is being reported? Or is the failuer at a higher temp that was recorded after freeze/failure/reboot?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I don't get why I'm able to pass OCCT for 12 hours, then another 9 hours, then decide to fail randomly in less than 2 hours on some consecutive runs..Driving me nuts.


I have probably asked this before.. but have you run HCIMemtest or GSAT? Does it fail with a BSOD or OCCT failing but not the OS? Honestly, these stresstests are not (always) the cleanest of codes. Best to restart between runs so it starts with a flushed machine. Failing consecutive runs probably means nothing if it can complete the same cumulative time of shorter consec runs... all this assumes the ram is fully stable and it is not passing with correctable errors.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> Seeing this, i tried today again 4,4 OC with my 6850k. Currently running 4,2GHz seemingly stable (as no BSODs in 2 weeks no matter what) at 1,3 Vcore, but obviously its not enough :-D
> 
> So i bumped vcore to 1,35V, left all other voltages at default. RAMs run at XMP - 3000 MHz. Tried to stress test it with RealBench instead of IBT. Temps were fairly good, 67C on the hottest core, but sadly BSOD after cca 10 minutes...
> 
> The question now is, should i tackle the other voltages - VCCIO and VCSSA and if so, to what value (if 1,2 VCCSA is apparently high?) or should i simply further bump Vcore? To 1,36V, 1,37V...up i find it to be stable? Obviously if stable is under 1,4V, would not go further for 24/7 OC.
> 
> Thanks


Basically, when first dialing in a higher OC, figure roughly 10mV per core per 100MHz (8-12mV/Core/0.1GHz). So one multi on an 8 core CPU will average 80mV higher VCORE for the same stability level when increasing the multiplier 1 notch with strap at 100.








Once you start to see 15mV or more, the Hz/mV "curve" is getting non-linear and the chip is running out of its "comfort" zone.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I don't get why I'm able to pass OCCT for 12 hours, then another 9 hours, then decide to fail randomly in less than 2 hours on some consecutive runs..Driving me nuts.


Drop your overclock 100MHz... then see if it's still happening.


----------



## Grenseal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timmaigh!*
> 
> Seeing this, i tried today again 4,4 OC with my 6850k. Currently running 4,2GHz seemingly stable (as no BSODs in 2 weeks no matter what) at 1,3 Vcore, but obviously its not enough :-D
> 
> So i bumped vcore to 1,35V, left all other voltages at default. RAMs run at XMP - 3000 MHz. Tried to stress test it with RealBench instead of IBT. Temps were fairly good, 67C on the hottest core, but sadly BSOD after cca 10 minutes...
> 
> The question now is, should i tackle the other voltages - VCCIO and VCSSA and if so, to what value (if 1,2 VCCSA is apparently high?) or should i simply further bump Vcore? To 1,36V, 1,37V...up i find it to be stable? Obviously if stable is under 1,4V, would not go further for 24/7 OC.
> 
> Thanks


These are my voltage settings. Asus X99-a/USB3.1

CPU Core Voltage: Adaptive max 1.35v
VCCSA: Offset + 0.15 Aida64 reads it as 1.120v. I was at 1.20v, but after tons of Memtest and RealBench, my board didn't need 1.20v.
VCCIO: 1.05v This one didn't seem to affect stability for me.
CPU Input Voltage: Down to 1.85v from the 1.95v default.

Min. Cache/Uncore Ratio: Auto
Max. Cache/Uncore Ratio: 38
Cache/Uncore Voltage: Manual at 1.30v
From what I gathered, Broadwell has ****ty Uncore OCing. Maybe lower this on yours and see if it helps. I think max Broadwell Uncore is around 3.8GHz or so.

I hope that helps. I'm not very experienced at X99 OCing... yet.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Anyone ever run into a small issue of WIndows 10 failing to boot properly? It happens to me once every couple of months or so. Even at stock it happened awhile ago. It's no big deal but just wondering if it's Windows 10 being ******ed.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Anyone ever run into a small issue of WIndows 10 failing to boot properly? It happens to me once every couple of months or so. Even at stock it happened awhile ago. It's no big deal but just wondering if it's Windows 10 being ******ed.


Define "failing to boot properly" - what actually happens?


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Define "failing to boot properly" - what actually happens?


My rig posts, BIOS splash screen, Windows 10 logo but no loading circle with the animation.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> My rig posts, BIOS splash screen, Windows 10 logo but no loading circle with the animation.


do you have updates deferred or are you swapping between W7 and W10 with non-OS disks remaining connected?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> My rig posts, BIOS splash screen, Windows 10 logo but no loading circle with the animation.


But then you get the login screen? Do you see any unusual events at those times in the Event Viewer / Custom Views / Administrative Events?


----------



## Roaches

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> Well I got 39.59 while downloading Forza Blizzard pack and 3 google windows open and a qbasic program running.
> 6800k OCed 4.5ghz quad channel ddr 4 3400mhz Asus x99-A II bios 1401


26.73 from to your screenshot. Quite a difference. I posted my 3570K results at the Ryzen thread.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1617227/amd-new-horizon-zen-preview-on-12-13-at-3-pm-cst/1250#post_25715729


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> do you have updates deferred or are you swapping between W7 and W10 with non-OS disks remaining connected?


I'm not sure about updates. It just hangs on the Windows 10 loading screen but no loading circle with the animation appears. I have to either press the power button or hold it down. Windows works fine for a long while after that.

Also, not swapping between anything.


----------



## rolldog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cryptopone*
> 
> This sounds like an issue I've had happen twice on my replacement motherboard after my first motherboard was RMA'd over the summer. They happened about 1-1.5 months apart from each other.
> 
> Both times the computer were sitting idle and when I came back the computer was off. I tried applying the latest BIOS (1401) to see if that helps.
> 
> The strangest part of the behaviour is turning on the PC after it's entered this state. I'll push the power switch and the PC will stay on slightly longer than the previous run. 1st attempt: 1 second. 2nd attempt: 1.3 seconds. 3rd attempt: 2 seconds, etc. This makes it very difficult to diagnose.
> 
> As you mentioned, I had to turn off the power supply for the PC to successfully boot again.
> 
> 6850k on an X99 Strix motherboard.


I'm having the same problems on the Asus X99 Deluxe II with a 6950X. I'm getting pretty tired of it. Sometimes I have to reinstall Windows 10, sometimes I have to rebuild the RAID, and other times it comes right back up, but power cycling the PSU is always a must. I can't figure out what's causing this. Today, my system shut off completely while I was in the BIOS.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Roaches*
> 
> 26.73 from to your screenshot. Quite a difference. I posted my 3570K results at the Ryzen thread.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1617227/amd-new-horizon-zen-preview-on-12-13-at-3-pm-cst/1250#post_25715729


Oops! Here is the correct one at 150 sample.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> But then you get the login screen? Do you see any unusual events at those times in the Event Viewer / Custom Views / Administrative Events?


I'm seeing a bunch of errors and warnings after a fresh install today. The reason I brought up Windows failing to load properly was because it happened today and I had to press the power button. Been working fine since. Is there a way to upload the events?


----------



## Kimir

What's up with AMD using Blender and specific "RyzenGraphic"? Couldn't they use Cinebench R11.5/15 like anyone... Perhaps they need a license for commercial use of that.
I'd like to see some hwbot x265 on that new AMD CPU.


----------



## ESRCJ

I'm having a very odd issue. So I recently updated my BIOS to the latest, and the XMP profile now sets my CPU bus speed to 125 instead of 100. It didn't do this before the BIOS update, which apparently has "increased memory compatibility." With that said, will a bus speed of 125 hurt me in any way?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm not sure about updates. It just hangs on the Windows 10 loading screen but no loading circle with the animation appears. I have to either press the power button or hold it down. Windows works fine for a long while after that.
> Also, not swapping between anything.


IDK bud, almost sounds like a cache issue (which will hang windows on boot). Does it do this with no OC?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> What's up with AMD using Blender and specific "RyzenGraphic"? Couldn't they use Cinebench R11.5/15 like anyone... Perhaps they need a license for commercial use of that.
> I'd like to see some hwbot x265 on that new AMD CPU.


Yeah - only way to know it's worth is for users here to get their hands on a few. Most important is OC headroom.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gridironcpj*
> 
> I'm having a very odd issue. So I recently updated my BIOS to the latest, and the XMP profile now sets my CPU bus speed to 125 instead of 100. It didn't do this before the BIOS update, which apparently has "increased memory compatibility." With that said, will a bus speed of 125 hurt me in any way?


what ram kit (exactly). XMP will set 125 with 3000 and 3333. That said, 125 is fine 'cept you can't use adaptive vcore.


----------



## ESRCJ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what ram kit (exactly). XMP will set 125 with 3000 and 3333. That said, 125 is fine 'cept you can't use adaptive vcore.


This is the ram kit: http://www.corsair.com/en-us/vengeance-led-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3000mhz-c15-memory-kit-red-led-cmu32gx4m4c3000c15r

It's not listed as compatible with my mobo, but it's no different from any other DDR4 RAM.. it just has LEDs on it. Why can't I have adaptive VCORE on?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gridironcpj*
> 
> This is the ram kit: http://www.corsair.com/en-us/vengeance-led-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-3000mhz-c15-memory-kit-red-led-cmu32gx4m4c3000c15r
> 
> *It's not listed as compatible with my mobo, but it's no different from any other DDR4 RAM.*. it just has LEDs on it. Why can't I have adaptive VCORE on?


Manufac's can't test every ddr4 sku, but if it is on the QVL list a sample of the ram is known to work. And believe me, not all DDR4 are created equal.








Your MB will run 125 strap with 3000 ram speed because that is the std intel memory divider for 1500MHz. You can probably run that kit at 3200 with the XMP primary timings with ~1.425V which is absolutely fine for DDR4. 3200 is the strongest memory ratio on x99.
tweaking strap 100 to get 3000 to work is not worth the effort.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> IDK bud, almost sounds like a cache issue (which will hang windows on boot). Does it do this with no OC?


I don't see any WHEA errors in event viewer and my rig has not crashed otherwise. It really only does it once in a long while. I think it happens mostly after many reboots because of updates/installations.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I don't see any WHEA errors in event viewer and my rig has not crashed otherwise. It really only does it once in a long while. I think it happens mostly after many reboots because of updates/installations.


yeah - the way you describe it as being very sporadic, gonna be hard to trouble shoot.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - the way you describe it as being very sporadic, gonna be hard to trouble shoot.


I was mostly wondering if anyone else ever ran into that situation. It's really not a big deal.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> Your temps on idle are good, about the same as mine. I have a lower load temp tho. But with ambient temps going up just 4 degrees, it will fail my 4.6 ghz OC, and also sometimes destabilize my Uncore OC of 3.7ghz when gaming for extended periods of time and of course long time stability testing.. Just trying to relate my experience with your issue, with info you have given. Are you sure when the OC fails, those temps are what is being reported? Or is the failuer at a higher temp that was recorded after freeze/failure/reboot?


When it fails, it's at around those temps. Quite easy to verify since OCCT saves a bunch of charts, with a few of them being temps during the test. What load temps are you getting under what type program load?


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I have probably asked this before.. but have you run HCIMemtest or GSAT? Does it fail with a BSOD or OCCT failing but not the OS? Honestly, these stresstests are not (always) the cleanest of codes. Best to restart between runs so it starts with a flushed machine. Failing consecutive runs probably means nothing if it can complete the same cumulative time of shorter consec runs... all this assumes the ram is fully stable and it is not passing with correctable errors.
> Basically, when first dialing in a higher OC, figure roughly 10mV per core per 100MHz (8-12mV/Core/0.1GHz). So one multi on an 8 core CPU will average 80mV higher VCORE for the same stability level when increasing the multiplier 1 notch with strap at 100.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you start to see 15mV or more, the Hz/mV "curve" is getting non-linear and the chip is running out of its "comfort" zone.


Yeah, at the current settings I can run HCI (1000%), GSAT (8hrs), and RB (8hrs) no problem. It's just OCCT.. If a stress-test failing due to not potentially having the "cleanest of codes", then it should totally invalidate that application as a stress test tool. It wouldn't be a proper stress test if it doesn't pass no matter how and when it's being run if the system is fully stable. I did wonder if OCCT was the culprit a few times since I can pass just about every other test.. But until I can know for sure, my inner OCD rules.

So I've just been adjusting each setting 1 by 1, and repeating the tests over and over again. The latest change I made was VCCSA from +0.016 to +0.1, and I thought it helped, but to only fail (just 20 minutes ago). It ran for 6hrs > 2hrs > 2hrs > 5hrs > 8hrs > then failed at 2hr mark.

I've been stress testing this rig for about 3 months straight now. It's getting frustrating to say the least.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Yeah, at the current settings I can run HCI (1000%), GSAT (8hrs), and RB (8hrs) no problem. It's just OCCT.. If a stress-test failing due to not potentially having the "cleanest of codes", then it should totally invalidate that application as a stress test tool. It wouldn't be a proper stress test if it doesn't pass no matter how and when it's being run if the system is fully stable. I did wonder if OCCT was the culprit a few times since I can pass just about every other test.. But until I can know for sure, my inner OCD rules.


Buggy tests, or the occasional unpatched hardware errata, aren't unheard of and I can think of a few examples myself. Most recently, a memory leak in Prime95 28.9 when running _without_ AVX caused it to always eventually fail on older CPUs (28.7 didn't have this bug and it was patched out in 28.10). Skylake itself also has a bug with a very specific exponent size in Prime95 that will need a microcode patch from Intel to resolve.

However, if the test will pass on _any_ CPU of the same architecture/stepping, it's far more likely the system failing the test is not stable enough to pass that test, rather than the test itself having an issue. OCCT is quite a bit more demanding than the other tests you mention and it's not that odd for a system to be stable enough to run HCI, stressapptest (at least with the default config), and Realbench, while still being flaky in OCCT.

Have you run OCCT at stock? What version and settings are you using?


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Buggy tests, or the occasional unpatched hardware errata, aren't unheard of and I can think of a few examples myself. Most recently, a memory leak in Prime95 28.9 when running _without_ AVX caused it to always eventually fail on older CPUs (28.7 didn't have this bug and it was patched out in 28.10). Skylake itself also has a bug with a very specific exponent size in Prime95 that will need a microcode patch from Intel to resolve.
> 
> However, if the test will pass on _any_ CPU of the same architecture/stepping, it's far more likely the system failing the test is not stable enough to pass that test, rather than the test itself having an issue. OCCT is quite a bit more demanding than the other tests you mention and it's not that odd for a system to be stable enough to run HCI, stressapptest (at least with the default config), and Realbench, while still being flaky in OCCT.
> 
> Have you run OCCT at stock? What version and settings are you using?


I'm using OCCT version 4.4.2 which I believe is the latest with the following settings:

- 44x multiplier (4.4 ghz)
- 36x cache
- vcore ranging from 1.335 ~ 1.365 (all within that range exhibit the same issue where it can run for many many hours, then to fail on a consecutive run)
- uncore at +0.15v
- VCCSA at +0.016 ~ +0.1v (doesn't seem to affect much in my chip)
- VCCIN at 1.9 (doesn't seem to affect much as well as long as it's above 1.8)
- LLC at 7
- DRAM at 3000mhz (13-15-15-36 1T at 1.365v)

I have ran it on stock before the whole overclocking process started, but it wasn't as long and excessive as now (running many hours back to back)

Edit: If you meant settings as in OCCT settings, it's on auto (default).

- Test Type: Infinite
- version 64bits
- Mode: Large Data Set
- Threads 12


----------



## wakalabis

Worst 6800K ever?

Hey, guys. Can one of you uber OC enthusiasts help me?

My 6800K CPU seems to be ridiculously bad at OC'ing. I can only get to around 4.1GHz at around 1.34V (VCore). I can never get to 4.2, which incidentally is my desired goal. Even at 1.5 Vcore it won't stabilize.

I've been using RealBench to test for stability, by the way.

Besides VCore, is there any other parameter that matters when it comes to stability? I have tried tweaking everything under the sun. I have made tests using only one of my RAM modules, underclocked to 2133 MHz. That did'nt make any difference.

Can it be *that* bad?

My specs:

6800K
Asus X99-A II
Crucial Ballistix Elite 32GB (8x4GB) 3000Mhz DDR4 CL15 - BLE4K8G4D30AEEA
Geforce GTX 1080
Corsair H80i v2


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wakalabis*
> 
> Worst 6800K ever?
> 
> Hey, guys. Can one of you uber OC enthusiasts help me?
> 
> My 6800K CPU seems to be ridiculously bad at OC'ing. I can only get to around 4.1GHz at around 1.34V (VCore). I can never get to 4.2, which incidentally is my desired goal. Even at 1.5 Vcore it won't stabilize.
> 
> I've been using RealBench to test for stability, by the way.
> 
> Besides VCore, is there any other parameter that matters when it comes to stability? I have tried tweaking everything under the sun. I have made tests using only one of my RAM modules, underclocked to 2133 MHz. That did'nt make any difference.
> 
> Can it be *that* bad?
> 
> My specs:
> 
> 6800K
> Asus X99-A II
> Crucial Ballistix Elite 32GB (8x4GB) 3000Mhz DDR4 CL15 - BLE4K8G4D30AEEA
> Geforce GTX 1080
> Corsair H80i v2


What's your cache multiplier set at?
Did you try lowering your VCCSA (system agent) voltage down a bit? +0.358v seems quite high.


----------



## wakalabis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> What's your cache multiplier set at?
> Did you try lowering your VCCSA (system agent) voltage down a bit? +0.358v seems quite high.


Cache multiplier is set to Auto.

By how much do you think I should set VCCSA? I'll try to lower it a bit and will report back.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wakalabis*
> 
> Cache multiplier is set to Auto.
> 
> By how much do you think I should set VCCSA? I'll try to lower it a bit and will report back.


It differs with each chip. VCCSA is quite finicky since too much will cause instability as well. You'll just have to tune it little by little.


----------



## wakalabis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> It differs with each chip. VCCSA is quite finicky since too much will cause instability as well. You'll just have to tune it little by little.


Thanks!

I've lowered vccsa and it stability definitely has improved. I'll try different values and try and get it to endure a 2h realbench session.


----------



## wakalabis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> It differs with each chip. VCCSA is quite finicky since too much will cause instability as well. You'll just have to tune it little by little.


I've tried changing VCCSA from +0.358 to -0.20 and I still can't run Realbench for more than 15 minutes even at 1.4V Vcore.

I am sad. I am considering selling this CPU and going for something else.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> When it fails, it's at around those temps. Quite easy to verify since OCCT saves a bunch of charts, with a few of them being temps during the test. What load temps are you getting under what type program load?


For example, the ryzen test cooks it up to peak temps right away. OCCTPT 4.4.2.b02 does the trick too. Max I have seen 78 degrees.. I use an Antec Kuhler with dual pumps and my office space stays relatively cool with my windows catching a good 50 degree breeze. My Corsair 540 sucks it right up keeping a low ambient temp of 18 degrees on startup to about 22 when fully loaded up and running games mostly. Thankfully its on the other side of the house with bedrooms because I play 5.1 surround on a 500 watt speaker system. Then the buttkicker gamer2 vibrates with such intensity it feels like sitting on a 10" woofer without the base sound . So obviously I max all 9 fans near 2000 - 2400 RPMs, I never hear it and set on perf mode it quiets up when for example writing your reply.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wakalabis*
> 
> Worst 6800K ever?
> 
> Hey, guys. Can one of you uber OC enthusiasts help me?
> 
> My 6800K CPU seems to be ridiculously bad at OC'ing. I can only get to around 4.1GHz at around 1.34V (VCore). I can never get to 4.2, which incidentally is my desired goal. Even at 1.5 Vcore it won't stabilize.
> 
> I've been using RealBench to test for stability, by the way.
> 
> Besides VCore, is there any other parameter that matters when it comes to stability? I have tried tweaking everything under the sun. I have made tests using only one of my RAM modules, underclocked to 2133 MHz. That did'nt make any difference.
> 
> Can it be *that* bad?
> 
> My specs:
> 
> 6800K
> Asus X99-A II
> Crucial Ballistix Elite 32GB (8x4GB) 3000Mhz DDR4 CL15 - BLE4K8G4D30AEEA
> Geforce GTX 1080
> Corsair H80i v2


Ok since trying different pastes that have been most effective with this CPU I almost was going to delidd, I found the best application for thermal paste is STILL Artic Silver. The consistency is perfect for copper, and whatever the lid is made out of on the 6800k. From thermal grizzly 3 x application tests, I dropped 6-8 degrees. It worked so well my first time applying artic silver, I havent tried another reapplication becuase it smoothed itself over the cpu so well and "adhered" to the copper wc pump face. I tested the Asus Intelligent Processor 5, 5 way optimizer and it reported core 3 and 6 to 4.6ghz and the remainder cpus to 4.3 @ 1.45v. It never wanted 4.6 ever, and two cores now did it! And you know what? It was the 6th core that held the OC first! It ALWAYS did it to the 3rd core the "favorite" core. And m,y max Uncore was 35x. I upped the cache to 37x @ 1.2975 v and the PC has been quite happy! I dont even care if theres more OC on there to at least benchmark with, I dont want to push this chip further without even more cooling somehow.. lol


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wakalabis*
> 
> I've tried changing VCCSA from +0.358 to -0.20 and I still can't run Realbench for more than 15 minutes even at 1.4V Vcore.
> 
> I am sad. I am considering selling this CPU and going for something else.


-0.2? Don't think a negative offset is gonna do it. Start with the lowest positive and bring it up little by little.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Buggy tests, or the occasional unpatched hardware errata, aren't unheard of and I can think of a few examples myself. Most recently, a memory leak in Prime95 28.9 when running _without_ AVX caused it to always eventually fail on older CPUs (28.7 didn't have this bug and it was patched out in 28.10). Skylake itself also has a bug with a very specific exponent size in Prime95 that will need a microcode patch from Intel to resolve.
> 
> However, if the test will pass on _any_ CPU of the same architecture/stepping, it's far more likely the system failing the test is not stable enough to pass that test, rather than the test itself having an issue. *OCCT is quite a bit more demanding than the other tests you mention and it's not that odd for a system to be stable enough to run HCI, stressapptest (at least with the default config), and Realbench, while still being flaky in OCCT.
> *
> Have you run OCCT at stock? What version and settings are you using?


^^ This is so ttrue...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I'm using OCCT version 4.4.2 which I believe is the latest with the following settings:
> 
> - 44x multiplier (4.4 ghz)
> - 36x cache
> - vcore ranging from 1.335 ~ 1.365 (all within that range exhibit the same issue where it can run for many many hours, then to fail on a consecutive run)
> - uncore at +0.15v
> - VCCSA at +0.016 ~ +0.1v (doesn't seem to affect much in my chip)
> - VCCIN at 1.9 (doesn't seem to affect much as well as long as it's above 1.8)
> - LLC at 7
> - DRAM at 3000mhz (13-15-15-36 1T at 1.365v)
> 
> *I have ran it on stock before the whole overclocking process started, but it wasn't as long and excessive as now (running many hours back to back)
> *
> Edit: If you meant settings as in OCCT settings, it's on auto (default).
> 
> - Test Type: Infinite
> - version 64bits
> - Mode: Large Data Set
> - Threads 12


You do recognize that at some point this becomes a self-degradation loop - right? Why obsess over stacked OCCT runs? Is that the purpose of the machine, or are you simply chasing the consecutive run failure as sport?

If the rig can pass continuous hours of OCCT, HCI, GSAT and Realbench... but fails only when you stack separate OCCt runs - In my opinion, the issue is with how you are running the stress test, not the test itself. This is what I was trying to say. Unless you do a restart between each of your stacked runs, (flush cache files, page files, and all volatile memory etc) the failure can be due to any number of program run "leftovers". Windows is notorious for this.
Simply increasing VCORE from a continuous run stable settings to solve a fragmented run (stacked runs) instability is quixotic.
there - I said my peace.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wakalabis*
> 
> I've tried changing VCCSA from +0.358 to -0.20 and I still can't run Realbench for more than 15 minutes even at 1.4V Vcore.
> 
> I am sad. I am considering selling this CPU and going for something else.


siliconlottery.com if you're in the states, barely any premium on the 4.4...


----------



## wakalabis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> siliconlottery.com if you're in the states, barely any premium on the 4.4...


Unfortunately I am not in the US. If I were I would surely buy from them.


----------



## wakalabis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> -0.2? Don't think a negative offset is gonna do it. Start with the lowest positive and bring it up little by little.


I've apparently reached stability, but for a very steep price:

4.2 Ghz
1.45V Vcore (!!!)
.051 VCCSA

This is ridiculous. I must be at the bottom 1% or something.


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wakalabis*
> 
> I've apparently reached stability, but for a very steep price:
> 
> 4.2 Ghz
> 1.45V Vcore (!!!)
> .051 VCCSA
> 
> This is ridiculous. I must be at the bottom 1% or something.


what bios version do you have on the board ?
what power supply do you have ?

those 2 factors can influence volts aswell.


----------



## wakalabis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> what bios version do you have on the board ?
> what power supply do you have ?
> 
> those 2 factors can influence volts aswell.


BIOS: X99-A II 1401
PSU: EVGA 850 BQ 80Plus Bronze PFC 850W

Any chance I might have connected something wrong to my motherboard?


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This is so ttrue...
> You do recognize that at some point this becomes a self-degradation loop - right? Why obsess over stacked OCCT runs? Is that the purpose of the machine, or are you simply chasing the consecutive run failure as sport?
> 
> If the rig can pass continuous hours of OCCT, HCI, GSAT and Realbench... but fails only when you stack separate OCCt runs - In my opinion, the issue is with how you are running the stress test, not the test itself. This is what I was trying to say. Unless you do a restart between each of your stacked runs, (flush cache files, page files, and all volatile memory etc) the failure can be due to any number of program run "leftovers". Windows is notorious for this.
> Simply increasing VCORE from a continuous run stable settings to solve a fragmented run (stacked runs) instability is quixotic.
> there - I said my peace.


I totally agree with you. But it's just that it's not ONLY stacked runs - sometimes it'll run 12 hours, then after restart, fail at like 2 hour mark.


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wakalabis*
> 
> BIOS: X99-A II 1401
> PSU: EVGA 850 BQ 80Plus Bronze PFC 850W
> 
> Any chance I might have connected something wrong to my motherboard?


not the best psu avail tbh. do u have both cpu pin power connectors plugged in ? 8pin and 4 pin? or does it only have 1 8pin ?
i know for a fact that different psus could need more / less volts for same oc.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

IMO, his cooling system is the culprit. I cant see how anyone cant get past 44ghz easliy @ 1.45v. I understand about binning and so called "golden chip" but majority of 6800k on other forums are getting 4.4 as the trend. I've said already he needs to state what he is trying to accomplish, with regards to WC-ing setup or air cooling, not sure.. He claims temps are low, but this cpu is not trending with similar temps. He maybe should think about replacing it or returning for another. I say that because as we all know with 6800k, after 4.3 ghz and even just <.2v over default starts the temps to get over 20C.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I totally agree with you. But it's just that it's not ONLY stacked runs - sometimes it'll run 12 hours, then after restart, fail at like 2 hour mark.


help me out here... please fill out rigbuilder and add your rig to your signature block. instruction link in my sig.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> help me out here... please fill out rigbuilder and add your rig to your signature block. instruction link in my sig.


I did set that up just now.

I think I may have found the culprit, though it's still quite early to tell. It may have been my cache voltage. Although it seemed stable 36x at +0.15v on many long runs via OCCT, and all 1000% runs of HCI, it may have been right at the borderline at that value. Bumped it up to +0.16v, and it hasn't failed OCCT yet. I will need to run it back to back a few times just to make sure, but it's definitely looking better so far.

Another symptom that led to this is on the event viewer I did find some WHEA warnings stating Cache hierarchy error.

Will update soon.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> I did set that up just now.
> 
> I think I may have found the culprit, though it's still quite early to tell. It may have been my cache voltage. Although it seemed stable 36x at +0.15v on many long runs via OCCT, and all 1000% runs of HCI, it may have been right at the borderline at that value. Bumped it up to +0.16v, and it hasn't failed OCCT yet. I will need to run it back to back a few times just to make sure, but it's definitely looking better so far.
> 
> Another symptom that led to this is on the event viewer I did find some WHEA warnings stating Cache hierarchy error.
> 
> Will update soon.


yeah - cache stability can be elusive. try running AID64 cache test for 2+hours?


----------



## ShangTsung

ive got 6800K, Asus Strix X99 Gaming.
question about *PLL Termination Voltage*. in bios there is only Offset, and no monitoring of current voltage, but in AI Suite (Asus software in windows) i can see current PLL Termination voltage. its 1.3487V. Is this voltage normal? what PLL Termination you have?

https://www.upload.ee/image/6466879/def_voltage.JPG


----------



## charlie22911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> IMO, his cooling system is the culprit. I cant see how anyone cant get past 44ghz easliy @ 1.45v. I understand about binning and so called "golden chip" but majority of 6800k on other forums are getting 4.4 as the trend. I've said already he needs to state what he is trying to accomplish, with regards to WC-ing setup or air cooling, not sure.. He claims temps are low, but this cpu is not trending with similar temps. He maybe should think about replacing it or returning for another. I say that because as we all know with 6800k, after 4.3 ghz and even just <.2v over default starts the temps to get over 20C.


I keep seeing claims of ~4.4-4.3GHz being the norm on BW-E and I just don't think that is the case, maybe I'm just incredibly unlucky but I've had 3 6850ks and a 6900k in my hands with a custom loop and 4.2 is consistently the max stable (prime95 no avx offset/realbench 8 hour) frequency I can achieve with any sane voltage for 24/7 use (1.3v being the limit I'm comfortable with). Or maybe my defenition of stable is far more stringent that others, as I test for many hours in many applications both real and synthetic...?

The only difference I've seen between the chips clock/voltage characteristics is the fact my 6900k actually runs under a volt with stock settings and is cooler than the 6850ks.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlie22911*
> 
> I keep seeing claims of ~4.4-4.3GHz being the norm on BW-E and I just don't think that is the case, maybe I'm just incredibly unlucky but I've had 3 6850ks and a 6900k in my hands with a custom loop and 4.2 is consistently the max stable (prime95 no avx offset/realbench 8 hour) frequency I can achieve with any sane voltage for 24/7 use (1.3v being the limit I'm comfortable with). Or maybe my defenition of stable is far more stringent that others, as I test for many hours in many applications both real and synthetic...?
> 
> The only difference I've seen between the chips clock/voltage characteristics is the fact my 6900k actually runs under a volt with stock settings and is cooler than the 6850ks.


Read my sig - I'm on the edge but it appears to like this edge. RB 2hrs+, GSAT 80 mins. I don't need 8 hrs of RB - 2 hrs and I don't have any problems 24/7. No AVX offset. My heaviest apps are Lightroom and Nero Video.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlie22911*
> 
> I keep seeing claims of ~4.4-4.3GHz being the norm on BW-E and I just don't think that is the case, maybe I'm just incredibly unlucky but I've had 3 6850ks and a 6900k in my hands with a custom loop and 4.2 is consistently the max stable (prime95 no avx offset/realbench 8 hour) frequency I can achieve with any sane voltage for 24/7 use (1.3v being the limit I'm comfortable with). Or maybe my defenition of stable is far more stringent that others, as I test for many hours in many applications both real and synthetic...?
> 
> The only difference I've seen between the chips clock/voltage characteristics is the fact my 6900k actually runs under a volt with stock settings and is cooler than the 6850ks.


What MB?
4.3 should be doable for sure. At least you recognize that p95 with AVX enabled will cause you to run 100 to 200 MHz lower OC, not for any reason except the ability of your cooling to deal with the heat. Nothing stability related, just heat (thermally-induced instability, e-migration, etc). Now, if your use scenario is very heavy FP or long prime number hunting, then sure - use p95. Otherwise, x264, or better yet, x265, HCi Memtest, and maybe 10 loops of IBT if you really need an over-current test will give a machine stable to ANY day-driver use. 8 or 10 hours of any stress test is just the first step to a self-inflicted degradation loop.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlie22911*
> 
> I keep seeing claims of ~4.4-4.3GHz being the norm on BW-E and I just don't think that is the case, maybe I'm just incredibly unlucky but I've had 3 6850ks and a 6900k in my hands with a custom loop and 4.2 is consistently the max stable (prime95 no avx offset/realbench 8 hour) frequency I can achieve with any sane voltage for 24/7 use (1.3v being the limit I'm comfortable with). Or maybe my defenition of stable is far more stringent that others, as I test for many hours in many applications both real and synthetic...?
> 
> The only difference I've seen between the chips clock/voltage characteristics is the fact my 6900k actually runs under a volt with stock settings and is cooler than the 6850ks.


Look at normal Broadwell thread. You'd see they went from 3.8 and peaked around 4.1, with atrocious voltage they get 4.2GHz.

Kinda wonder how well would work the same innovation as with 14 nm Skylake, but 22 nm planar. High voltage resistance, and easy heat transfer might have quite a bit of advantages.

I think 10 nm might be quite scary.


----------



## charlie22911

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> What MB?
> 4.3 should be doable for sure. At least you recognize that p95 with AVX enabled will cause you to run 100 to 200 MHz lower OC, not for any reason except the ability of your cooling to deal with the heat. Nothing stability related, just heat (thermally-induced instability, e-migration, etc). Now, if your use scenario is very heavy FP or long prime number hunting, then sure - use p95. Otherwise, x264, or better yet, x265, HCi Memtest, and maybe 10 loops of IBT if you really need an over-current test will give a machine stable to ANY day-driver use. 8 or 10 hours of any stress test is just the first step to a self-inflicted degradation loop.


I know, I need to get my specs listed. I used to preach that at new members in other forums back in the day haha. Anyone remember the old PCChips BBS?

But anyway, I have the MSI Godlike Carbon. I've gotten my 6900k dialed in at 4.2 core 1.27v / 3GHz uncore / 3GHz Ram 14-14-14 1t cmd I've the last few weeks. I know that AVX offsets are the new hotness now when overclocking with these chips, however It just doesnt feel right if that makes sense; so I omit it.
I don't have an AVX based workload in daily use, AVX stability is just a bar I set to ensure my system is as stable as you could reasonably expect a non factory setup to be both thermally and computationally. My liquid temps don't go above 10c above ambient with Prime AVX + 2x shunt modded 1080s @2114mhz furmarked so cooling isn't an issue.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Look at normal Broadwell thread. You'd see they went from 3.8 and peaked around 4.1, with atrocious voltage they get 4.2GHz.
> 
> Kinda wonder how well would work the same innovation as with 14 nm Skylake, but 22nm planar. High voltage resistance, and easy heat transfer might have quite a bit of advantages.
> 
> I think 10 nm might be quite scary.


In the past I was under the impression that we'd reach a feature size limit first, which is the case to a degree; being able to move heat out of the metal layers through the silicon fast enough is problematic as well.


----------



## djgar

So, what about those leaked Cinebench Ryzen / Broadwell-E benchmarks - real? Fake? How soon will we get the story straight? Stay tuned ...


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Look at normal Broadwell thread. You'd see they went from 3.8 and peaked around 4.1, with atrocious voltage they get 4.2GHz.


6800k needing 1.27V for 4.0GHz, 4.1GHz at 1.35V just not worth with extra heat to boot.

What kind of idle CPU package power are you guys seeing?

@djgar Reminds me of those leaked 5775C chips supposedly hitting over 5GHz then some very disappointed users when they actually managed to get the chips.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> on the R5E10, enter bios and set the two parameters as shown below... then work the cache as you have been. The vcore you are running is a little high for my tastes, but not out of bounds for 4.4. You should be able to get the cache up to 3.6 to 3.7 with under 1.3V once you set these parameters:
> 
> and frankly... there's not reason to limit your OC with OCCT. Use ASUS realbench, HWBOT x265 (4K mode) and HCI Memtest. If you MUST have a high current stress, then OCCT or IBT, but neither is necessary.
> Lastly... make ALL voltage adjustments in BIOS when working at this level, not in the OS (in case you are using AIsuite in that way).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks!


How high can I raise this values?

I am asking because I am getting better stability with those settings at:

3
6

With 1 & 4 was not enough for my system but I am ot qutie sure if setting those values at 3 & 6 is going to get my CPU into troubles.

Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlie22911*
> 
> I know, I need to get my specs listed. I used to preach that at new members in other forums back in the day haha. Anyone remember the old PCChips BBS?
> 
> But anyway, I have the MSI Godlike Carbon. I've gotten my 6900k dialed in at 4.2 core 1.27v / 3GHz uncore / 3GHz Ram 14-14-14 1t cmd I've the last few weeks. I know that AVX offsets are the new hotness now when overclocking with these chips, however It just doesnt feel right if that makes sense; so I omit it.
> I don't have an AVX based workload in daily use, AVX stability is just a bar I set to ensure my system is as stable as you could reasonably expect a non factory setup to be both thermally and computationally. My liquid temps don't go above 10c above ambient with Prime AVX + 2x shunt modded 1080s @2114mhz furmarked so cooling isn't an issue.
> In the past I was under the impression that we'd reach a feature size limit first, which is the case to a degree; being able to move heat out of the metal layers through the silicon fast enough is problematic as well.


sounds like you know what you are doing... that said, must be a bum chip.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> How high can I raise this values?
> 
> I am asking because I am getting better stability with those settings at:
> 
> 3
> 6
> 
> With 1 & 4 was not enough for my system but I am ot qutie sure if setting those values at 3 & 6 is going to get my CPU into troubles.
> 
> Thanks


those are too high. Just set it as shown and work with vcore, vcache and vccio(s) to dial it in.
lastly, buy the *Intel Tuning Plan*, and then put the whip to that chip!









... it almost seems as tho the recent K-class chips are "under performing".


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> sounds like you know what you are doing... that said, must be a bum chip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those are too high. Just set it as shown and work with vcore, vcache and vccio(s) to dial it in.
> lastly, buy the *Intel Tuning Plan*, and then put the whip to that chip!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... it almost seems as tho the recent K-class chips are "under performing".


Ok I will try to relax those settings back and play with VCCIO but, please don't kill me haha,

How high can I go with VCCIO and with vCache?

Thank you

Regards


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Ok I will try to relax those settings back and play with VCCIO but, please don't kill me haha,
> 
> How high can I go with VCCIO and with vCache?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Regards


lol - keep vcache at or below 1.3V, and VCCIO at one or two notches ("shift +" to increase voltage) above stock. VCCIN should be enough in the 1.9-1.95V range too. But really... buy the intel tuning plan. Electrocute your CPU and intel replaces it no questions asked.


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - keep vcache at or below 1.3V, and VCCIO at one or two notches ("shift +" to increase voltage) above stock. VCCIN should be enough in the 1.9-1.95V range too. But really... buy the intel tuning plan. Electrocute your CPU and intel replaces it no questions asked.


Where do you purchase the Intel Turning plan? I dont plan to as I'm fine w/ my system but just curious to know.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> Where do you purchase the Intel Turning plan? I dont plan to as I'm fine w/ my system but just curious to know.


directly from intel. https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> directly from intel. https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/


Thanks


----------



## DADDYDC650

What's the best app to test absolute system stability? The faster the better.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> What's the best app to test absolute system stability? The faster the better.


1 hour OCCT may get you in the ''ballpark'' of where you need to be. That s what I use anyway.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> What's the best app to test absolute system stability? The faster the better.


lol - "absolute", meaning...?

anyway, for a quick test, HWBOT x265 @ 4K with as many "parts" as your ram can handle. It's quick, but not the be-all end-all.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - "absolute", meaning...?
> 
> anyway, for a quick test, HWBOT x265 @ 4K with as many "parts" as your ram can handle. It's quick, but not the be-all end-all.


LoL, absolute as in my rig should probably never crash.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> LoL, absolute as in my rig should probably never crash.


"Should" more apt than "absolute" ...


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> "Should" more apt than "absolute" ...


I lowered my expectations. There's probably no 1 app to test absolute stability so "probable" was a better fit.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - "absolute", meaning...?
> 
> anyway, for a quick test, HWBOT x265 @ 4K with as many "parts" as your ram can handle. It's quick, but not the be-all end-all.


I'm guessing you run this app and then if it passes, use your rig as normal?


----------



## lilchronic

From my experience occt needs about 30 - 50 MV mroe than what it takes to be stable in the tests jpmboy mentioned. Realbench, x265


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> From my experience occt needs about 30 - 50 MV mroe than what it takes to be stable in the tests jpmboy mentioned. Realbench, x265


How long do you run OCCT for? Do you modify any settings?

I can't seem to get HWBOT to run. Keeps complaining about some setting.


----------



## lilchronic

1-2 hours of occt should be good

And you probably need to disable the platform timer. I'm not at my PC right now but I'm pretty sure that message you get tells you how to disable it.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> 1-2 hours of occt should be good
> And you probably need to disable the platform timer. I'm not at my PC right now but I'm pretty sure that message you get tells you how to disable it.


Got HWBOT to run. Just needed a restart.

I'll run both tests. Thanks fellas.

HWBOT x265 overkill mode finished at near 11 frames, 4k res.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm guessing you run this app and then if it passes, use your rig as normal?


it's not simply passing x265, you want the correction factor to be >0.95 and as close to 1 or 1.00.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> From my experience occt needs about 30 - 50 MV mroe than what it takes to be stable in the tests jpmboy mentioned. Realbench, x265


^^ true, about the same as IBT with 90% of ram in.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> How long do you run OCCT for? Do you modify any settings?
> 
> I can't seem to get HWBOT to run. Keeps complaining about some setting.


you need ot enable the HPET.
open a command prompt and type:
bcdedit /set useplatformclock true
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Got HWBOT to run. Just needed a restart.
> 
> I'll run both tests. Thanks fellas.
> 
> HWBOT x265 overkill mode finished at near 11 frames, 4k res.


with the new version , no "P-mode" and as high Overkill that your ram can carry. It will use quite a bit.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> IMO, his cooling system is the culprit. I cant see how anyone cant get past 44ghz easliy @ 1.45v. I understand about binning and so called "golden chip" but majority of 6800k on other forums are getting 4.4 as the trend. I've said already he needs to state what he is trying to accomplish, with regards to WC-ing setup or air cooling, not sure.. He claims temps are low, but this cpu is not trending with similar temps. He maybe should think about replacing it or returning for another. I say that because as we all know with 6800k, after 4.3 ghz and even just <.2v over default starts the temps to get over 20C.


Both of my 6800Ks have been low leakage samples and don't even get hot with high volts at near their maximum OCs, even on mediocre cooling.

My first sample in particular was able to run AVX2 Prime95 with 1.45 vcore under an H55 (yes the crappy thin 120mm AIO) without tripping prochot...it also OCed like total crap, which isn't unusual for very low leakage parts. By far the coldest running and one of the worst clocking BW-E's I've ever heard of.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> What's the best app to test absolute system stability? The faster the better.


If you mean what is most likely to crap out in the least amount of time, probably LinX 0.6.6e with the newest IMKL or Prime95 28.10 128k in-place FFTs, for core/cache anyway. I usually start with these for finding maximum AVX clocks (and testing cooling), then work my way down to less strenuous, more varied, tests.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> LoL, absolute as in my rig should probably never crash.


That's a rather vague absolute.


----------



## Jpmboy

probably never... infrequently and most of the time.


----------



## DADDYDC650

According to OCCT, the max system agent voltage was 0.36v. Is that normal for broadwell-e? I can only control the system agent voltage offset so I have no idea what to set it to.


----------



## djgar

That vccsa offset is quite high. An offset of .21 gives me a vccsa of 1.2v, quite high but needed for my substantial OC.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> What's the best app to test absolute system stability? The faster the better.


I've been stress testing my system for the last 3 months, and based on my experience so far, absolute system stability will be about 8-10 hours of OCCT.
I found that :

- OCCT may fail at the following marks: 1hr ~ 3hr, 6hr ~ 8hr, and if it doesn't fail, it's smooth sailing from there.
- If OCCT is stable for that long, it passes ANY other test I throw at it.

If you're looking to just find an overclock that will be relatively stable, and if you're doing less intensive stuff - then I guess you can be good with just a couple of hours of OCCT.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> That vccsa offset is quite high. An offset of .21 gives me a vccsa of 1.2v, quite high but needed for my substantial OC.


So 0.36v is high? Apparently that's stock because I haven't messed with it.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> According to OCCT, the max system agent voltage was 0.36v. Is that normal for broadwell-e? I can only control the system agent voltage offset so I have no idea what to set it to.


Manually tune in your System Agent Voltage. Too high will cause instability as well. When using auto with XMP on will cause unnecessarily high VCCSA voltages it seems. Start at 0 offset, and move up little by little from there. In some overclocking guides, they say that if you're populating all 8 dimms, using 32gb or higher sets, or running higher than DDR4 3000+ - you may need anywhere up to 1.3v. But on my system (using DDR4 3000, 64gb set), I need nowhere near that. Current set at +0.1v offset


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Manually tune in your System Agent Voltage. Too high will cause instability as well. When using auto with XMP on will cause unnecessarily high VCCSA voltages it seems. Start at 0 offset, and move up little by little from there. In some overclocking guides, they say that if you're populating all 8 dimms, using 32gb or higher sets, or running higher than DDR4 3000+ - you may need anywhere up to 1.3v. But on my system (using DDR4 3000, 64gb set), I need nowhere near that. Current set at +0.1v offset


Also, I notice that your +3.3v, +5v, +12v, along with some other voltage readings are way off. It seems like a monitoring issue, but you may want to double check with a different software (or your BIOS) and make sure it's closer to the specified voltages.


----------



## enyceedanny

oops. double post.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - cache stability can be elusive. try running AID64 cache test for 2+hours?


Just about every other test passes.

I found out that it a combination of VCCSA + VCCIO. At 4.4 (36x uncore) on my machine that was causing very sporadic failures on OCCT. VCCSA offset +0.1v and VCCIO at 1.1 seems to have fixed it. I noticed that VCCIO set at stock voltage of 1.05 will show at closer to 1.0 on the readings, and bumping this up to 1.1 brings it closer to actual 1.05.

This chip seems quite a bit more finicky on reaching absolute stability. It can pass every other test at much lower voltages, but for OCCT it needs a few bumps..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> So 0.36v is high? Apparently that's stock because I haven't messed with it.


VCCSA reads in bios as it will run in the OS. If you know what the VCCSA voltage is at Optimized Defaults (no XMP), the offset is applied to this value. Most run 0.895 to 0.915V at stock. Add an offset to the value in bios so that your system shows exactly 1.000V in bios when you post back. And work from there. It is a rare event that a CPU needs more than 1.1V on this rail.. and it is a rail that can cause instant death to a cpu (x99 or z170).
Also, you CAN have an OC on your RAM (not XMNP) while doing this... a manual OC will not bump the VCCSA unless you have this set to Auto.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Just about every other test passes.
> 
> I found out that it a combination of VCCSA + VCCIO. At 4.4 (36x uncore) on my machine that was causing very sporadic failures on OCCT. VCCSA offset +0.1v and VCCIO at 1.1 seems to have fixed it. *I noticed that VCCIO set at stock voltage of 1.05 will show at closer to 1.0 on the readings*, and bumping this up to 1.1 brings it closer to actual 1.05.
> 
> This chip seems quite a bit more finicky on reaching absolute stability. It can pass every other test at much lower voltages, but for OCCT it needs a few bumps..


but did you run the CACHE test in AID64 alone and for a few hours? OCCT will not work the cache as well (and as focussed) as this one does. That said - no stress test can guarantee stability. I do find that these CPUs (since HWE) seem to trip up more with a rapid succession of different instruction sets to several parts of the die, more so that focusing on the FP unit or and single substructure with repetition of the same instruction set. Kinda like the difference between cross training and only running 100 meters.

are you reading the VCCIO with a DMM off the motherboard?


----------



## Blameless

Stock BW-E VCCIO is supposed to be 0.95v (it's in the white papers), but a lot of boards still default to 1.05v because they are based off sloppily modified HW-E firmware.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Stock BW-E VCCIO is supposed to be 0.95v (it's in the white papers), but a lot of boards still default to 1.05v because they are based off sloppily modified HW-E firmware.


Hello

Max stock VCCIO is spec'd at 1.05V per the datasheet. Minimum and nominal values are 0.95V.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> According to OCCT, the max system agent voltage was 0.36v. Is that normal for broadwell-e? I can only control the system agent voltage offset so I have no idea what to set it to.


probably best to use something else to check your voltages... there's maybe one max voltage in that snip anywhere near believable.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> but did you run the CACHE test in AID64 alone and for a few hours? OCCT will not work the cache as well (and as focussed) as this one does. That said - no stress test can guarantee stability. I do find that these CPUs (since HWE) seem to trip up more with a rapid succession of different instruction sets to several parts of the die, more so that focusing on the FP unit or and single substructure with repetition of the same instruction set. Kinda like the difference between cross training and only running 100 meters.
> 
> are you reading the VCCIO with a DMM off the motherboard?


Yes, I ran AIDA Cache the other day for about 3 hours. And no, unfortunately I don't have a DMM around to do so.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Yes, I ran AIDA Cache the other day for about 3 hours. And no, unfortunately I don't have a DMM around to do so.


sounds like you got that rig dialed in !


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> sounds like you got that rig dialed in !


Still have a bit more testing and tuning to do, but yeah, after 3 full months of 24/7 stress testing I'm finally close.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Still have a bit more testing and tuning to do, but yeah, after 3 full months of 24/7 stress testing I'm finally close.


daaum - almost time for next gen to launch.


----------



## DADDYDC650

I thought I had 4.4Ghz dialed in but I don't. Not sure if this board just doesn't like being pushed that hard or what. I remember my CPU being stable with a Rampage 10 board though. I've set the exact same BIOS settings and even bumped voltage up to 1.4Ghz and it's still not stable. Got the chip from silicon lottery awhile back. It's supposed to do 4.4 using 1.35v. I'm at a loss with this board. Guessing it pays to buy high end Asus boards for overclocking to the max.

Forgot to mention that I can get 4.3Ghz completely stable on this board. 4.4Ghz seems to be unreachable.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> daaum - almost time for next gen to launch.


Haha. True, but I'm not all that into upgrading each gen anymore.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Max stock VCCIO is spec'd at 1.05V per the datasheet. Minimum and nominal values are 0.95V.


Table 5-10 on page 53 of the Core i7 6xxx LGA2011 v3 datasheet has 0.95v for the nominal, 0.9025v for the minimum, and 0.9975v for the maximum, regarding VCCIO_IN. There is also the absolute maximum rating of 1.35v earlier in the datasheet.

Some of the boards I've seen default to 1.05 VCCIO for BW-E, which is past spec and first gen ASRock X99 boards (the ones before the OC socket) don't even allow it to be set below 1v manually,which is still slightly outside spec.


----------



## Martin778

@DADDYDC650,

Not really, so far what I've seen most (if not every?) BW-E hits a wall around 4.3-4.4, that's the point when they become voltage hogs and the temperatures skyrocket.
6950X won't do 4.4 RB stable no matter what, unless you phase change cool it or use a chiller.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> @DADDYDC650,
> 
> Not really, so far what I've seen most (if not every?) BW-E hits a wall around 4.3-4.4, that's the point when they become voltage hogs and the temperatures skyrocket.
> 6950X won't do 4.4 RB stable no matter what, unless you phase change cool it or use a chiller.


I understand Broadwell-e's limits but it's frustrating to know that I could run at 4.4Ghz using a Rampage 10 but not with my Gigabyte. It's only 100Mhz but my OCD wants it!


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> @DADDYDC650,
> 
> Not really, so far what I've seen most (if not every?) BW-E hits a wall around 4.3-4.4, that's the point when they become voltage hogs and the temperatures skyrocket.
> 6950X won't do 4.4 RB stable no matter what, unless you phase change cool it or use a chiller.


Not really, mine can do 4.5 Realbench at 1.36V, granted mine was binned and delidded.

The 6800K and 6850Ks go up to 4.6GHz on Silicon Lottery, which probably do 4.5 at a more reasonable voltage.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I understand Broadwell-e's limits but it's frustrating to know that I could run at 4.4Ghz using a Rampage 10 but not with my Gigabyte. It's only 100Mhz but my OCD wants it!


what happened to the R5E10?


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what happened to the R5E10?


one was defective and the other looked used. Got tired of replacements so I got a refund.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> one was defective and the other looked used. Got tired of replacements so I got a refund.


ooooh, good reasons.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Table 5-10 on page 53 of the Core i7 6xxx LGA2011 v3 datasheet has 0.95v for the nominal, 0.9025v for the minimum, and 0.9975v for the maximum, regarding VCCIO_IN. There is also the absolute maximum rating of 1.35v earlier in the datasheet.
> 
> Some of the boards I've seen default to 1.05 VCCIO for BW-E, which is past spec and first gen ASRock X99 boards (the ones before the OC socket) don't even allow it to be set below 1v manually,which is still slightly outside spec.


I've been running 1.115 vccio for a couple of months - needed for stability at my 4.6GHz OC, no problems.


----------



## Martin778

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> Not really, mine can do 4.5 Realbench at 1.36V, granted mine was binned and delidded.
> 
> The 6800K and 6850Ks go up to 4.6GHz on Silicon Lottery, which probably do 4.5 at a more reasonable voltage.


There you go, it's a delid. Otherwise the temps on the first cores kill it.


----------



## DADDYDC650

The fastest stability test that I've found is none other than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. Game will crash your rig if your CPU is unstable just by populating the shader cache within 1-4 attempts.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> The 6800K and 6850Ks go up to 4.6GHz on Silicon Lottery, which probably do 4.5 at a more reasonable voltage.


Pretty big price premium on the top binned parts (as their should be). Would have considered the 4.5GHz bin were they available when I purchased my 6800K, but they weren't.

Pre-binned takes some of the fun out of thing anyway.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I've been running 1.115 vccio for a couple of months - needed for stability at my 4.6GHz OC, no problems.


1.115v is probably perfectly safe, just out of spec.

I was commenting on how some boards were defaulting to VCCIOs that were beyond what BW-E was supposed to be at stock, and how some other seem to not even be able to set spec voltages.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Pre-binned takes some of the fun out of thing anyway.


It adds fun for me!









Still just as much tinkering and tweaking required to find stability, but it's enjoyable having a good idea of the quality of silicon you're playing with.


----------



## Grenseal

What is considered "reasonable" vCore for BW-E? Mine is running at 4.4GHz, with 1.35v vCore, and rock solid.

I dailed it up to 4.5GHz and 1.36vCore. It can finish CineBench, but failed after 20 minutes of RealBench. I think it can run stable 4.5GHz if I give it 1.40v.
Is that too big of a voltage increase for a 100MHz difference?

What vCores are you guys comfortable with?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Grenseal*
> 
> What is considered "reasonable" vCore for BW-E? Mine is running at 4.4GHz, with 1.35v vCore, and rock solid.
> 
> I dailed it up to 4.5GHz and 1.36vCore. It can finish CineBench, but failed after 20 minutes of RealBench. I think it can run stable 4.5GHz if I give it 1.40v.
> Is that too big of a voltage increase for a 100MHz difference?
> 
> What vCores are you guys comfortable with?


before increasing vcore for 4.5, try increasing VCCIN a notch or two and what LLC is set in Bios?


----------



## Grenseal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> before increasing vcore for 4.5, try increasing VCCIN a notch or two and what LLC is set in Bios?


VCCIN is CPU Input Voltage? I lowered to 1.85v. Would you suggest 1.9v or higher?
LLC is set at Auto.

My board is the Asus X99-A/USB3.1, updated to the lasted Bios.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Grenseal*
> 
> VCCIN is CPU Input Voltage? I lowered to 1.85v. Would you suggest 1.9v or higher?
> LLC is set at Auto.
> 
> My board is the Asus X99-A/USB3.1, updated to the lasted Bios.


yeah, with vcore up there and at 4.5, increase VCCIN (CPU Input Voltage) to 1.9 to1.95V (I've been running 1.95 since launch). LLC affects VCCIN on this platform (not VCORE), Auto LLC on ASUS boards is basically LLC9 (so no vdroop). Run a middle setting of 5 or 6 (maybe 7 at most IMO) for your 24/7 OC when you have VCCIN at 1.9-1.95V.

Looks like you have a very good CPU if it passed 20 min of RB at 4.5 with 1.36V vcore!


----------



## Grenseal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, with vcore up there and at 4.5, increase VCCIN (CPU Input Voltage) to 1.9 to1.95V (I've been running 1.95 since launch). LLC affects VCCIN on this platform (not VCORE), Auto LLC on ASUS boards is basically LLC9 (so no vdroop). Run a middle setting of 5 or 6 (maybe 7 at most IMO) for your 24/7 OC when you have VCCIN at 1.9-1.95V.
> 
> Looks like you have a very good CPU if it passed 20 min of RB at 4.5 with 1.36V vcore!


Thanks man. I will give it a go.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Table 5-10 on page 53 of the Core i7 6xxx LGA2011 v3 datasheet has 0.95v for the nominal, 0.9025v for the minimum, and 0.9975v for the maximum, regarding VCCIO_IN. There is also the absolute maximum rating of 1.35v earlier in the datasheet.
> 
> Some of the boards I've seen default to 1.05 VCCIO for BW-E, which is past spec and first gen ASRock X99 boards (the ones before the OC socket) don't even allow it to be set below 1v manually,which is still slightly outside spec.


Hello

Table 5-10, page 53. Also as noted these are target values. Actual required voltages may be more or less.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Table 5-10, page 53. Also as noted these are target values. Actual required voltages may be more or less.


Yes, that's where I got my figures. 0.95*0.95 = 0.9025 and 0.95*1.05 = 0.9975.


----------



## Grenseal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, with vcore up there and at 4.5, increase VCCIN (CPU Input Voltage) to 1.9 to1.95V (I've been running 1.95 since launch). LLC affects VCCIN on this platform (not VCORE), Auto LLC on ASUS boards is basically LLC9 (so no vdroop). Run a middle setting of 5 or 6 (maybe 7 at most IMO) for your 24/7 OC when you have VCCIN at 1.9-1.95V.
> 
> Looks like you have a very good CPU if it passed 20 min of RB at 4.5 with 1.36V vcore!


Damn... Still unstable. Oh well, thanks for the tip man. I'm going to play around with it some more.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Pre-binned takes some of the fun out of thing anyway.


I've been having "fun" for 3 months straight so far.


----------



## enyceedanny

I've finally settled down on my 6850K's overclock and wanted to post an update to the final settings along with a few things I learned. And I've also linked to my log on Google docs on the bottom of the post.

*Components*


I7 6850K
Asus Rampage V Edition 10
Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4 2800 64GB (4 x 16GB)
EVGA GTX 780 Ti Classified Hydro-Copper
Corsair AX1200i
Samsung 950 Pro nvme SSD
Samsung 850 Pro SSD
Corsair 900D Case
EK XE480 Quad Radiator w/ Corsair ML120 Fans
EK Supremacy EVO CPU Block
EK-XRES 140 Revo D5

*Final settings on OC:*


CPU Multiplier: 44x
Cache Multiplier: 36x
AVX Offset: 0
CPU Core: Adaptive @ 1.375v
CPU Input Voltage (VCCIN): 1.92v (Loads at 1.9v) I think I can still fine tune this down.
LLC: Level 7
Cache Voltage: Offset +0.14 (Approx. 1.144v at load)
System Agent Voltage (VCCSA): Offset +0.1 (Approx 1.008v at load)
VCCIO CPU: 1.1 in bios, but shows 1.056v in software readings.
DDR Frequency: 3000 (overclocked from 2800)
DDR Timings: 13-15-15-36 1T (tightened from stock 14-16-16-36 2T)
DDR: 1.365v
All other voltages manually set to their stock values

On my specific system, the following are some of the things I've learned after exhausting testing and fine-tuning.

*If you're looking for ABSOLUTE system stability, you need to account for combined CPU + GPU loads.*

I can run the above settings with lower VCORE (1.35), VCCSA (0 offset), VCCIO (stock) if I'm only isolating the stress tests to CPU.

I realized that sometimes OCCT will fail, or crash the system while other times it will run for more than 8 hours without any issues. It would most likely pass when ran overnight while I'm asleep, but other times when I have it running while I'm browsing the web, or watching some videos, it would fail/crash. After some trial and error, I found that a combination of CPU load (OCCT) + GPU usage (watching a video or even using chrome , due to hardware GPU acceleration) would cause my completely stable CPU isolated voltages to become unstable.

Although you'll likely never load the system enough for this to matter, a certain application or game may cause enough load on both components to make your overclock unstable.

*Avoid AUTO values when possible*

Try to set your voltages to at least their stock values manually. This is especially true for VCCSA, and Cache Voltage, as AUTO values may set these to unreasonable levels. For example, with XMP enabled and VCCSA on auto, my motherboard would set the VCCSA to over 1.3 volts.

*System Agent Voltage (VCCSA) is a pain in the ass.*

Due to the fact that too high of a voltage can cause instability as well, it may be quite annoying to fine-tune this voltage.

For CPU isolated tests, VCCSA didn't seem to affect my overclocks much. But with combined CPU+GPU loads, this voltage along with VCCIO CPU had to be *completely fine-tuned* in order for complete stability. Even a small deviation in either of the voltages caused sporadic instability (OCCT passing for 10 hours, then suddenly failing at 2 hours or less on a separate run at same settings)

*Variation in test software is necessary for ABSOLUTE stability.*

I found that while at a certain setting, I was able to pass 8 hours of Realbench, 1000% coverage in HCI memtest, but crash during Google Stressful Application Test (GSAT). I had the assumption that 1000% coverage was the golden standard for memory and cache, but realized that I had to bump up my cache voltage a bit in order to be stable for GSAT.

For absolute stability, I find these combination of tests are ideal.


OCCT for approximately an hour for a quick initial test while tuning the multipliers and voltages.
HCI Memtest for approximately an hour.
Realbench for an hour.
Once you're closer to your ideal settings and want to achieve absolute stability:


8+ hour run of OCCT with a video playing on your preferred media player in the background along with some browser tabs open.
1000% coverage of HCI Memtest
8 hour run of GSAT (stressapptest -W -s 28800) Don't forget the -W, which uses more CPU-stressful memory copy.
8 hour run of Realbench
Lastly another run of OCCT for a couple of hours just to seal the deal.
While running any stress test, make sure to check your event viewer > windows logs > system for any WHEA (especially Cache hierarchy) warnings or errors. I found that sometimes I can pass the tests initially, but fail on concurrent runs and find those errors on my log. With some bumps in cache or core voltage, it goes away and I would get closer to stability.

Oh, I've uploaded my log to google docs, where you can view here. Although each system is unique and will require its own set of tweaks, maybe it will give you a point of reference for your overclock. It's quite messy as it was just for my own reference, but you get the point.


----------



## DADDYDC650

I must have been sold a dud by siliconlottery. I can't even get my 6800k stable at 4.3Ghz using 1.3v without setting avx offset to 3.... 4.4Ghz using 1.344v my @ss!


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I must have been sold a dud by siliconlottery. I can't even get my 6800k stable at 4.3Ghz using 1.3v without setting avx offset to 3.... 4.4Ghz using 1.344v my @ss!


Keep in mind that there may be various other voltages in play here. As I stated in my post above, I had to fine-tune my VCCSA and VCCIO to exactly those voltages in order to achieve consistent stability.

What's your cache multiplier set at? How about your memory? If they're overclocked, set cache multiplier to a low value, and set your memory frequency and timings to stock or lower to remove it from the equation.

Also, siliconlottery seems to only test 1 hour of RB at the values they state. I find it extremely easy to pass 8 hours at much lower settings than I found to be absolutely stable, let alone 1 hour.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Keep in mind that there may be various other voltages in play here. As I stated in my post above, I had to fine-tune my VCCSA and VCCIO to exactly those voltages in order to achieve consistent stability.
> 
> What's your cache multiplier set at? How about your memory? If they're overclocked, set cache multiplier to a low value, and set your memory frequency and timings to stock or lower to remove it from the equation.
> 
> Also, siliconlottery seems to only test 1 hour of RB at the values they state. I find it extremely easy to pass 8 hours at much lower settings than I found to be absolutely stable, let alone 1 hour.


it's just the chip. I've tried everything. Even on a Rampage 10 board I needed to run an avx offset of 3 at 4.4Ghz using 1.344v


----------



## iRUSH

New 6800k owner here. My head is spinning with settings lol.

I'm at 1.299 vcore load at 4.0 GHz. XMP RAM and everything else stock.

There seems to be more than just dumping voltage for a higher clock speed on BW-E.

Any advice for me if I wanted to hit 4.2-4.4? As is just moving vcore to 1.35 at 4.2 GHz will not even get into Windows.

I figured I'd ask here before I start screwing around in the BIOS a bunch.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> it's just the chip. I've tried everything. Even on a Rampage 10 board I needed to run an avx offset of 3 at 4.4Ghz using 1.344v


SilliconLottery doesn't sell CPU w/ AVX stable clock. They use Realbench and, afaik, no cache or RAM OC during the test, keep that in mind.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> SilliconLottery doesn't sell CPU w/ AVX stable clock. They use Realbench and, afaik, no cache or RAM OC during the test, keep that in mind.


I don't see anywhere on their site that mentions an AVX offset. They don't even list it under their settings used.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I don't see anywhere on their site that mentions an AVX offset. They don't even list it under their settings used.


What are you stress testing with? Mine runs realbench perfectly fine at their settings without an AVX offset applied.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I don't see anywhere on their site that mentions an AVX offset. They don't even list it under their settings used.


Because they're not mongs.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> What are you stress testing with? Mine runs realbench perfectly fine at their settings without an AVX offset applied.


I haven't tried realbench. I just assumed my chip wouldn't need to downclock with certain apps to run stable at 4.4Ghz. That site is kind of misleading.


----------



## Jpmboy

RB doe use "up to AVX" for the encoding part of the stress test.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I haven't tried realbench. I just assumed my chip wouldn't need to downclock with certain apps to run stable at 4.4Ghz. That site is kind of misleading.


They only state an hour of realbench, which should put you close to the voltage needed for stable encoding. I don't know of any "normal use" applications myself that are more stressful than encoding.

I don't see stability mentioned anywhere, so I'd hardly call it misleading. If you want to run 300MHz lower to pass Prime95 or whichever test, that's completely up to you.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> They only state an hour of realbench, which should put you close to the voltage needed for stable encoding. I don't know of any "normal use" applications myself that are more stressful than encoding.
> 
> I don't see stability mentioned anywhere, so I'd hardly call it misleading. If you want to run 300MHz lower to pass Prime95 or whichever test, that's completely up to you.


It's misleading when you don't mention an AVX offset to achieve the advertised clocks.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> It's misleading when you don't mention an AVX offset to achieve the advertised clocks.


They don't use an AVX offset.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> They don't use an AVX offset.


I get it. They could have mentioned how an avx offset is needed for said clocks to be near/fully stable. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking their advertised clocks are fully stable or near it. I probably have to run my chip at 4.1Ghz using 1.344v without an offset to be fully stable in all apps. Far cry from 4.4Ghz.

Anyway, I'm settling on 4.3Ghz with an avx offset of 3 using 1.29v. Cache at 3.5Ghz and ram at 3200Mhz CAS 13 1t using 1.4v.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> What kind of idle CPU package power are you guys seeing?


Nobody?


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> Nobody?


I'm seeing about 0.6W


----------



## djgar

0.59 ...


----------



## ucode

I take it that's with SVID enabled? I'm getting between 30W and 60W estimated CPU usage, confirmed with both VRM power reading and wall power meter even though cores are 95% of the time in C6 and less than 2% of total CPU use. Disabling cores and limiting multi to 12x doesn't make a lot of difference. Package C-States don't kick in, not sure if that's due to the PC3 bug.

Thanks.


----------



## djgar

SVID & C6 disabled.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> RB doe use "up to AVX" for the encoding part of the stress test.


What states do you have disabled? C3, C6 for example.

How do my settings look? I'm thinking perhaps some C states is messing with my chip when running at 4.4Ghz.


----------



## Yomny

Hello everyone, fairly new here to the Broadwell-e overclocking world. I seem to be having some issues with my overclocks. I seem to be getting stable enough after an hour or so of AIDA64 and running 11x on Intel Burn test, settings "Very high". Also I've ran 30x intel burn times at settings "High".

Once or twice a month I get this weird shutdown, which my pc restarts from and automatically enters BIOS. I get a message saying that some of my settings could be causing the instability, this recommends setting optimized defaults. I'm thinking I'm setting something that's causing instability in the very long run that no short term stability test could pick out.










LLC - extreme
PWN phase control - extreme perf

Vcore - adaptive 1.33 for 4.3ghz
VRIN input - 1.95v
RING -1.126v at 34 uncore (cant get anything stable over this number even with 1.35v

All else is set to *auto* and this is with RAM using XMP profile 1.2v for 2400mhz as suggested by the manufacturer.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Hello everyone, fairly new here to the Broadwell-e overclocking world. I seem to be having some issues with my overclocks. I seem to be getting stable enough after an hour or so of AIDA64 and running 11x on Intel Burn test, settings "Very high". Also I've ran 30x intel burn times at settings "High".
> 
> Once or twice a month I get this weird shutdown, which my pc restarts from and automatically enters BIOS. I get a message saying that some of my settings could be causing the instability, this recommends setting optimized defaults. I'm thinking I'm setting something that's causing instability in the very long run that no short term stability test could pick out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LLC - extreme
> PWN phase control - extreme perf
> 
> Vcore - adaptive 1.33 for 4.3ghz
> VRIN input - 1.95v
> RING -1.126v at 34 uncore (cant get anything stable over this number even with 1.35v
> 
> All else is set to *auto* and this is with RAM using XMP profile 1.2v for 2400mhz as suggested by the manufacturer.


Your OC is unstable. I'm sure OCCT or Prime95 would eventually fail after a couple of hours. I sent you a PM. Try my settings out since we have the same CPU and mobo.. I'm completely stable at 4.3Ghz.

Also, make sure you have the latest BIOS for your mobo. F6a.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Your OC is unstable. I'm sure OCCT or Prime95 would eventually fail after a couple of hours. I sent you a PM. Try my settings out since we have the same CPU and mobo.. I'm completely stable at 4.3Ghz.
> 
> Also, make sure you have the latest BIOS for your mobo. F6a.


Thanks for the help +REP.

I do know I have the latest bios but not the beta, which I think is what f6a is?

I just really hate those long stability test but I guess there's no other choice. I'll give OCCT a good try.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Thanks for the help +REP.
> 
> I do know I have the latest bios but not the beta, which I think is what f6a is?
> 
> I just really hate those long stability test but I guess there's no other choice. I'll give OCCT a good try.


Run them when you go to bed. No point in running them instead of enjoying your computer.

F6a has been stable for me. No issues to speak of. Be sure to default BIOS settings after updating BIOS.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Run them when you go to bed. No point in running them instead of enjoying your computer.
> 
> F6a has been stable for me. No issues to speak of. Be sure to default BIOS settings after updating BIOS.


This is a frustrating situation. I've tested the OC with Intel burn test which is supposed to be really hard on the pc and a few others. It passes fine, it passes AIDA and it passes Prime blend but something's crashing. I started to think the Mobo wasn't good at handling the higher voltage required due to it not having more CPU voltage plugs aside from the 8 pin. Even thought the LLC and PWN phase control settings were causing a struggle with power.

Appreciate your help, I guess id continue to add voltage. Just odd because 1.95v input, RING 1.126 and 1.34vcore should be decent enough for 43 cpu with 34 uncore.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> This is a frustrating situation. I've tested the OC with Intel burn test which is supposed to be really hard on the pc and a few others. It passes fine, it passes AIDA and it passes Prime blend but something's crashing. I started to think the Mobo wasn't good at handling the higher voltage required due to it not having more CPU voltage plugs aside from the 8 pin. Even thought the LLC and PWN phase control settings were causing a struggle with power.
> 
> Appreciate your help, I guess id continue to add voltage. Just odd because 1.95v input, RING 1.126 and 1.34vcore should be decent enough for 43 cpu with 34 uncore.


Try the settings I PM'd you. Raise only CPU voltage as needed. Make sure your PSU isn't defective as well. Does your rig run well with everything at stock?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Try the settings I PM'd you. Raise only CPU voltage as needed. Make sure your PSU isn't defective as well. Does your rig run well with everything at stock?


Thinking is was the PSU I RMA'd it and tried also with a different brand PSU. It doesn't seem to happen with the stock settings. I started to overclock fairly quickly and I guess it didn't leave much chance for the problem to surface. As mentioned this only happens once in a blue moon. It just bugs me because im certain it shouldn't be happening lol, no pc shutsdown once or twice every month.

I've also taken care of the essentials like surge protector and others.

Checked the timings with gskill and the mobo is running the exact same timings and voltage









I'm going back to stock settings and running the PC for longer periods of time to see if the issue persists. The other little thing is that with XMP my boost clock jumps to 38 instead of the 36 or 35 default for the 6800k. I guess that really doesn't matter as im OC'ed to 43.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> What states do you have disabled? C3, C6 for example.
> 
> How do my settings look? I'm thinking perhaps some C states is messing with my chip when running at 4.4Ghz.


when using Adaptive vcore, I disable c-states... since the cpu will idle at the lowest multi and voltage in the VID table across all cores and not park any. In other words, c-states are only marginally beneficial with dynamic voltage and vcore in my experience. With a fixed vcore, You can go as deep as you care to, but remember, c-states "park" cores to produce overall lower consumption but run the wake cores at the voltage set. This is why it is called voltage override.


----------



## Yomny

So AVX

Software that uses it basically causes more stress on the system, making it run hotter and basically needing more voltage? So a stable overclock lets say at 4.5ghz with 1.35vcore, could fail once AVX is use? Is this the reason why the offset is implemented?


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> So AVX
> 
> Software that uses it basically causes more stress on the system, making it run hotter and basically needing more voltage? So a stable overclock lets say at 4.5ghz with 1.35vcore, could fail once AVX is use? Is this the reason why the offset is implemented?


Yes sir. Gaming and regular tasks like browsing the internet do not use AVX. I don't know of any game that does anyway.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> when using Adaptive vcore, I disable c-states... since the cpu will idle at the lowest multi and voltage in the VID table across all cores and not park any. In other words, c-states are only marginally beneficial with dynamic voltage and vcore in my experience. With a fixed vcore, You can go as deep as you care to, but remember, c-states "park" cores to produce overall lower consumption but run the wake cores at the voltage set. This is why it is called voltage override.


Which settings do you recommend I disable when I use adaptive? C3 and C6/C7?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Which settings do you recommend I disable when I use adaptive? C3 and C6/C7?


all - including C1E.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> all - including C1E.


Really? Any benefits to doing so? I keep all my C states on auto


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Really? Any benefits to doing so? I keep all my C states on auto


depends on whether you are using adaptive or manual override as I posted above...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *enyceedanny*
> 
> Really? Any benefits to doing so? I keep all my C states on auto


I just disabled the c-states section. As @Jpmboy stated, it still throttles down and saves power if you're using adaptive. I didn't notice any difference power- and CPU speed-wise after disabling it, and maybe simplifies things for the CPU (less things to check & do)?


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> SVID & C6 disabled.


Okay, with SVID disabled the CPU energy estimates do not work with CPU's with FIVR. The CPU usually reports extremely low readings even when fully loaded and is an old trick for bypassing power limits of power locked CPU's.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> The other little thing is that with XMP my boost clock jumps to 38 instead of the 36 or 35 default for the 6800k. I guess that really doesn't matter as im OC'ed to 43.


That's probably your TB3 boost multi. Supposed to be used on the best core but for my lemon of a 6800k all cores appear equally poor so is pretty useless.


----------



## fromthewatt

guys quick question regarding temps
setup is 6900k ,aio h110i gtx ,gelid extreme thermal paste, evolv atx case,
would like opinion on my temps : ambient is about 20degrees when taking the screenshots ( cool weather )



1st pic is 4ghz @1.25volts realbench, core 2 and core 4 gets 10degrees hotter than say core 7, which is quiet cooler, is this normal ?



2nd pic, 4.4ghz @1.325v realbench , core 2 and core 4 gets quiet hot, compared to the rest, again , is this normal ?

anybody have similer temps to compare ?
thnx


----------



## djgar

Those 4.4GHz temps are too high - you're cooking the CPU ...


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Those 4.4GHz temps are too high - you're cooking the CPU ...


its not 24/7 clocks. i normally leave it at stok cloks.
but what is the cause of the hi temps u think ?


----------



## Yomny

My h115i wouldn't let the CPU get to 60 with 1.35v @4.3. Not the same cooler but they shouldn't have such difference in temps. May have to try a push/pull, resetting the CPU and or different tim.


----------



## Yomny

Guys I see some of you up the turbo power limit in watts and core power limit in amps. Care to elaborate? Seems to be a good idea in case those are restricted stock settings.


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> My h115i wouldn't let the CPU get to 60 with 1.35v @4.3. Not the saw cooler but they shouldn't have such difference in temps. May have to try a push/pull, resetting the CPU and or different tim.


on what benchmarks did you not exeed 60 at 1.35v 4.3ghz ??


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> on what benchmarks did you not exeed 60 at 1.35v 4.3ghz ??


Ran OCCT, Intel Burn Test and Aida64. Not prime if thats what youre going for. Also ran a little of 3d mark stress, i know this is GPU mostly but the cpu clocks are also maxed out throughout the test. Ran firestrike and some other things i dont recall. In short, with mostly everything. Going through some logs i did get max 62c at times.


----------



## tux1989

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Ran OCCT, Intel Burn Test and Aida64. Not prime if thats what youre going for. Also ran a little of 3d mark stress, i know this is GPU mostly but the cpu clocks are also maxed out throughout the test. Ran firestrike and some other things i dont recall. In short, with mostly everything. Going through some logs i did get max 62c at times.


But you have 6800k and he have 6900k -- 2 more cores


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> its not 24/7 clocks. i normally leave it at stok cloks.
> but what is the cause of the hi temps u think ?


Too high for RealBench - keep below 80. How long was it running? You need to fill out your rig in your signature.


----------



## Yomny

My
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tux1989*
> 
> But you have 6800k and he have 6900k -- 2 more cores


That's my bad, completely missed that part. Makes sense, smaller cooler and more cores lol.


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Too high for RealBench - keep below 80. How long was it running? You need to fill out your rig in your signature.


that was 1 run on cinebench.
i have since re applied the tim and re mounted aio.
results are bellow for cinebench 4.4ghz @1.325v after re applied tim re mount aio


temps came down ,but core 4 and core 2 is still at mid 80's ... hmmm.
are these temps normal for my setup now ? or not ?


----------



## djgar

They're way too high for one run of CineBench - I can't imagine what they'd be after an hour of RealBench.


----------



## Yomny

Question: When you set the cache multiplier, with my mobo at least, it doesn't throttle its fixed. When using the auto default option it does throttle between 12-28 iirc.

Now my actual question lol. When setting a fixed cache multiplier then the voltage cannot be an offset setting but instead it should be a fixed voltage, since it won't throttle?

I say this because my mobo offers the "offset" voltage option for cache but that'll be applicable only if the uncore multiplier varies.


----------



## enyceedanny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> depends on whether you are using adaptive or manual override as I posted above...


For cpu voltage i'm using adaptive. Can you elaborate a bit on what you said?


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> It's misleading when you don't mention an AVX offset to achieve the advertised clocks.


lol. The only person that's being misled is you. Come on man, read the info, it clearly states they only test RB 1HR at specific voltages for a particular CPU, they don't guarantee anything else.

RB doesn't use AVX2.0 extensions, and if you have a workload that needs AVX2.0, and yet you're using an offset of -3 in order to get your "wanted" OC stable, then YOU are doing something wrong, or simply just don't understand the processes involved.

Instead of crying wolf, maybe ask for suggestions?

PS: I have plenty of SL CPU's that run great in AVX2.0 environments, and I use anywhere from -1 to -2 offsets, BECAUSE the workloads that those CPU go under 80% of the time are strenuous. SL is also great, helped with a CPU replacement for a 6800K that just died out of the blue.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> lol. The only person that's being misled is you. Come on man, read the info, it clearly states they only test RB 1HR at specific voltages for a particular CPU, they don't guarantee anything else.
> 
> RB doesn't use AVX2.0 extensions, and if you have a workload that needs AVX2.0, and yet you're using an offset of -3 in order to get your "wanted" OC stable, then YOU are doing something wrong, or simply just don't understand the processes involved.
> 
> Instead of crying wolf, maybe ask for suggestions?
> 
> PS: I have plenty of SL CPU's that run great in AVX2.0 environments, and I use anywhere from -1 to -2 offsets, BECAUSE the workloads that those CPU go under 80% of the time are strenuous. SL is also great, helped with a CPU replacement for a 6800K that just died out of the blue.


You sound like a heavily invested employee.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Those 4.4GHz temps are too high - you're cooking the CPU ...


He's still 25C from the TJmax and the OC + overvolt is fairly minor.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> RB doesn't use AVX2.0 extensions, and if you have a workload that needs AVX2.0


x264, which is part of Realbench does, just not enough to be a limiting factor in most cases.

I generally agree with your assessment though...Silicon Lottery is offering a binning service to weed out parts below a certain relative level, one should not expect to always achieve the clocks they achieve in more strenuous testing.


----------



## Menthol

I am grateful for Silicon lottery, without them you are playing the lottery, you may get a better chip for retail price, and you may get a golden chip, but you may not as well, they also do a very good job on delidding without the risk

There are very few guarantee's in life, Merry Christmas


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> He's still 25C from the TJmax and the OC + overvolt is fairly minor.


OK, as long as it's not my CPU ...

BTW, according to AIDA tjmax for the 6900K is 100 ...


----------



## Silent Scone

Broadwell is not the most awe inspiring micro architecture to invest in a binned CPU for. I've had a handful now, most will do 4.4 with reasonable volts. Anything binned higher will have limited stability range.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Yomny

Guys/gals I've read that AVX basically, means the speed is double or something of your actual cores or threads? Can someone explain this a bit to me. I've tried searching around but cant find anything related to what i want to read. I would like to know when AVX is being use.

Example in this read

So basically when using IBT, in my case, anything above "standard" level would make it use avx?

Short little test i did Running IBT with 10/12 threads on "Very High", google playing YouTube videos, and Unigine Heaven for GPU yield some high temps of 82c.

Now this didn't stay long, they dropped and remained around 70c but the max values did show 82. Should i lower CPU clocks to use less voltage or this type of test isn't something i'd actually see during any other PC usage?

Normal CPU stressing i dont get over 60c Using same conditions with IBT.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Guys/gals I've read that AVX basically, means the speed is double or something of your actual cores or threads? Can someone explain this a bit to me. I've tried searching around but cant find anything related to what i want to read. I would like to know when AVX is being use.
> 
> Example in this read
> 
> So basically when using IBT, in my case, anything above "standard" level would make it use avx?
> 
> Short little test i did Running IBT with 10/12 threads on "Very High", google playing YouTube videos, and Unigine Heaven for GPU yield some high temps of 82c.
> 
> Now this didn't stay long, they dropped and remained around 70c but the max values did show 82. Should i lower CPU clocks to use less voltage or this type of test isn't something i'd actually see during any other PC usage?
> 
> Normal CPU stressing i dont get over 60c Using same conditions with IBT.


Hello

This is from someone that actually understands the purpose of AVX Offset.
Quote:


> It is a given that each new processor architecture from Intel features enhancements for workload-specific performance. That quest continues with Broadwell-E, which features a mechanism called AVX Offset. The parent of this mechanism was first seen on server platforms a couple of years ago, although it was not available for user adjustment - server CPUs are usually locked, so no surprises there. The mechanism was introduced because AVX workloads consume a lot more current than ones that use the default instruction set.
> 
> The AVX Offset mechanism is designed to work in conjunction with Auto mode for voltage; when an AVX workload is detected, the processor reduces its frequency, which is followed by a reduction in core voltage via the on-die power control unit (PCU). These low-latency, on-the-fly changes, keep the CPU within Intel's defined TDP limit. Ultimately, this allows higher processor frequencies for non-AVX workloads, which has obvious performance benefits.


http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/05/31/get-best-performance-broadwell-e-processors-asus-thermal-control-tool/2/


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> This is from someone that actually understands the purpose of AVX Offset.
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/05/31/get-best-performance-broadwell-e-processors-asus-thermal-control-tool/2/


I've read that guide a few times already when started to OC. It really doesn't explain much except that with the Haswell/Broadwells you could use an offset for when AVX instructions are in use to lower the cpu multiplier by the offset #. I'm trying to find out, how i could tell AVX is in use by either Gflops or any other indicators. Mainly with IBT, which is directly related to the link i shared.


----------



## Blameless

Any recent version of Intel's LINPACK binaries (which are what's used in IBT and LinX) will use the newest instructions available on BW-E.

A 6800K using six threads in these tests will surpass 350 GFLOPS at most unconditionally stable AVX2 clocks (4-4.2GHz, depending on part and cooling). Twelve threads will be slightly slower (LINPACK is extremely efficient at extracting performance from a core and is also some what cache/memory limited so HT virtually never helps).

For most other programs, you'd have to know how they were compiled or reference the build logs for them. AVX is not uncommon, but enough AVX to make a big difference is.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> OK, as long as it's not my CPU ...
> 
> BTW, according to AIDA tjmax for the 6900K is 100 ...


The absolute TJmax is meaningless. How close he is to that limit vs. how much he's exceeding stock specifications on current and voltage, is the relevant part.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Any recent version of Intel's LINPACK binaries (which are what's used in IBT and LinX) will use the newest instructions available on BW-E.
> 
> A 6800K using six threads in these tests will surpass 350 GFLOPS at most unconditionally stable AVX2 clocks (4-4.2GHz, depending on part and cooling). Twelve threads will be slightly slower (LINPACK is extremely efficient at extracting performance from a core and is also some what cache/memory limited so HT virtually never helps).
> 
> For most other programs, you'd have to know how they were compiled or reference the build logs for them. AVX is not uncommon, but enough AVX to make a big difference is.
> The absolute TJmax is meaningless. How close he is to that limit vs. how much he's exceeding stock specifications on current and voltage, is the relevant part.


So, you don't really care what the core temperature is if you're not exceeding stock current/volts ...

Good luck with that.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> So, you don't really care what the core temperature is if you're not exceeding stock current/volts ...
> 
> Good luck with that.


When not exceeding stock current/volts the odds of any of these CPUs failing in 24/7 use, at two degrees below TJmax (98C in this case), in the next five years, is probably less likely than me be struck by lightning while exploring a cave.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> I've read that guide a few times already when started to OC. It really doesn't explain much except that with the Haswell/Broadwells you could use an offset for when AVX instructions are in use to lower the cpu multiplier by the offset #. I'm trying to find out, how i could tell AVX is in use by either Gflops or any other indicators. Mainly with IBT, which is directly related to the link i shared.


I'd read it again.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> When not exceeding stock current/volts the odds of any of these CPUs failing in 24/7 use, at two degrees below TJmax (98C in this case), in the next five years, is probably less likely than me be struck by lightning while exploring a cave.


This was after a CineBench run, for what, a minute? But if he was going to stress-test for an hour for stability ...

As long as it's not my CPU


----------



## Yomny

Cant seem to get more than 155 gflops


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Any recent version of Intel's LINPACK binaries (which are what's used in IBT and LinX) will use the newest instructions available on BW-E.
> 
> A 6800K using six threads in these tests will surpass 350 GFLOPS at most unconditionally stable AVX2 clocks (4-4.2GHz, depending on part and cooling). Twelve threads will be slightly slower (LINPACK is extremely efficient at extracting performance from a core and is also some what cache/memory limited so HT virtually never helps).
> 
> For most other programs, you'd have to know how they were compiled or reference the build logs for them. AVX is not uncommon, but enough AVX to make a big difference is.
> The absolute TJmax is meaningless. How close he is to that limit vs. how much he's exceeding stock specifications on current and voltage, is the relevant part.


Can't seem to be able to get more than 155 Gflops no matter what options i choose. I'm using version 2.54 of IBT which i believe to be the latest.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> I've read that guide a few times already when started to OC. It really doesn't explain much except that with the Haswell/Broadwells you could use an offset for when AVX instructions are in use to lower the cpu multiplier by the offset #. I'm trying to find out, how i could tell AVX is in use by either Gflops or any other indicators. Mainly with IBT, which is directly related to the link i shared.


Hello

The part I quoted explains what AVX offset does. Nowhere is there a hint to the offset providing an increase in performance as alluded to in the pot you linked. It can also be inferred from that guide how to tell if a program is using AVX instructions. Set an offset and run the program of choice. If the CPU multiplier is lowered by the amount of the entered offset then AVX instructions are being used.


----------



## Praz

Double post


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Double post


New forum feature


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> The part I quoted explains what AVX offset does. Nowhere is there a hint to the offset providing an increase in performance as alluded to in the pot you linked. It can also be inferred from that guide how to tell if a program is using AVX instructions. Set an offset and run the program of choice. If the CPU multiplier is lowered by the amount of the entered offset then AVX instructions are being used.


Ah, I missed that part about entering an offset and watching to see if the multiplier drops. Thanks I'll check that.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> watching to see if the multiplier drops.


That'll do it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Can't seem to be able to get more than 155 Gflops no matter what options i choose. I'm using version 2.54 of IBT which i believe to be the latest.


Probably AVX, but not AVX2/FMA3 supported in the old binaries included with IBT.

You can either download newer binaries from intel and drop them into IBT, or you can use the latest LinX package. IBT and LinX are both simply frontends for the Intel LINPACK.

Do be aware that the recent LINPACK binaries are extremely stressful...like 5C or more hotter than Prime95 28.10 SmallFFTs.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> That'll do it.
> Probably AVX, but not AVX2/FMA3 supported in the old binaries included with IBT.
> 
> You can either download newer binaries from intel and drop them into IBT, or you can use the latest LinX package. IBT and LinX are both simply frontends for the Intel LINPACK.
> 
> Do be aware that the recent LINPACK binaries are extremely stressful...like 5C or more hotter than Prime95 28.10 SmallFFTs.


Where can I get these binaries? I'm afraid I'm a little over my head lol, not sure how to even begin to do this stuff. I've downloaded Linx's latest app but still get the same amount of gflops.

Appreciate your help.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Where can I get these binaries? I'm afraid I'm a little over my head lol, not sure how to even begin to do this stuff.


I think Intel put them behind a log in wall recently, I'll see if I can find another source or upload the last binary package I downloaded.

Edit: My mistake, they are still were they were, I'm just on my laptop and didn't have access to my bookmarks.

https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-mkl-benchmarks-suite
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> I've downloaded Linx's latest app but still get the same amount of gflops.


LinX 0.6.6E (or newer)? Six threads? A moderate amount of memory selected (30-40k problem size usually works)?

What clock speeds are you running?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I think Intel put them behind a log in wall recently, I'll see if I can find another source or upload the last binary package I downloaded.
> 
> Edit: My mistake, they are still were they were, I'm just on my laptop and didn't have access to my bookmarks.
> 
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-mkl-benchmarks-suite
> LinX 0.6.6E (or newer)? Six threads? A moderate amount of memory selected (30-40k problem size usually works)?
> 
> What clock speeds are you running?


Having trouble finding anything newer than 06.4 Linx, are there different types?

Appreciate the link!


----------



## zipper17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Hello everyone, fairly new here to the Broadwell-e overclocking world. I seem to be having some issues with my overclocks. I seem to be getting stable enough after an hour or so of AIDA64 and running 11x on Intel Burn test, settings "Very high". Also I've ran 30x intel burn times at settings "High".
> 
> *Once or twice a month I get this weird shutdown, which my pc restarts from and automatically enters BIOS. I get a message saying that some of my settings could be causing the instability, this recommends setting optimized defaults.* I'm thinking I'm setting something that's causing instability in the very long run that no short term stability test could pick out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LLC - extreme
> PWN phase control - extreme perf
> 
> Vcore - adaptive 1.33 for 4.3ghz
> VRIN input - 1.95v
> RING -1.126v at 34 uncore (cant get anything stable over this number even with 1.35v
> 
> All else is set to *auto* and this is with RAM using XMP profile 1.2v for 2400mhz as suggested by the manufacturer.


I suspect that symptom looks like an unstable RAM (Shutdown and then Comeback to BIOS.)
Personally In my system that symptom always happen if something wrong with RAM settings.
CPU/GPU unstable is unlikely back to BIOS, they usually produce crash, bsod, error in programs, freeze, it needs reboot.

Try set everything manually voltage, timings etc instead auto XMP. Download aida64 and looks into SPD timings, notes everything on papers , go to bios set manually everything.

Try downclock the RAM or different Timings value. or try a different memory kit.

cmiiw just my 2 cents.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I think Intel put them behind a log in wall recently, I'll see if I can find another source or upload the last binary package I downloaded.
> 
> Edit: My mistake, they are still were they were, I'm just on my laptop and didn't have access to my bookmarks.
> 
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-mkl-benchmarks-suite
> LinX 0.6.6E (or newer)? Six threads? A moderate amount of memory selected (30-40k problem size usually works)?
> 
> What clock speeds are you running?


Having trouble finding anything newer than 06.4 Linx, are there different types?

Appreciate the link!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zipper17*
> 
> I suspect that symptom looks like an unstable RAM (Shutdown and then Comeback to BIOS.)
> Personally In my system that symptom always happen if something wrong with RAM settings.
> CPU/GPU unstable is unlikely back to BIOS, they usually produce crash, bsod, error in programs, freeze, it needs reboot.
> 
> Try set everything manually voltage, timings etc instead auto XMP. Download aida64 and looks into SPD timings, notes everything on papers , go to bios set manually everything.
> 
> Try downclock the RAM or different Timings value. or try a different memory kit.
> 
> cmiiw just my 2 cents.


Thanks for the feedback, i'll check a few things.


----------



## Yomny

I also tried downloading the binaries for windows in the link and adding what i thought was the correct application to the IBT files but got an error.

PS- I tried entering the offset for AVX and ran IBT, indeed it dropped multiplier by the offset amount so its definitely using AVX just not sure which one lol.

Since its what i've been using to stress my system is stable at the moment using AVX so no need to select and offset.


----------



## Blameless

I did find LinX 0.7.0 with the new binaries included: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?201670-LinX-A-simple-Linpack-interface&p=5250469&viewfull=1#post5250469

If you have issues with that one not working, use this: https://www.mediafire.com/?s7sufl664nm5omn


----------



## addicTix

Hey guys,

I'm trying to overclock my i7 6800k.
Am I seeing that right, that I have to set my CPU Input Voltage to around 1.8-1.9V? Or at least 0.4V higher than my cpu voltage (for example, I want to run my CPU with 1.25V, then I would have to set my CPU input voltage to at least 1.65V?)

Also, Core Temp, Real Temp, HWInfo etc. show wrong temperatures... They're too low.
For example, on desktop I have 20°C which is even or the same as my room temperature, in BIOS it says ~30-35°C (depends if I cold started and boot in Bios or if I was playing before).
These are temperatures when under 100% load with Prime95: http://prntscr.com/do2qrj
They can't be right.
So how much °C do I have to add to know my real temperature? I mean, when BIOS shows like 30°C and desktop only 20°C, I assume I have to add ~10-15°C?
But why are the programs showing wrong temperatures? How can I make sure everythings nice and cool?

As a cooler I'm using BeQuiet Silent Loop 120mm


----------



## cg4200

Hey all , I have a question or a couple ..
I have been working on getting lowest voltage stable for 4.6 running real bench for 1 to 2 hours so far 1.38 is good while running [email protected] so one of my questions would be in the cupid screen shot under under vid voltage which is 1.382 would be
IA voltage 1.413 what would that represent??I run on msi procarbon no llc options like my old asus running 95% enthusiast setting.. I have most of my volts manual tuned quick rundown cpu core 1.38-ring1.100-dram1.39-
cpu sa 1.100 -cpuvcio1.080-vccin1.915 any help and good explanation would be great thanks...
Second it seems I can run 34 uncore at 1.100 but to get to 35 would be huge voltage jump 1.32.volts what is safest volts for uncore and cpu voltage ?? my temps aren't bad just curious what max volts I could use to get to my goal of 4.7 core thinking 1.44 anyone running that high?? 
Thanks again


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *addicTix*
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm trying to overclock my i7 6800k.
> Am I seeing that right, that I have to set my CPU Input Voltage to around 1.8-1.9V? Or at least 0.4V higher than my cpu voltage (for example, I want to run my CPU with 1.25V, then I would have to set my CPU input voltage to at least 1.65V?)
> 
> Also, Core Temp, Real Temp, HWInfo etc. show wrong temperatures... They're too low.
> For example, on desktop I have 20°C which is even or the same as my room temperature, in BIOS it says ~30-35°C (depends if I cold started and boot in Bios or if I was playing before).
> These are temperatures when under 100% load with Prime95: http://prntscr.com/do2qrj
> They can't be right.
> So how much °C do I have to add to know my real temperature? I mean, when BIOS shows like 30°C and desktop only 20°C, I assume I have to add ~10-15°C?
> But why are the programs showing wrong temperatures? How can I make sure everythings nice and cool?
> 
> As a cooler I'm using BeQuiet Silent Loop 120mm


VCCIN should be AT LEAST 0.4V higher than vcore... so running 1.3V vcore and VCCIN at 1.9V is fine - it is still AT LEAST 0.4V higher. MOst OCs require 1.9-1,95V VCIN. the spec min for the processor is like 1.85V VCCIN.
FIll out rigbuilder and add your rig to your signature block so we know what gear you are working with. Temp in bios will depend on how you have it set to boot in bios (max non-turbo, etc). And stop with p95 on this platform until you understand the CPU temps and voltages better. It's from the Jurassic age of stability testing - start with AID64 or realbench or something.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Hey all , I have a question or a couple ..
> I have been working on getting lowest voltage stable for 4.6 running real bench for 1 to 2 hours so far 1.38 is good while running [email protected] so one of my questions would be in the cupid screen shot under under vid voltage which is 1.382 would be
> IA voltage 1.413 what would that represent??I run on msi procarbon no llc options like my old asus running 95% enthusiast setting.. I have most of my volts manual tuned quick rundown cpu core 1.38-ring1.100-dram1.39-
> cpu sa 1.100 -cpuvcio1.080-vccin1.915 any help and good explanation would be great thanks...
> Second it seems I can run 34 uncore at 1.100 but to get to 35 would be huge voltage jump 1.32.volts what is safest volts for uncore and cpu voltage ?? my temps aren't bad just curious what max volts I could use to get to my goal of 4.7 core thinking 1.44 anyone running that high??
> Thanks again


the problem is hwinfo cpuID etc. use AID64 and the voltyages read correctly with the correct labels. CPUz will not read vcore on this platform - only the requested VID.
Keep uncore/cache under 1.3V. 1.44V core is running high, but several folks around here are up there too. just depends on how you use the rig and whether you expect it to last for many years.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Hey all , I have a question or a couple ..
> I have been working on getting lowest voltage stable for 4.6 running real bench for 1 to 2 hours so far 1.38 is good while running [email protected] so one of my questions would be in the cupid screen shot under under vid voltage which is 1.382 would be
> IA voltage 1.413 what would that represent??I run on msi procarbon no llc options like my old asus running 95% enthusiast setting.. I have most of my volts manual tuned quick rundown cpu core 1.38-ring1.100-dram1.39-
> cpu sa 1.100 -cpuvcio1.080-vccin1.915 any help and good explanation would be great thanks...
> Second it seems I can run 34 uncore at 1.100 but to get to 35 would be huge voltage jump 1.32.volts what is safest volts for uncore and cpu voltage ?? my temps aren't bad just curious what max volts I could use to get to my goal of 4.7 core thinking 1.44 anyone running that high??
> Thanks again


I have a bit of experience with the uncore. I was't able to get over 34, not even with 1.3 ring voltage. It seems the cpu stability had something to do with it. I'd say test the cpu first and be sure to use not just one but at least two different stressing utilities. I rather like Intel Burn test, run it on very high setting with all threads, at least 15 times. After exhausting amounts of cpu testing, now im got 35 cache at 1.17.

I also set my VRIN or input voltage .5 over the vcore.

Currently at 4.3ghz w/1.34 35 uncore 1.17

Also choose one monitoring tool and stick to it, they should all be fairly similar otherwise you'll end up nuts with all the different numbers. I use HWinfo64, this goesn't give me Ring voltage so i check out hwmonitor for that.


----------



## addicTix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> VCCIN should be AT LEAST 0.4V higher than vcore... so running 1.3V vcore and VCCIN at 1.9V is fine - it is still AT LEAST 0.4V higher. MOst OCs require 1.9-1,95V VCIN. the spec min for the processor is like 1.85V VCCIN.
> FIll out rigbuilder and add your rig to your signature block so we know what gear you are working with. Temp in bios will depend on how you have it set to boot in bios (max non-turbo, etc). And stop with p95 on this platform until you understand the CPU temps and voltages better. It's from the Jurassic age of stability testing - start with AID64 or realbench or something.


Yeah I set the CPU Input Voltage to 1.9V now.
And I'm not using prime95 for stability test, just a quick test to see if the Voltage is set correctly under load.
I'm not using any stress-test to see if my CPU is stable, I just play some CPU demanding games and see if there are any issues.
But what do you mean with "...until you understand the CPU temps and voltages better"? I mean, I'm just wondering why core temp, realtemp, hwinfo etc. showing such low temperatures









The only thing I did now was setting the CPU input voltage to 1.9V, the VCore to override mode and 1.256V and the CPU multiplier to 42.
I didn't change any other voltages yet.
This is how HWmonitor looks like now: http://prnt.sc/do5xzh


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *addicTix*
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm trying to overclock my i7 6800k.
> Am I seeing that right, that I have to set my CPU Input Voltage to around 1.8-1.9V? Or at least 0.4V higher than my cpu voltage (for example, I want to run my CPU with 1.25V, then I would have to set my CPU input voltage to at least 1.65V?)
> 
> Also, Core Temp, Real Temp, HWInfo etc. show wrong temperatures... They're too low.
> For example, on desktop I have 20°C which is even or the same as my room temperature, in BIOS it says ~30-35°C (depends if I cold started and boot in Bios or if I was playing before).
> These are temperatures when under 100% load with Prime95: http://prntscr.com/do2qrj
> They can't be right.
> So how much °C do I have to add to know my real temperature? I mean, when BIOS shows like 30°C and desktop only 20°C, I assume I have to add ~10-15°C?
> But why are the programs showing wrong temperatures? How can I make sure everythings nice and cool?
> 
> As a cooler I'm using BeQuiet Silent Loop 120mm


dont use more than 1 app to monitor temps.make sure only 1 is running.update to latest mobo bios.
1.25v is not going to need stability testing if you at say 4.2ghz...
try 1.3v 4.4ghz etc...
you cant start ocing if you dont know what to set vccid or other volts and if you cant view temps as yet.


----------



## addicTix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> dont use more than 1 app to monitor temps.make sure only 1 is running.update to latest mobo bios.
> 1.25v is not going to need stability testing if you at say 4.2ghz...
> try 1.3v 4.4ghz etc...
> you cant start ocing if you dont know what to set vccid or other volts and if you cant view temps as yet.


Only one is running, Mainboard bios is the latest version.
Also using only one app for temps
I mean, the CPU Input Voltage.. even the description of my mainboard says, that its recommended to set it between 1.8-1.9V - So I don't think thats an issue.
And VCore is set to 1.256v which is also fine, as you already said.
But about the temps, I mean I don't think they're too high yet. I'm using a decent cooler, voltage is not too high... Still strange why I can't monitor the temps


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *addicTix*
> 
> Yeah I set the CPU Input Voltage to 1.9V now.
> And I'm not using prime95 for stability test, just a quick test to see if the Voltage is set correctly under load.
> I'm *not using any stress-test to see if my CPU is stable, I just play some CPU demanding games and see if there are any issues.*
> But what do you mean with "...until you understand the CPU temps and voltages better"? I mean, I'm just wondering why core temp, realtemp, hwinfo etc. showing such low temperatures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I did now was setting the CPU input voltage to 1.9V, the VCore to override mode and 1.256V and the CPU multiplier to 42.
> I didn't change any other voltages yet.
> This is how HWmonitor looks like now: http://prnt.sc/do5xzh


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *addicTix*
> 
> Only one is running, Mainboard bios is the latest version.
> Also using only one app for temps
> I mean, the CPU Input Voltage.. even the description of my mainboard says, that its recommended to set it between 1.8-1.9V - So I don't think thats an issue.
> And VCore is set to 1.256v which is also fine, as you already said.
> But about the temps, I mean I don't think they're too high yet. I'm using a decent cooler, voltage is not too high... Still strange why I can't monitor the temps


Unless you changed the Tj in bios (some will let you) don't worry about the temps being reported in that program (which is a problem itself, really try AID64 and see if they report the same - just not at the same time - can have a polling clash). I run 1.95V VCCIN, and have been at that level on 2 x99 boards - one for, what.. almost two years now.

Testing satbiloty outside of the apps you plan to use is important to do.. especially memory. Use HCiMemtest for that. But if a crash or OS reinstall is not a bother for ya, just enjoy the rig!


----------



## addicTix

I didn't change the Tj, its on default.
I'm trying AID64 later, then I'll report back.

I mean, I can use stability tests.. But I'm not sure if thats needed, like its a very unrealistic scenario in some cases.
But I'll try the memory test









And what you mean, if crashing or reinstalling OS doesn't bother me?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *addicTix*
> 
> I didn't change the Tj, its on default.
> I'm trying AID64 later, then I'll report back.
> 
> I mean, I can use stability tests.. But I'm not sure if thats needed, like its a very unrealistic scenario in some cases.
> But I'll try the memory test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what you mean, *if crashing or reinstalling OS doesn't bother me*?


this can result from a bad OC.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Cant seem to get more than 155 gflops


For best results each thread needs to run on a single core so if using HTT with an i7-6800k then six threads total. You may need to set affinity for the application or launcher in which case ensure core parking is disabled.


----------



## ttg35fort

My rig components are listed under my signature. I have a strange issue that has popped up.

I was stable for over 3 months with the settings shown in the pictures below. It passed Intel Burn test on high for 10 runs, LinX for 10 runs at 16331 problem size, and Prime95 for 10 hours. A couple of months ago I updated to bios version 401, and it still passed all of the same burn in tests and remained stable until a few days ago when the computer would not boot. I reset the bios and re-initiated the same overclock profile. Again, yesterday, the computer would not boot. Any ideas what would cause this after being stable for over 3 months?

I updated the bios this morning with the latest version, but for now I just have it set to the automatic overclock settings. When I updated the bios, my overclock profiles disappeared for some reason. Last time I updated the bios they did not disappear.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ttg35fort*
> 
> My rig components are listed under my signature. I have a strange issue that has popped up.
> 
> I was stable for over 3 months with the settings shown in the pictures below. It passed Intel Burn test on high for 10 runs, LinX for 10 runs at 16331 problem size, and Prime95 for 10 hours. A couple of months ago I updated to bios version 401, and it still passed all of the same burn in tests and remained stable until a few days ago when the computer would not boot. I reset the bios and re-initiated the same overclock profile. Again, yesterday, the computer would not boot. Any ideas what would cause this after being stable for over 3 months?
> 
> I updated the bios this morning with the latest version, but for now I just have it set to the automatic overclock settings. When I updated the bios, my overclock profiles disappeared for some reason. Last time I updated the bios they did not disappear.


Strange things happen but so many factors could alter a "stable OC". I personally like to run IBT for about 25 times in Very high settings(all threads). Then(same cpu) run IBT with 6 cores @ very high also for another 20 times while running a GPU bench like valley or heaven, you'll notice your cpu temps will go up more than when just testing CPU alone.

I would not try to go to the same OC settings you had before and since your changed the bios, you'll need a fresh start.

I noticed you have 1.39v to cpu for your45 Oc and with this, input voltage on auto at 1.92. I like to run .5+ on my input voltage from the vcore. So for your 45 cpu try 2.0v input voltage(not on auto) and that same 1.39vcore.

Leave cache settings auto or stock, not overclocked and try to get a stable cpu clock first.

My .2c









PS- Once cpu is stable or at least passes the tests I mentioned, start 34x on the cache multi. I could run 35x with just 1.18 on ring voltage but I cant for the life of me get anything higher than 35x, I see you're at 37.

Another PS- Any particular reason why your AVX offset is set so low, lower than even stock frequency? Different mobo's so a few things may be different but the cpu's should behave similarly.


----------



## ttg35fort

Thank you for the suggestions.

Before manually overclocking, I started with the auto-overclock as a starting point, then made adjustments from there. I did not change the AVX offset, so it probably was a value generated by the auto-overclock. When I re-do the overclock, I'll play with it.


----------



## Yomny

Sounds good.

Honestly at times I think I have a stable clock then something goes wrong, after having to start again I end up with a cleaner higher and more stable clock. I guess starting overs not so bad


----------



## DADDYDC650

I settled on 4.3Ghz using 1.29v and cache at 35. Never crashes at these settings. I could eventually get 4.4Ghz stable but I'd rather use my PC instead of testing all the time. Not worth the time invested to get 100Mhz more that I'll never notice. If I want to bench at 4.4-4.5 at least I know what settings to run. Just won't be 24/7 stable and I'm fine with it.


----------



## lutjens

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I settled on 4.3Ghz using 1.29v and cache at 35. Never crashes at these settings. I could eventually get 4.4Ghz stable but I'd rather use my PC instead of testing all the time. Not worth the time invested to get 100Mhz more that I'll never notice. If I want to bench at 4.4-4.5 at least I know what settings to run. Just won't be 24/7 stable and I'm fine with it.


I settled on nearly the exact same settings on my i7-6950X, except that I'm at 1.25V for both cache and core. More speed just isn't worth risking the chip with more voltage...


----------



## R432

It seems like Battlefield 1 is good stress test for 6800k.

I have driven OCCT Large Data/Linpack, Prime95 small fttps,intelburntest, realbench, Aida64 stress test from 30mins to couple hours but it cannot make my overlock unstable [email protected] + 4x4gb 3000mhz @1.35v

Nevertheless 3 hours session with BF1 (gpu not overclocked) suprised with bsod : whea_uncorrectable_error









What is the magic behind this?


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *R432*
> 
> It seems like Battlefield 1 is good stress test for 6800k.
> 
> I have driven OCCT Large Data/Linpack, Prime95 small fttps,intelburntest, realbench, Aida64 stress test from 30mins to couple hours but it cannot make my overlock unstable [email protected] + 4x4gb 3000mhz @1.35v
> 
> Nevertheless 3 hours session with BF1 (gpu not overclocked) suprised with bsod : whea_uncorrectable_error
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the magic behind this?


Only real way to test stability is to run a few different stress tests and then use your pc like you normally would. A lot of folks claim their their CPU's are stable just by running a couple of stress tests and then browsing the net without fail. Throw a couple of different programs and games in the mix and they'll be in for a rude awakening.


----------



## Yomny

Have to agree with the ^
I've tested and tested and out of no where one day, reboot. What the hell, at this point I'm at 1.37v for 4.3ghz. The temps aren't really an issue as I barely hit 61c but damn so much voltage for that clock?

I have CPU input @ 1.88v(usually go for .5 over vcore), ring(no uncore overclock) @ 1.1 and that's about it. I crashed after a few days thinking my 1.36v 43x was stable.

This is not using any avx offsets.

At the moment just testing CPU, no cache OC and memory at rock speeds, verified volts for ram is ok.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Only real way to test stability is to run a few different stress tests and then use your pc like you normally would. A lot of folks claim their their CPU's are stable just by running a couple of stress tests and then browsing the net without fail. Throw a couple of different programs and games in the mix and they'll be in for a rude awakening.


Hey look! I created a video using Nero and did some editing on raw format photos in Lightroom and didn't get surprised!


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Hey look! I created a video using Nero and did some editing on raw format photos in Lightroom and didn't get surprised!


Sweet! Now we all know those 2 programs editing a couple of raw photos is the ultimate stress test!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Sweet! Now we all know those 2 programs editing a couple of raw photos is the ultimate stress test!


No, I stress test with RealBench, Aida (cache) and GSAT.


----------



## Silent Scone

If anyone is interested in the new Rysen performance demonstrated by AMD, you can do a comparison with the Blender file they've made available. Worth noting AMD ran this on version 2.77a, not 2.78 like the documentation says (pointed out by a photo from SweClockers.com).

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3151464/hardware/you-can-find-out-how-your-cpu-compares-to-amds-ryzen-for-free.html

The time to beat is 36 seconds. AMD didn't use any turbo functionality during the demonstration, and to show IPC, they lowered the 6900K to 3.4Ghz to match the SR7 8 core part.

6900K @ 3.4



6850K @ 4.4


----------



## DADDYDC650

if Ryzen costs around $500-600 and overclocks to around 4.4Ghz or more, I might have to jump ship.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Rumor has it, it supposedly can OC to 5ghz on air. If that is true, 5.5ghz on water?

https://www.techpowerup.com/229090/amds-upcoming-ryzen-chips-to-reportedly-overclock-5-ghz-on-air


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> Rumor has it, it supposedly can OC to 5ghz on air. If that is true, 5.5ghz on water?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/229090/amds-upcoming-ryzen-chips-to-reportedly-overclock-5-ghz-on-air


It only hit 5Ghz on air using a single core.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Link please.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> Rumor has it, it supposedly can OC to 5ghz on air. If that is true, 5.5ghz on water?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/229090/amds-upcoming-ryzen-chips-to-reportedly-overclock-5-ghz-on-air


Canard reported that they'd heard it had hit 5Ghz on a single core. If you find the article they posted on the 30th and translate, you'll find that statement there. Nothing conclusive yet regarding Zen overclocking.

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_m&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.cpchardware.com/cpc-hardware-n31-precisions-elucubrations/
Quote:


> The presence of the string of the current number, which is decoded in "ZenOC @ Air = 5G" in this issue has been chatting on the forums for 2 days. Being unmasked, we owe you some details. First, we did not summarize a test in a few bits. If we had been able to test ourselves overclocking, we would have told you openly in the preview. In spite of everything, we know with almost certainty that the CPU that we used for the tests actually came close to the 5 GHz with an (huge) air-dissipator. The I / O multiplier is not clamped at this time and is configured in steps of 0.25x. One heart, however, was active; The Motherboard VRMs seemed at that time too unstable to test with all of the cores. Other Ryzen ES are currently in the hands of overclockers and you should not delay to learn more: a demonstration of overclocking could occur at the CES if good results are achieved.
> 
> -


----------



## dbLIVEdb

buildzoid user from Reddit
I don't have a Zen but I know people who do.

I continue to stand by my comment about 5G not happening on air without too much voltage. This doesn't disprove the statement of [email protected]=5G however I wouldn't get your hopes up because we don't know how many cores or volts actually managed that clock. (my sources never gave me absolute max clock just that it does about X.X for daily use)

For all those wondering about X.X. Well lets just say that I am pleased with X.X.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

VulkanBros said:
Hmm my FX-9590 was running fine on air with 5 GHz and 5.2 GHz with a H110 - so why should the ZEN not do that??
Maybe, just maybe, the reason is because your CPU is already on 5ghz when turbo is enabled?

The H110 is a hell out a beast CPU cooler. Try overclock your 9590 to 6.9ghz and tell me the results

3.4ghz + 47% = 5.0ghz
4.7ghz + 47% = 6.9ghz


----------



## dbLIVEdb

28/12/16
EDIT1:
The string IS in the printed publication.. Thanks u/DotaldTrump for checking out the magazine.
29/12/16
EDIT2:
CanardPC will publish something tomorrow that will expand on the 5Ghz string and more. Crappy google translated FR -> EN
They have done this before in March 2016, putting a binary string that once translated said "INTEL GPU = AMD". Around 7-9 dec 2016 it was known that Intel finished its deal with nVidia for IP to use in their GPUs and would switch to AMD IP for the future along other stuff. Lots of results show up on a google search. Looks like they were right.
Also, these very same guys got access to Athlon 64 8 months before release, back in 2003. Yeah.
29/12/16
EDIT3:
Thanks Guru3D for not mentioning where you got the news or who provided the printed magazine picture with the string as confirmation. This is where it all started AFAIK. I just took it here to give it more reach. It seems like a good call, we got u/buildzoid to expand on this while risking his life to the NDA police! Thanks








It's replicating!
30/12/16
EDIT4:
CanardPC's explanation on all of this. Crappy google translate'd FR -> EN
Basically, their source tested the same chip used for the benchmarks. That early sample on a flaky motherboard could sustain 5GHz on a single core with a big heatsink, with the VRM not being able to handle all the 8 cores at these clocks. There's the possibility that CES 2017 will host an overclocking demonstration of Zen!
Zen can clock! Properly overengineered motherboards will be able to make it fly!


----------



## DADDYDC650

Highly doubt 8 core Zen can run stable with all cores at 5Ghz on air. Be lucky if folks can run stable around 4.4Ghz.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

SenseMi Stage 4+5: Neural Net Prediction and Smart Prefetch
Every generation of CPUs from the big companies come with promises of better prediction and better pre-fetch models. These are both important to hide latency within a core which might be created by instruction decode, queuing, or more usually, moving data between caches and main memory to be ready for the instructions. With Ryzen, AMD is introducing its new Neural Net Prediction hardware model along with Smart Pre-Fetch.

If this thing OCs I smell a good chip coming our way.

AMD is announcing this as a 'true artificial network inside every Zen processor that builds a model of decisions based on software execution'. This can mean one of several things, ranging from actual physical modelling of instruction workflow to identify critical paths to be accelerated (unlikely) or statistical analysis of what is coming through the engine and attempting to work during downtime that might accelerate future instructions (such as inserting an instruction to decode into an idle decoder in preparation for when it actually comes through, therefore ends up using the micro-op cache and making it quicker).

Also this seems like some sort of adaptive boost feature capped only by temperature. IMO 95W isnt a big enough draw for that to NOT work at low clocks.







Seriously if it draws like broadwell, You can BET on 4.4ghz at 170W easily. This 25mhz bus increment might help keep that dialed or bork things we shall see.

SenseMi Stage 3: Extended Frequency Range (XFR)
The main marketing points of on-the-fly frequency adjustment are typically down to low idle power and higher performance when needed. The current processors on the market have rated speeds on the box which are fixed frequency settings that can be chosen by the processor/OS depending on what level of performance is possible/required. AMD's new XFR mode seems to do away with this, offering what sounds like an unlimited bound on performance.

The concept here is that, beyond the rated turbo mode, if there is sufficient cooling then the CPU will continue to increase the clock speed and voltage until a cooling limit is reached. This is somewhat murky territory, though AMD claims that a multitude of different environments can be catered for the feature. AMD was not clear if this limit is determined by power consumption, temperature, or if they can protect from issues such as a bad frequency/voltage setting.

By the sounds of it, this is a dynamic adjustment rather than just another embedded look-up table such as P-states. AMD states that XFR is a fully automated system with no user intervention, although I suspect it will still have an on/off switch in the BIOS. It also somewhat negates overclocking if your cooling can support it, which then brings up the issue for overclocking in general: casual users may not ever need to step into the overclocking world if the CPU does it all automatically.

At any case, it sounds more feature rich than my 6800k.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/276371-Whats-better-P4-2-8Ghz-or-Athlon-XP-2500-OC-ed-to-a-3200

This is looking all to familiar for some reason.









Is Octane going for memory as well?


----------



## Silent Scone

I posted the info for other BWE users, this isn't a Zen info thread


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I posted the info for other BWE users, this isn't a Zen info thread


Yes, please! Let's stick to the subject at hand!


----------



## Silent Scone

It's a neat little benchmark for comparison. Should have expected people to start talking speculatively, is a forum after all







.

[EDIT]

4.5


----------



## Yomny

Going nuts here trying to get this darn chip stable @ 4.3, yes i know a mere 4.3, its crazy. One day i passes 30 runs of IBT at Very high and while i know this is no definitive way to call anything stable it at least lets you know quickly if you have issues.

I'm not OC'ing anything but cpu to be certain of any errors and the cause. I'm running 1.85v Input and had 4.3ghz at 1.36vcore, it was stable, i did a lot of testing including both GPU running valley/heaven and 6 threads on the cpu with IBT. It was ok and seemed stable for a few days playing games and anything else, just today it crashed doing nothing much. I went up to as high as 1.38vcore and it crashed in less than 5 IBT runs









How is it that it crashes sooner with more volts than with less volts which previously ran over 30 runs of IBT??

I've set LLC to one step before max, which keeps input voltage steady. Any input, any thing that i should look out for. I've even set RING voltage to 1.1 without overclocking the uncore side. Seems IBT is letting some things get by but i use it because its rather quick. Any suggestions would be very helpful.

LLC: Turbo
Input 1.9v
vcore 1.37v(1.38 windows)
Ring 1.1v(1.126 windows)

Happy new years to all.


----------



## ucode

Then maybe it would be best to run at 4.2GHz rather than at the edge of instability. FWIW that's still 200MHz better than my own 6800k.


----------



## Silent Scone

x256 Bench 2.0 4K

6850K @ 4.5 (RB Stable)


----------



## Nicklas0912

6900K @4.5Ghz and 3.8Ghz Cache.

Strong CPU score !









Beatting most 5960x at 4.8Ghz +


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Going nuts here trying to get this darn chip stable @ 4.3, yes i know a mere 4.3, its crazy. One day i passes 30 runs of IBT at Very high and while i know this is no definitive way to call anything stable it at least lets you know quickly if you have issues.
> 
> I'm not OC'ing anything but cpu to be certain of any errors and the cause. I'm running 1.85v Input and had 4.3ghz at 1.36vcore, it was stable, i did a lot of testing including both GPU running valley/heaven and 6 threads on the cpu with IBT. It was ok and seemed stable for a few days playing games and anything else, just today it crashed doing nothing much. I went up to as high as 1.38vcore and it crashed in less than 5 IBT runs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that it crashes sooner with more volts than with less volts which previously ran over 30 runs of IBT??
> 
> I've set LLC to one step before max, which keeps input voltage steady. Any input, any thing that i should look out for. I've even set RING voltage to 1.1 without overclocking the uncore side. Seems IBT is letting some things get by but i use it because its rather quick. Any suggestions would be very helpful.
> 
> LLC: Turbo
> Input 1.9v
> vcore 1.37v(1.38 windows)
> Ring 1.1v(1.126 windows)
> 
> Happy new years to all.


Why not use 4.2Ghz or 4.3Ghz with an avx offset? It'll make your life a lot easier and you won't see a performance difference.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> 6900K @4.5Ghz and 3.8Ghz Cache.
> 
> Strong CPU score !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beatting most 5960x at 4.8Ghz +


Next time try 3400mhz c13 memory like some other crazy people in this thread


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Why not use 4.2Ghz or 4.3Ghz with an avx offset? It'll make your life a lot easier and you won't see a performance difference.


You know that's exactly what I turned to. Realized the little guy likes 42 just fine without going into 1.38v+ territory.

At the moment running 44 @ 1.38v with avx 2 which runs [email protected] volts. Testing turns out stable

TESTED- avx and non avx prime95, tested OCCT(non linpack) which runs avx instructions, ran Real bench which is non avx and it's all happy so far. Great scores on cinebench so far lol since it's using 44 multi.

Working on uncore as we speak.

As always appreciate your help!


----------



## Iceman2733

What have you guys found is the actual performance gains from O/Cing the Cache? I have 3200mhz memory I wasn't sure what the gains would be O/Cing the Cache would gain.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What have you guys found is the actual performance gains from O/Cing the Cache? I have 3200mhz memory I wasn't sure what the gains would be O/Cing the Cache would gain.


Personally I got 20 points more in cinebench going form 28 stock in my CPU to 35 uncore. Temps are basically the same using 1.25ring voltage so why not. I can't go higher than that without much more juice.

Set ring volt to 1.1 which is basically stock and raise uncore multi until you can't anymore, this is basically getting free performance since you're not messing with the voltage.

I think the 6800k will do 34 easily with stock volts or just a tad over. I recall having it stable with about 1.18v on cache

Anyone else done any testing? Not really sure where this uncore would come in handy but it does improve something lol.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What have you guys found is the actual performance gains from O/Cing the Cache? I have 3200mhz memory I wasn't sure what the gains would be O/Cing the Cache would gain.


that's where the benefit is - as the ram freq increases the effect of a Cache OC increases. If the board is capable, you should be able to run cache in the 3.6-3.8 range and stay below 1.3V on the cache voltage rail.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> You know that's exactly what I turned to. Realized the little guy likes 42 just fine without going into 1.38v+ territory.
> 
> At the moment running 44 @ 1.38v with avx 2 which runs [email protected] volts. Testing turns out stable
> 
> TESTED- avx and non avx prime95, tested OCCT(non linpack) which runs avx instructions, ran Real bench which is non avx and it's all happy so far. Great scores on cinebench so far lol since it's using 44 multi.
> 
> Working on uncore as we speak.
> 
> As always appreciate your help!


you can disable/enale AVX/FMA3 etc with the following commands as I posted earlier

_Just use the latest Prime95 and use the commands to disable FMA3 and AVX if you so wish... Explained in the undoco.txt file, zero obviously disables. Put the commands into the local.txt file. This way you get rid of all bugs that have been fixed while giving you an option to test without FMA3 or AVX (FMA obviously won't work if you disable AVX).

CpuSupportsAVX=0 or 1
CpuSupportsFMA3=0 or 1_


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> You know that's exactly what I turned to. Realized the little guy likes 42 just fine without going into 1.38v+ territory.
> 
> At the moment running 44 @ 1.38v with avx 2 which runs [email protected] volts. Testing turns out stable
> 
> TESTED- avx and non avx prime95, tested OCCT(non linpack) which runs avx instructions, ran Real bench which is non avx and it's all happy so far. Great scores on cinebench so far lol since it's using 44 multi.
> 
> Working on uncore as we speak.
> 
> As always appreciate your help!


I'm not sure which programs use AVX but games certainly do not. My rig usually runs at 4.3Ghz as far as I know.


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Next time try 3400mhz c13 memory like some other crazy people in this thread


My ram, can only do 3400MHZ CL15 I think









But will test a little later or tomrrow!


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm not sure which programs use AVX but games certainly do not. My rig usually runs at 4.3Ghz as far as I know.


I'm almost certain hardly any day to day software uses avx. Just glad I'm able to run 44 on most tasks and the offset will take care of the extra burden.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's where the benefit is - as the ram freq increases the effect of a Cache OC increases. If the board is capable, you should be able to run cache in the 3.6-3.8 range and stay below 1.3V on the cache voltage rail.
> you can disable/enale AVX/FMA3 etc with the following commands as I posted earlier
> 
> _Just use the latest Prime95 and use the commands to disable FMA3 and AVX if you so wish... Explained in the undoco.txt file, zero obviously disables. Put the commands into the local.txt file. This way you get rid of all bugs that have been fixed while giving you an option to test without FMA3 or AVX (FMA obviously won't work if you disable AVX).
> 
> CpuSupportsAVX=0 or 1
> CpuSupportsFMA3=0 or 1_


Thanks for this. I just got a copy of prime version 26 to do all my non avx testing.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Next time try 3400mhz c13 memory like some other crazy people in this thread


Hey, I resemble that remark!


----------



## ucode

@Yomny If using adaptive how much does the VID increase with AVX2 load?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Next time try 3400mhz c13 memory like some other crazy people in this thread


Hey! I just noticed we both have Areca SATA boards with Samsung 850s! Though yours are a bit more upscale


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> @Yomny If using adaptive how much does the VID increase with AVX2 load?


The thing is that at least with my board adaptive doesn't mean it goes up from a set point, it's adaptive under the set point. What I mean is if I set to 1.38, it won't go over that if it needs more, it'll undervolt to drop multiplier but it won't overvolt. With that said it still goes up 10mv from bios set voltage. So when I set it to 1.38 it'll go up to 1.39 under avx.

I could be mistaken but from what I understand adaptive on these boards like speedstep and c1s on other chipsets. It just allows your voltage to drop to lower multiplier when not in use or under lighter loads but it won't go over a set voltage, hence the reason you actually set the voltage in bios, otherwise it'll just be "auto".


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> 6900K @4.5Ghz and 3.8Ghz Cache.
> 
> Strong CPU score !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beatting most 5960x at 4.8Ghz +


Cinebench R15?


----------



## xTesla1856

Finally got my 6800K dialed in at 4.3GhZ and 1.32Vcore. Cache is still impossible to OC though, anything above the stock 31 multi just crashes. Is cache really this iffy on BW-E or is my chip just crap-tier?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Finally got my 6800K dialed in at 4.3GhZ and 1.32Vcore. Cache is still impossible to OC though, anything above the stock 31 multi just crashes. Is cache really this iffy on BW-E or is my chip just crap-tier?


Depends on the CPU, but aim for a voltage of 1.2v and see what multiplier the CPU is comfortable with. For instance mine at this voltage is able to maintain 3.6Ghz. I know users who leave uncore at stock, and there is no harm in this. The gains simply aren't worth investing time into, if not able to stay stable.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Depends on the CPU, but aim for a voltage of 1.2v and see what multiplier the CPU is comfortable with. For instance mine at this voltage is able to maintain 3.6Ghz.


My chip is quite weird, it does 4.1Ghz fully stable at just 1.1v. After that the voltage needed for higher multipliers gets exponentially higher, 1.28v for 4.2ghz and 1.32v for 4.3ghz. 4.4Ghz doesn't work even at 1.4v.


----------



## StullenAndi

It´s not weird, it´s called the sweet spot.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> My chip is quite weird, it does 4.1Ghz fully stable at just 1.1v. After that the voltage needed for higher multipliers gets exponentially higher, 1.28v for 4.2ghz and 1.32v for 4.3ghz. 4.4Ghz doesn't work even at 1.4v.


None are made equal, my 6850K does 4.4 at 1.34v. Temps can play a real hand in this too.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> It´s not weird, it´s called the sweet spot.


Yeah, you're right. Never really thought of it that way


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Cinebench R15?


Sadly it will only do Cinebench R15 at 4.4Ghz, no matter what volt I give it at 4.5Ghz.

4.5Ghz is Benchmark stable, like Firestirke,Timespy and stuff like that.
4.4Ghz around 182xx i R15.

heres 4.5Ghz with CL13 ram 3000Mhz, a little higher CPU score, with 3.675Mhz on Cache.
"NO GPU OC, just on stock"


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> Sadly it will only do Cinebench R15 at 4.4Ghz, no matter what volt I give it at 4.5Ghz.
> 
> 4.5Ghz is Benchmark stable, like Firestirke,Timespy and stuff like that.
> 4.4Ghz around 182xx i R15.
> 
> heres 4.5Ghz with CL13 ram 3000Mhz, a little higher CPU score, with 3.675Mhz on Cache.
> "NO GPU OC, just on stock"


Firestrike Physics is one of the least stressful benchmarks you can subject the CPU to. You only need fractional stability.


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Firestrike Physics is one of the least stressful benchmarks you can subject the CPU to. You only need fractional stability.


Yep, I know


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> Sadly it will only do Cinebench R15 at 4.4Ghz, no matter what volt I give it at 4.5Ghz.
> 
> 4.5Ghz is Benchmark stable, like Firestirke,Timespy and stuff like that.
> 4.4Ghz around 182xx i R15.
> 
> heres 4.5Ghz with CL13 ram 3000Mhz, a little higher CPU score, with 3.675Mhz on Cache.
> "NO GPU OC, just on stock"


heres my cinebench r15 result at 4.4ghz for reference, im trying to reach 1900 cinebench atm, will have to work at it.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> My chip is quite weird, it does 4.1Ghz fully stable at just 1.1v. After that the voltage needed for higher multipliers gets exponentially higher, 1.28v for 4.2ghz and 1.32v for 4.3ghz. 4.4Ghz doesn't work even at 1.4v.


lol, my i7-6800k needs 1.27V for 4.0GHz stable (regardless of AVX) and it doesn't even have one exceptional core to make use of Turbo Boost 3.0









Currently removed and trying out a cheaper HSW to see if it can do any better. :/


----------



## Silent Scone

CR15 4.5Ghz 1.4v (RB Stable)


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> heres my cinebench r15 result at 4.4ghz for reference, im trying to reach 1900 cinebench atm, will have to work at it.


I just made a fast one, it can do with lowere volt, but was in a rush







did not had alot of time.
4.4Ghz.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> heres my cinebench r15 result at 4.4ghz for reference, im trying to reach 1900 cinebench atm, will have to work at it.


R15 is very cache dependent and will pass with cache frequencies that will fail in nearly any other benchmark. try dialing up cache.


----------



## Yomny

Them scores, can't even get 1400


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Them scores, can't even get 1400


Not surprised, you're 2c/4t down, wouldn't worry yourself


----------



## djgar

Now I feel bad about this ...


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Now I feel bad about this ...


Is that on 4.6Ghz? the picture is really bad, so cant really see.

and how much volt you give







?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> Is that on 4.6Ghz? the picture is really bad, so cant really see.
> 
> and how much volt you give
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?


You need to click on it then click on "Original" and you get the full size. I'm currently running cache at 3700 instead of 3800 and 13-15-13-16 instead of 13-15-12-15 for 24/7 - see my volts in my sig.


----------



## Jpmboy

Daily settings - all background services running. core count... counts as Scone said.









6950X @ 4.3/3.7


5960X @ 4.7/4.4


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You need to click on it then click on "Original" and you get the full size. I'm currently running cache at 3700 instead of 3800 and 13-15-13-16 instead of 13-15-12-15 for 24/7 - see my volts in my sig.


and Vcore? it does not said that 100% right.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> and Vcore? it does not said that 100% right.


he's at 1.395V


----------



## Nicklas0912

No matter what im doing.

As soon I hit 4486 Mhz I cant get the cpu Cinebench stable anymore, no matter if I give it 1.445 volt.

But is stable at 4486Mhz at 1.393 Vcore.

at 4.5Ghz it stop after 5 sec, temps is max 63C.


----------



## Seus

Can anyone help me tune my overclock?

It doesn't pass even the first minute of OCCT Cpu test

i7-6800k 4.2ghz (X99 Asus strix motherboard, G skillz TridentZ 4x8gb kit)
CPU strap 100MHz
Vcore 1.24v
CPU system agent voltage 1.05
VCCIO CPU 1.10

Everything else is at default and XMP is disabled.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Can anyone help me tune my overclock?
> 
> It doesn't pass even the first minute of OCCT Cpu test
> 
> i7-6800k 4.2ghz (X99 Asus strix motherboard, G skillz TridentZ 4x8gb kit)
> CPU strap 100MHz
> Vcore 1.24v
> CPU system agent voltage 1.05
> VCCIO CPU 1.10
> 
> Everything else is at default and XMP is disabled.


have you tried to increase vcore??


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> have you tried to increase vcore??


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Can anyone help me tune my overclock?
> 
> It doesn't pass even the first minute of OCCT Cpu test
> 
> i7-6800k 4.2ghz (X99 Asus strix motherboard, G skillz TridentZ 4x8gb kit)
> CPU strap 100MHz
> Vcore 1.24v
> CPU system agent voltage 1.05
> VCCIO CPU 1.10
> 
> Everything else is at default and XMP is disabled.


I couldn't get 4.2 with that vcore specially if you have no avx offset. I run 42 at around 1.31vcore

Try 42 with at least 1.3v but still you may need 1.32 or so.
Input voltage or VRIN at 1.9v

I'm sure you may be able to fine tune the vcore from that but try that as long as your temps are fine.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> *
> *
> 
> I couldn't get 4.2 with that vcore specially if you have no avx offset. I run 42 at around 1.31vcore
> 
> Try 42 with at least 1.3v but still you may need 1.32 or so.
> Input voltage or VRIN at 1.9v
> 
> I'm sure you may be able to fine tune the vcore from that but try that as long as your temps are fine.


Ok I wasn't sure if I should bump up voltage or something else. I'll see what happens now.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> and Vcore? it does not said that 100% right.


It says it as it is - it's in adaptive mode with 1.395v turbo, so it will max out at 1.395v but vary with load.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Ok I wasn't sure if I should bump up voltage or something else. I'll see what happens now.


Supposedly anywhere up to 1.4v is ok for these guys, or so I've read in a few guides. I personally have 1.38 at 44 multiplier without issues at all. This all of course temperatures permitting. I like it under 70c max.

Have it read
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1722630/intel-god-quick-dirty-guide-4ghz-haswell.html

This ones very good as well

https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/3/


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Supposedly anywhere up to 1.4v is ok for these guys, or so I've read in a few guides. I personally have 1.38 at 44 multiplier without issues at all. This all of course temperatures permitting. I like it under 70c max.
> 
> Have it read
> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1722630/intel-god-quick-dirty-guide-4ghz-haswell.html
> 
> This ones very good as well
> 
> https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/3/


my 24/7 is 1.281V vcore. At times I bump it to 1.365V for 4400 core on this 6950X for certain jobs (higher and I use the Asus thermal control tool). Main thing... stay under 1.3V on cache voltage.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> my 24/7 is 1.281V vcore. At times I bump it to 1.365V for 4400 core on this 6950X for certain jobs (higher and I use the Asus thermal control tool). Main thing... stay under 1.3V on cache voltage.


True that, it's a nice overclock. What speeds for that 1.28v?
Those guides I posted go over most of those things.

I'm using 1.25 or so for my 35 uncore. I'll retest to see if I could use lower cache voltage. My systems is struggling to keep temps as cool as I'd like them.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> True that, also mentioned on that guide I posted.
> 
> I'm using 1.25 or so for my 35 uncore. I'll retest to see if I could use lower cache voltage. My systems is struggling to keep temps as cool as I'd like them.


cache voltage generates a lot of heat... surprising how much. core temps are important, but also keep an eye on package temperature.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> cache voltage generates a lot of heat... surprising how much. core temps are important, but also keep an eye on package temperature.


Just dropped it 10mv and tested out ok. Been gaming for the past hours, aside from a few other tests. I've set it 1.23 in bios but get 1.25 in HWmonitor.

Thanks for the heads up about the temps. I' always keep an eye out and make sure no number goes over 70c, which only happens when testing both gpu and cpu at the same time. No one single stress test could get it near it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Just dropped it 10mv and tested out ok. Been gaming for the past hours, aside from a few other tests. I've set it 1.23 in bios but get 1.25 in HWmonitor.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up about the temps. I' always keep an eye out and make sure no number goes over 70c, which only happens when testing both gpu and cpu at the same time. No one single stress test could get it near it.


cool. if you have aid64, the cache stress test does a prety good job of isolating it for stability testing.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Supposedly anywhere up to 1.4v is ok for these guys, or so I've read in a few guides. I personally have 1.38 at 44 multiplier without issues at all. This all of course temperatures permitting. I like it under 70c max.
> 
> Have it read
> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1722630/intel-god-quick-dirty-guide-4ghz-haswell.html
> 
> This ones very good as well
> 
> https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/3/


It's passing an hour of OCCT cpu test at 4.2ghz and 1.266v so far. Am I wasting my time lol Should I just bump it up to 1.30v or pull it back to 4.0ghz?

Sidenote: Hwmonitor shows Min 4084 MHz, Max 4338 MHz during this test. I set it to 4.2ghz in the BIOS. What gives?


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> R15 is very cache dependent and will pass with cache frequencies that will fail in nearly any other benchmark. try dialing up cache.


this is already at 3.5ghz cache
i can get cpu cache to 3.7ghz max at 1.3v cache volts
at 3.8ghz pc freezes / bsods.

im trying to break into 1900 cinebench ... seems hard.best i got is 1891 cinebench with cpu at 4.44ghz bclk at 101 and cpu at x44 . cpu vcore at 1.36v
cant push higher cos temps scrape 90's
also it seems that 4.5ghz will need more volts.. think maybe a custom loop will help atm im on aio


----------



## fromthewatt

oh also any tips on getting ram to 3400hz ?
currently im at 3200c14 15 15 30 1t @1.4v
vccsa 1.15v
vcio 1.1v

no matter wot ram timings or vccsa upto 1.2v it wont boot 3400hz. even if i disable training or loosen subs.
anybody have some tips that mite get me to 3400hz on ram?
btw im using samsung e die 4x4 xmp is 4000c19 .. so they should do 3400hz tbh


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> oh also any tips on getting ram to 3400hz ?
> currently im at 3200c14 15 15 30 1t @1.4v
> vccsa 1.15v
> vcio 1.1v
> 
> no matter wot ram timings or vccsa upto 1.2v it wont boot 3400hz. even if i disable training or loosen subs.
> anybody have some tips that mite get me to 3400hz on ram?
> btw im using samsung e die 4x4 xmp is 4000c19 .. so they should do 3400hz tbh


When 6900k first came, 3400mhz did not work on my RVE. New bios came, then 3400mhz was easy. On my Asus Strix x99 and 6850k, 3400mhz is easy too. So try the newest bios for you're MB. Or maybe the memory is not happy with 3400mhz. I'm using g.skill 3733mhz sticks in RVE @ 3400mhz and 3200 memory sticks for my strix @ 3400mhz.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> It's passing an hour of OCCT cpu test at 4.2ghz and 1.266v so far. Am I wasting my time lol Should I just bump it up to 1.30v or pull it back to 4.0ghz?
> 
> Sidenote: Hwmonitor shows Min 4084 MHz, Max 4338 MHz during this test. I set it to 4.2ghz in the BIOS. What gives?


OCCT is good and it tests avx so it's a good indication that you're passing an hour. Try intel burn test, set it to 20 runs and "very high". If you pass that you most likely will pass anything else lol. Also I find the stress test on Realbench to be pretty good it doesn't use avx instructions and it taxes your graphics card like hell which represents what your system may go through during gaming.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> this is already at 3.5ghz cache
> i can get cpu cache to 3.7ghz max at 1.3v cache volts
> at 3.8ghz pc freezes / bsods.
> 
> im trying to break into 1900 cinebench ... seems hard.best i got is 1891 cinebench with cpu at 4.44ghz bclk at 101 and cpu at x44 . cpu vcore at 1.36v
> cant push higher cos temps scrape 90's
> also it seems that 4.5ghz will need more volts.. think maybe a custom loop will help atm im on aio


Tried using avx offset, cinebench doesn't use avx so you'll be able to run the 45 with your current bolts maybe a tad more, at least just for benching and breaking those 1900.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> this is already at 3.5ghz cache
> i can get cpu cache to 3.7ghz max at 1.3v cache volts
> at 3.8ghz pc freezes / bsods.
> 
> im trying to break into 1900 cinebench ... seems hard.best i got is 1891 cinebench with cpu at 4.44ghz bclk at 101 and cpu at x44 . cpu vcore at 1.36v
> cant push higher cos temps scrape 90's
> also it seems that 4.5ghz will need more volts.. think maybe a custom loop will help atm im on aio


yeah, OS has an effect also. W7 will score higher than w10. That said, get cache to 3.7, and core to 4.4 (keep bclk at 100 for the next part, not 101) set 3400 with 14-16-16-40-1T and 1.45V vdimm. VCCSA in the 0.95 to 1.15V range (again, more vccsa is not always better on x99)... will it post back to bios? if yes, lower tRP to 14 or 15 and boot again. If that works, then you'll want to get tCWL down to 9. (don;t disable ram training). try r15 with tCWL=9 and as low as you can go with the first 3 timings.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> oh also any tips on getting ram to 3400hz ?
> currently im at 3200c14 15 15 30 1t @1.4v
> vccsa 1.15v
> vcio 1.1v
> 
> no matter wot ram timings or vccsa upto 1.2v it wont boot 3400hz. even if i disable training or loosen subs.
> anybody have some tips that mite get me to 3400hz on ram?
> btw im using samsung e die 4x4 xmp is 4000c19 .. so they should do 3400hz tbh


you can run 1.5V vdimm for 3400... just focus on vdimm, VCSA is not the solution and playing with it off a known stable setting is gonna cause more problems than solve. Once I set it at 1.000V, that works for 2666 thru 3400c13.


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, OS has an effect also. W7 will score higher than w10. That said, get cache to 3.7, and core to 4.4 (keep bclk at 100 for the next part, not 101) set 3400 with 14-16-16-40-1T and 1.45V vdimm. VCCSA in the 0.95 to 1.15V range (again, more vccsa is not always better on x99)... will it post back to bios? if yes, lower tRP to 14 or 15 and boot again. If that works, then you'll want to get tCWL down to 9. (don;t disable ram training). try r15 with tCWL=9 and as low as you can go with the first 3 timings.
> you can run 1.5V vdimm for 3400... just focus on vdimm, VCSA is not the solution and playing with it off a known stable setting is gonna cause more problems than solve. Once I set it at 1.000V, that works for 2666 thru 3400c13.


+1 rep

my latest score as mentioned previously


i will try the ram settings tonight, mite also try win7 over the weeknd for sure. ( any specific version of win 7 ? )
is it even possible to get similer cinebench vs a 5960x at 4.8ghz ? this specific 5960x gets 1944 cinebench @4.8ghz....its on custom loop though.
i think my aio is holding me back, but a 6900k at 4.5ghz should beat a 5960x @4.8ghz looking only at cpu specs ? im hoping to atleast match a 5960x clocked at 4.8ghz with my 6900k in cinebench....


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> +1 rep
> 
> my latest score as mentioned previously
> 
> 
> i will try the ram settings tonight, mite also try win7 over the weeknd for sure. ( any specific version of win 7 ? )
> is it even possible to get similer cinebench vs a 5960x at 4.8ghz ? this specific 5960x gets 1944 cinebench @4.8ghz....its on custom loop though.
> i think my aio is holding me back, *but a 6900k at 4.5ghz should beat a 5960x @4.8ghz looking only at cpu specs* ? im hoping to atleast match a 5960x clocked at 4.8ghz with my 6900k in cinebench....


it's not a simple comparison.. and R15 is not the best way to show the 6900K improvements. my 5960X at 4.7/4.4 does 1891 with a bunch of other programs/services running.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> OCCT is good and it tests avx so it's a good indication that you're passing an hour. Try intel burn test, set it to 20 runs and "very high". If you pass that you most likely will pass anything else lol. Also I find the stress test on Realbench to be pretty good it doesn't use avx instructions and it taxes your graphics card like hell which represents what your system may go through during gaming.


Well that didn't take long lol I stopped the test and when I restarted it, got an error immediately.

Is it normal that the core voltage gets higher than what I set it in BIOS? Same with the Core clocks going higher than what I've set it to.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Well that didn't take long lol I stopped the test and when I restarted it, got an error immediately.
> 
> Is it normal that the core voltage gets higher than what I set it in BIOS? Same with the Core clocks going higher than what I've set it to.


Not really normal unless something's out of whack with your mobo what you set in bios is what you should see in windows. Voltages do vary sligthy but very slightly. If you set 1.3 vcore you should be getting 1.35 not even with max settings on LLC. If your clocks are different than what's set in bios check to be sure your BLCK isn't changed or the gear ratio.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> 6900K @4.5Ghz and 3.8Ghz Cache.
> 
> Strong CPU score !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beatting most 5960x at 4.8Ghz +


That is a very nice CPU score for FireStrike. I'd hardly use that as any form of comparison between BWE and the ancient and decrepit HWE.









At the end of the day, the performance differences between the 6 and 8 core HWE and BWE parts are a wash with the 6950x providing the only real advantage. Cores, cores, cores!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> *Sadly it will only do Cinebench R15 at 4.4Ghz, no matter what volt I give it at 4.5Ghz.
> *
> 4.5Ghz is Benchmark stable, like Firestirke,Timespy and stuff like that.
> 4.4Ghz around 182xx i R15.
> 
> heres 4.5Ghz with CL13 ram 3000Mhz, a little higher CPU score, with 3.675Mhz on Cache.
> "NO GPU OC, just on stock"


That's why I asked for a Cinebench R15 score. FireStrike is just too damn easy to pass at what I consider unstable speeds.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> I just made a fast one, it can do with lowere volt, but was in a rush
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did not had alot of time.
> 4.4Ghz.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> No matter what im doing.
> 
> As soon I hit 4486 Mhz I cant get the cpu Cinebench stable anymore, no matter if I give it 1.445 volt.
> 
> But is stable at 4486Mhz at 1.393 Vcore.
> 
> at 4.5Ghz it stop after 5 sec, temps is max 63C.


Temps shoot up fast in Cinebench. Processes such at your monitoring software may freeze before you actually crash the Cinebench test giving you the impression that temps were still low, when in fact they were much higher at the time of the crash.

You can test this by setting a max CPU temp in BIOS with your 4.5 GHz overclock. Being that your last observed temps during your Cinebench test were in the area of 63c, set the temp limit in BIOS just above that. If your next Cinebench R15 run at 4.5 GHz starts to throttle instead of crashing, you may have a temp/voltage issue.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Not really normal unless something's out of whack with your mobo what you set in bios is what you should see in windows. Voltages do vary sligthy but very slightly. If you set 1.3 vcore you should be getting 1.35 not even with max settings on LLC. If your clocks are different than what's set in bios check to be sure your BLCK isn't changed or the gear ratio.


It's strange even when I enter 1.285 for code volts in bios it won't accept it. It'll be 1.287 something. In hwmonitor it's at 1.292 when running OCCT. When not testing it stays at the same voltage as in bios.

The clocks show like a 4.0ghz min and 4.33ghz max but when I watch hwmonitor the current is always at 4.2ghz.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> It's strange even when I enter 1.285 for code volts in bios it won't accept it. It'll be 1.287 something. In hwmonitor it's at 1.292 when running OCCT. When not testing it stays at the same voltage as in bios.
> 
> The clocks show like a 4.0ghz min and 4.33ghz max but when I watch hwmonitor the current is always at 4.2ghz.


Im sure thats just a bios setting thats doing all those little ups and down. When you use a stress app your cores should go to max and vcore should stick to a number, not far from what you have in bios. I'd say max 20mv from bios setting. May put up some screens of bios settings to see what you have going up.


----------



## Seus

This is 4 hours into OCCT. I'll post pics of BIOS settings after this run.

i7-6800k
X99 Strix
Gskillz 3200mhz (xmp disabled)
Corsair H115i cooler

I've read about how an actual value is always better than leaving an overclock setting on Auto. I already had a 6800k die when leaving most everything on auto and a 4.2ghz overclock. It seemed rock solid, passed everything, and then randomly took a crap on me a month later. RMA'd both the mobo and CPU but there was nothing found with the mobo so they sent it back. Right now I have these settings which I really don't know what each means or how to tune this thing for stability.

Cpu Strap 100
BCLCK 100
Clock 42
Voltage 1.287v (1.292 in HWmonitor)
Input Voltage 1.90v
VCCSA 1.10
VCCIO CPU and PCH 1.05
Cache Voltage is on auto in bios. I don't know what it is under load but when in UEFI it shows 1.165


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> This is 4 hours into OCCT. I'll post pics of BIOS settings after this run.
> 
> i7-6800k
> X99 Strix
> Gskillz 3200mhz (xmp disabled)
> Corsair H115i cooler
> 
> I've read about how an actual value is always better than leaving an overclock setting on Auto. I already had a 6800k die when leaving most everything on auto and a 4.2ghz overclock. It seemed rock solid, passed everything, and then randomly took a crap on me a month later. RMA'd both the mobo and CPU but there was nothing found with the mobo so they sent it back. Right now I have these settings which I really don't know what each means or how to tune this thing for stability.
> 
> Cpu Strap 100
> BCLCK 100
> Clock 42
> Voltage 1.287v (1.292 in HWmonitor)
> Input Voltage 1.90v
> VCCSA 1.10
> VCCIO CPU and PCH 1.05
> Cache Voltage is on auto in bios. I don't know what it is under load but when in UEFI it shows 1.165
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


erm.. 1.292V is the vid, not vcore/


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm.. 1.292V is the vid, not vcore/


Don't these chips go by vid since the internal voltage control uses the input voltage and regulates to the cores? Unlike the i5 6600k which actually reports a vcore?


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm.. 1.292V is the vid, not vcore/


Core voltage in CPU-z is 1.292 as well so I figured their reporting the same thing. I wasn't sure what was reporting the CPU voltage in HWmonitor. Was it CPU VCORE, VCORE, or VID?


----------



## Yomny

That stuff always gets me I go by the one closest to what I've set in bios. With the 6800k I don't get a vcore value under hwinfo so I figured the vid was it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Don't these chips go by vid since the internal voltage control uses the input voltage and regulates to the cores? Unlike the i5 6600k which actually reports a vcore?


Yes.. but requested and applied voltage are not necessary the same. That's what bugs me about HWM, the vcore readout is broke. It works correctly on AID64.
VID is the requested voltage, and as soon as you override the delivered voltage with an OC, it's best to have a readout of the actual applied vcore (ideally with a DMM, but if an OS tool is all we can use, then something with a valid VCORE read is really needed).


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Core voltage in CPU-z is 1.292 as well so I figured their reporting the same thing. I wasn't sure what was reporting the CPU voltage in HWmonitor. Was it CPU VCORE, VCORE, or VID?


and they should report the same thing. on this platform, CPUZ can only read VID, not vcore. X99 is just set up that way. really... try aid64 if you are not gonna check the voltage with a DMM.

Skylake is a different architecture, and tools like CPUZ do read the delivered vcore (16mV increments since it is a 8 bit report from the cpu)

edit: try this free program: http://rh-software.com/
it's really powerful!


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> and they should report the same thing. on this platform, CPUZ can only read VID, not vcore. X99 is just set up that way. really... try aid64 if you are not gonna check the voltage with a DMM.
> 
> Skylake is a different architecture, and tools like CPUZ do read the delivered vcore (16mV increments since it is a 8 bit report from the cpu)
> 
> edit: try this free program: http://rh-software.com/
> it's really powerful!


Anything else besides Aida you guys know will report vcore in the x99? Realbench, hwinfo, occt ?


----------



## navjack27

http://rh-software.com/

that works pretty good

EDIT: LOL i didn't read the post on the forum, so i didn't see the quote. so it was already said, then i guess i'm vouching for the software


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> http://rh-software.com/
> 
> that works pretty good
> 
> EDIT: LOL i didn't read the post on the forum, so i didn't see the quote. so it was already said, then i guess i'm vouching for the software


Thanks for the confirmation I'll check that out and see how it goes. Hwinfo is nice but takes up a lot of space if using both panes.


----------



## xTesla1856

I have the chance to trade my 4.3 stable 6800K for a 4.6 binned 5820K that's still under warranty. Should I ?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I have the chance to trade my 4.3 stable 6800K for a 4.6 binned 5820K that's still under warranty. Should I ?


Wouldn't for anything less than 4.8, otherwise it's fairly pointless.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Wouldn't for anything less than 4.8, otherwise it's fairly pointless.


Alright, then I won't


----------



## navjack27

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I have the chance to trade my 4.3 stable 6800K for a 4.6 binned 5820K that's still under warranty. Should I ?


*shrugs* i'd go for it. i love my 5820k, i just wish i had a better motherboard to house it in. i'm very confused by the VRM set up on this MSI board, the heatsink just don't do crap for em and i feel like i could get a higher overclock once that's taken care of + a custom water loop.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *navjack27*
> 
> *shrugs* i'd go for it. i love my 5820k, i just wish i had a better motherboard to house it in. i'm very confused by the VRM set up on this MSI board, the heatsink just don't do crap for em and i feel like i could get a higher overclock once that's taken care of + a custom water loop.


Love isn't really something you can apply rationally to CPU performance lol.


----------



## navjack27

true. but i know i bought the 5820k over a 6800k just for the JOY of overclocking KNOWING that broadwell is a poor overclocking architecture.

*CITATION : My experience with the 5775c
also, you don't get the level4 cache which i REALLY THINK is the ONLY reason to want a broadwell CPU*


----------



## xTesla1856

Well, in the grand scheme of things, looking at 6800Ks, my chip isn't even _that_ bad. 4.3 at 1.32v stable is something I can live with, at least until the next X99 refresh comes out.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Well, in the grand scheme of things, looking at 6800Ks, my chip isn't even _that_ bad. 4.3 at 1.32v stable is something I can live with, at least until the next X99 refresh comes out.


I was around here, try using 44 with avx offset 2 and bump volts to 1.38 if you're temps allow. The avx testing generates more heat so you may run just as hot with 43 under avx as with 44 without avx using more v.


----------



## mrpurplehawk

So I bought a bnib sealed 6850k off /r/hardwareswap last night. Kinda hyped for 6 core action









Will be going in a MSI X99A Godlike Gaming board so I think I will be happy for a bit


----------



## sabishiihito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrpurplehawk*
> 
> So I bought a bnib sealed 6850k off /r/hardwareswap last night. Kinda hyped for 6 core action
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will be going in a MSI X99A Godlike Gaming board so I think I will be happy for a bit


Sounds like a nice setup, I currently have a 6850K in an MSI X99 Xpower TE.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Love isn't really something you can apply rationally to CPU performance lol.


I appreciate my 6900K's performance?


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> and they should report the same thing. on this platform, CPUZ can only read VID, not vcore. X99 is just set up that way. really... try aid64 if you are not gonna check the voltage with a DMM.
> 
> Skylake is a different architecture, and tools like CPUZ do read the delivered vcore (16mV increments since it is a 8 bit report from the cpu)
> 
> edit: try this free program: http://rh-software.com/
> it's really powerful!


Thanks for posting that program it's a great tool indeed.

So, these are my current settings. It ran 12 hours of OCCT CPU without an error. The power consumption stays high though even when CPU usage drops. Is there a way to make it reduce when the clock speeds drop?

I'm concerned about what to input for Cache voltage and if I need to change any settings in the DIGI power section of the BIOS because those are still default.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Thanks for posting that program it's a great tool indeed.
> 
> So, these are my current settings. It ran 12 hours of OCCT CPU without an error. The power consumption stays high though even when CPU usage drops. Is there a way to make it reduce when the clock speeds drop?
> 
> I'm concerned about what to input for Cache voltage and if I need to change any settings in the DIGI power section of the BIOS because those are still default.


Not sure what your overclocks are without looking back but enter 1.9v for input which should be good for near 1.4vcore and no more than 1.3v for cache voltage. Now that all really depends on what vcore you're using and what speeds on cache.

For voltage to drop when clocks reduced you need to use adaptive or offset vcore move not fully manual or fixed.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Not sure what your overclocks are without looking back but enter 1.9v for input which should be good for near 1.4vcore and no more than 1.3v for cache voltage. Now that all really depends on what vcore you're using and what speeds on cache.
> 
> For voltage to drop when clocks reduced you need to use adaptive or offset vcore move not fully manual or fixed.


Thanks, I've changed it to adaptive. Overclock is at 4.2ghz voltage is at 1.287. Were you able to see the pics of my BIOS settings in that post?

I saw that cache speed in windows was 2800mhz and CPU cache voltage was 1.05-1.07 when left on auto in BIOS. I'm thinking about just inputting these values manually in BIOS.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Thanks for posting that program it's a great tool indeed.
> 
> So, these are my current settings. It ran 12 hours of OCCT CPU without an error. The power consumption stays high though even when CPU usage drops. Is there a way to make it reduce when the clock speeds drop?
> 
> I'm concerned about what to input for Cache voltage and if I need to change any settings in the DIGI power section of the BIOS because those are still default.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


for the clock speed drop, open windows POwer plan and then advanced power plan settings and verify that min proc state = 0%. This will drop the multiplier to 12x. If y9ou want the voltage to drop, then you need to use adaptive vcore as yomny posted.

And make sure that EIST (intel speedstep) is enabled in bios.

regarding your second questions... cache voltage needs to be adjusted only if you change the max cache multiplier from Auto. Digi+... set LLC to 5 or 6. There's no need to change anything else unless you want to ramp things up further. Be sure to disable VRM Fault in bios.









edit... you can set cache max multiplier to 35 and cache voltage to 1.25v (-ish) and it should be fine. remember, adaptive cache will not work. Use either fixed or offset.


----------



## Seus

Roger that. Glad to have you guys help. Thanks!


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Thanks, I've changed it to adaptive. Overclock is at 4.2ghz voltage is at 1.287. Were you able to see the pics of my BIOS settings in that post?
> 
> I saw that cache speed in windows was 2800mhz and CPU cache voltage was 1.05-1.07 when left on auto in BIOS. I'm thinking about just inputting these values manually in BIOS.


I personally haven't had any issues with cache on auto, it actually behaves. You're pretty good on the OC, make sure you're stable but i'd go for more







if you want of course and the temps permit.

I'm running 44 at 1.38v but my cooling is doing great so its just happy. Yes i was able to see your pics from bios, i have a gigabyte board so a bit different but overall everything is the same for these x99 chips.
Your bios pictures are what told me your voltage wasn't adaptive or at least it didn't seem, looked like it was manual fixed.

If you're ok with the 42 then go for uncore/cache speed now. I was only able to get 35 from the default 28 but that seems to be near the limit for these guys. I'm doing 35 cache at 1.25 Ring/cache voltage which didn't seem to afffect temps much.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> I personally haven't had any issues with cache on auto, it actually behaves. You're pretty good on the OC, make sure you're stable but i'd go for more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you want of course and the temps permit.
> 
> I'm running 44 at 1.38v but my cooling is doing great so its just happy. Yes i was able to see your pics from bios, i have a gigabyte board so a bit different but overall everything is the same for these x99 chips.
> Your bios pictures are what told me your voltage wasn't adaptive or at least it didn't seem, looked like it was manual fixed.
> 
> If you're ok with the 42 then go for uncore/cache speed now. I was only able to get 35 from the default 28 but that seems to be near the limit for these guys. I'm doing 35 cache at 1.25 Ring/cache voltage which didn't seem to afffect temps much.


I'm definitely happy with the overclock so far. Temps are good but idk how much further I could push it with the h115i. CPU Package max at 78c, hottest core at 73c.

I also went ahead and set the cache speed to 35 and cache voltage to 1.25v. So far so good a few hours into OCCT it's just a little bit hotter than before which maxed at 74c.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> I'm definitely happy with the overclock so far. Temps are good but idk how much further I could push it with the h115i. CPU Package max at 78c, hottest core at 73c.
> 
> I also went ahead and set the cache speed to 35 and cache voltage to 1.25v. So far so good a few hours into OCCT it's just a little bit hotter than before which maxed at 74c.


Those temps are perfect for me as well, i dont like them getting over 75c.

Glad its working out for you, in case it doesn't check the voltage for Ring/cache in windows, i have 1.23 in bios but gets 1.25 in windows, you could always give it more. Up to 1.3V is considered ok, temps allowing of course.

Seems like you're set. Now just enjoy, play or do whatever you do there. If you ever crash, drop cache back to stock 28 and retest cpu core to determine if it was your cache or core that caused it.








You still have room for a tad more voltage on either cpu or cache in case its needed for stability.

PS- have you played with the h115i settings? I have it in my wifes computer and its a nice kit. I set the pump to performance 2800rpms(still very quiet) and fans to about 900rpms up until water temp reaches 33C which takes them higher from there









Never had any issues till today.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Those temps are perfect for me as well, i dont like them getting over 75c.
> 
> Glad its working out for you, in case it doesn't check the voltage for Ring/cache in windows, i have 1.23 in bios but gets 1.25 in windows, you could always give it more. Up to 1.3V is considered ok, temps allowing of course.
> 
> Seems like you're set. Now just enjoy, play or do whatever you do there. If you ever crash, drop cache back to stock 28 and retest cpu core to determine if it was your cache or core that caused it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have room for a tad more voltage on either cpu or cache in case its needed for stability.
> 
> PS- have you played with the h115i settings? I have it in my wifes computer and its a nice kit. I set the pump to performance 2800rpms(still very quiet) and fans to about 900rpms up until water temp reaches 33C which takes them higher from there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never had any issues till today.


Battlefield 1 in 5760x1200 is all I need from this rig lol It's truly amazing playing on this resolution. I'll keep watch on the cache voltage, there are slightly higher readings in Windows but still under well under 1.30.

Oh yeah, I love Corsair Link and Corsair in general, everything is great quality. The pump is unnoticeable whether on quiet or performance to me. I have the fans linked to the package temp. It's silent all the time and stays cool. I did switch out the fans for Noctua's which made a huge improvement in noise levels if that's ever a bother.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Battlefield 1 in 5760x1200 is all I need from this rig lol It's truly amazing playing on this resolution. I'll keep watch on the cache voltage, there are slightly higher readings in Windows but still under well under 1.30.
> 
> Oh yeah, I love Corsair Link and Corsair in general, everything is great quality. The pump is unnoticeable whether on quiet or performance to me. I have the fans linked to the package temp. It's silent all the time and stays cool. I did switch out the fans for Noctua's which made a huge improvement in noise levels if that's ever a bother.


lol - you'er not done until you get the ram tuned up.









anyway, OCCT is not all that good at testing the cache. AID64 cache test is much better IMO.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - you'er not done until you get the ram tuned up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway, OCCT is not all that good at testing the cache. AID64 cache test is much better IMO.


Haha believe I know! Literally thinking damn the RAM is next. I was thinking of doing OCCT, Aida64, and Realbench before tuning the RAM.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Battlefield 1 in 5760x1200 is all I need from this rig lol It's truly amazing playing on this resolution. I'll keep watch on the cache voltage, there are slightly higher readings in Windows but still under well under 1.30.
> 
> Oh yeah, I love Corsair Link and Corsair in general, everything is great quality. The pump is unnoticeable whether on quiet or performance to me. I have the fans linked to the package temp. It's silent all the time and stays cool. I did switch out the fans for Noctua's which made a huge improvement in noise levels if that's ever a bother.


Seems like you're all set! I actually have two Noctua industrial something fans.. crazy high static pressure in the h115!


----------



## bondibro

this is my second 6850k in a asus gaming strix board, due to the first one being faulty and causing many issues. I noticed that this one I can only get to 4.2ghz @ 1.31 with h115i - whereas the previous cpu I had I could get to 4.4ghz @ 1.35v.

I am a little concerned bumping the voltage up and I have my machine fully stable now. Does anyone see much point or real world value in squeezing out an extra 200mhz to try and get it to 4.4?

edit - I am using corsair 3200mhz memory with xmp @ 3200 1.35v


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bondibro*
> 
> this is my second 6850k in a asus gaming strix board, due to the first one being faulty and causing many issues. I noticed that this one I can only get to 4.2ghz @ 1.31 with h115i - whereas the previous cpu I had I could get to 4.4ghz @ 1.35v.
> 
> I am a little concerned bumping the voltage up and I have my machine fully stable now. Does anyone see much point or real world value in squeezing out an extra 200mhz to try and get it to 4.4?
> 
> edit - I am using corsair 3200mhz memory with xmp @ 3200 1.35v


The problem is what these chips and I guess any other under avx intrsuctions take more current. Regardless you'll need over 1.35v, imo, to get over 42. If you temps are fine then try 44 with 1.38v and avx offset 2 or 3. In really 200 will give you a nice little bump in most CPU benches but. Itching you'll notice under regular activities. In short if you're worried then don't push it as anything over 42 will need more and more power, every other guide out there confirms this.


----------



## bondibro

Thanks Yomny, to be fair I dont think I will bother


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Haha believe I know! Literally thinking damn the RAM is next. I was thinking of doing OCCT, Aida64, and Realbench before tuning the RAM.


If you need help: http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-z170-z270-and-x99-24-7-memory-stability-thread/3520_20


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bondibro*
> 
> Thanks Yomny, to be fair I dont think I will bother


Sounds like a good plan, after all if you get bored at any point you know you have room to play with.


----------



## Nicklas0912

A little impovedment on CPU score, getting close to 25K!









6900K @ 4.5Ghz


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> 
> 
> A little impovedment on CPU score, getting close to 25K!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6900K @ 4.5Ghz


Honestly, if you're in it for the numbers you should work on your memory. Clock for clock results vary quite drastically with better memory timings in the Physics test.

TimeSpy even more so, both 6950x are at 4.4Ghz.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/348612/spy/306033


----------



## Seus

Stress CPU, FPU, and cache in aida64? It's passed 12 hours of OCCT cpu small data set so far.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Stress CPU, FPU, and cache in aida64? It's passed 12 hours of OCCT cpu small data set so far.


Small data test of OCCT only focusses on Core and Cache.
For a global stability test, if you want to use OCCT, use Large data set test


----------



## GRABibus

deleted


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Small data test of OCCT only focusses on Core and Cache.
> For a global stability test, if you want to use OCCT, use Large data set test


Want to make sure CPU overclock is solid then move to RAM and the system as a whole.


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Honestly, if you're in it for the numbers you should work on your memory. Clock for clock results vary quite drastically with better memory timings in the Physics test.
> 
> TimeSpy even more so, both 6950x are at 4.4Ghz.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/348612/spy/306033


im allready doing that.

My ram normal run 3000Mhz, 15-17-17-35,

With 1.395 Volt, they can do 3000Mhz 13-15-15-28
did not try higher volt on ram, since im not sure, how far the safe zone is for test








Not 24/7 use, just benchmark runs.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> im allready doing that.
> 
> My ram normal run 3000Mhz, 15-17-17-35,
> 
> With 1.395 Volt, they can do 3000Mhz 13-15-15-28
> did not try higher volt on ram, since im not sure, how far the safe zone is for test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not 24/7 use, just benchmark runs.


You could at least try 1T for this purpose. As I say Firestrike isn't likely to topple it unless the overclock is extremely unstable


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> You could at least try 1T for this purpose. As I say Firestrike isn't likely to topple it unless the overclock is extremely unstable


I could try 1T, is that alot better?

and what would you said is max volt I should give ram? 1.4v?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> I could try 1T, is that alot better?
> 
> and what would you said is max volt I should give ram? 1.4v?


yes, 1T will help. Are you asking about VDIMM for benching or 24/7? 24/7 stay =< 1.45V. Benchmarking... DDR4 handles 1.9-2V without a problem.
Basically, Firestrike 1080 is kinda old at this point. Timespy (or even skydiver) have better physics tests. 3DMK11 Extreme is very demanding.


----------



## Silent Scone

Yeah, Firestrike 1080p overall score is majorly misleading in terms of real world performance


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, 1T will help. Are you asking about VDIMM for benching or 24/7? 24/7 stay =< 1.45V. Benchmarking... DDR4 handles 1.9-2V without a problem.
> Basically, Firestrike 1080 is kinda old at this point. Timespy (or even skydiver) have better physics tests. 3DMK11 Extreme is very demanding.


benchmark use only, not 24/7.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> benchmark use only, not 24/7.


as I said, ramp up the VDIMM to what _you_ can tolerate. MOre importantly, have a recent system image handy.


----------



## cekim

Been a while... Wasn't thrilled with long term thermal performance under gaming with the prior water loop. In particular, BF1 was topping out at 71-72C @4.4 and my 1080s were throttling back below their stable 2100MHz OC as well due to elevated temps. Didn't impact work, so I switched to a lower OC in windows for gaming until I had some time to build.

Had a lot of radiator (420+280), but a single loop. New and improved is smaller, quieter, less rad, fewer fans, but obviously more complex and a LOT harder to build. Required drilling, milling, wiring, etc.... Not really done with the wiring or plumbing yet, wanted to confirm that I could improve on things with 2 loops and it appears I did.

Grabbed Aida64 monitor just after gaming, so it had throttled down, but not fully cooled off - check out the "maximum" to see what's going on. Again, this config would have easily hit 71/72C on the hottest core. Only momentarily, but I don't like to see that outside benchmarking.

6950x 128G-3000-14 GTX1080x2 @2100MHz


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Been a while... Wasn't thrilled with long term thermal performance under gaming with the prior water loop. In particular, BF1 was topping out at 71-72C @4.4 and my 1080s were throttling back below their stable 2100MHz OC as well due to elevated temps. Didn't impact work, so I switched to a lower OC in windows for gaming until I had some time to build.
> 
> Had a lot of radiator (420+280), but a single loop. New and improved is smaller, quieter, less rad, fewer fans, but obviously more complex and a LOT harder to build. Required drilling, milling, wiring, etc.... Not really done with the wiring or plumbing yet, wanted to confirm that I could improve on things with 2 loops and it appears I did.
> 
> Grabbed Aida64 monitor just after gaming, so it had throttled down, but not fully cooled off - check out the "maximum" to see what's going on. Again, this config would have easily hit 71/72C on the hottest core. Only momentarily, but I don't like to see that outside benchmarking.
> 
> 6950x 128G-3000-14 GTX1080x2 @2100MHz


Very nice, wheres the pump or pumps and PSU lol?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Very nice, wheres the pump or pumps and PSU lol?


On the other side. Air740 (I guess now a Water740?)

prior to sand/paint the new support rails to hold up the replacement mid-plane:


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> On the other side. Air740 (I guess now a Water740?)
> 
> prior to sand/paint the new support rails to hold up the replacement mid-plane:


Very nice layout. The typical front psu location always does take away lots of useful space.

Very man truly envy the dual loop. I've always felt a loop for gpu and CPU together isn't the greatest unless you have a massive radiator or two in that case.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Very nice layout. The typical front psu location always does take away lots of useful space.
> 
> Very man truly envy the dual loop. I've always felt a loop for gpu and CPU together isn't the greatest unless you have a massive radiator or two in that case.


Thanks, I'm pleased with it. I don't care for giant cases as I generally have a few of them around. This is a nice compromise, but obviously a fair amount of work to get it all in there. I really debated a 100% scratch build, but by the end of this, I'd had more than enough drilling and tapping for one project. I think it turned out to be a good balance and I like the look of the 740 from the outside more than anything I'd be willing to build/cut myself.

What I discovered was that having them in same loop, even with more rad (420+280 vs 280x2 now) was had both the CPU and GPU running hotter than now with the same clocks/voltages.

Part of the issue is undoubtedly a function of the lack of GPU temp factoring in to pump/fan speed (all PWM) since I only have one pump it's speed was based on CPU. However, the real issue I was facing was under high CPU and high GPU load, everything was just snow-balling.

The MB comes with sensor probes, I'm thinking of adding them to the video card VRMs and using that for more precise pump/fan control now with 2 pumps.

Unfortunately, the R5E only has CPU and Fan1,2,3. With 2 pumps, I'm down to 2 channels which means the case fans have to share with one of the radiators. It seems to work as I have both rads pulling into the case, so the CPU's rad fan speed is shared with the case-fans on front and back. I do often have a hot CPU and cold GPUs outside gaming, but its pretty rare for me to have hot GPUs and cold CPU. So, its relatively sane as an approach. Looked at external controllers - clunky (no place to put them) and/or too tied to windows (I run linux 90% of the time).

Too bad the RVE doesn't support the Asus fan extension boards... Given that we can't be too far away (6-9 months??) from the next X line, I'm not willing to upgrade an X99 system at this point (RVE-10) vs throwing the new hotness into this case when it comes (provided its worth it - we'll see).


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Thanks, I'm pleased with it. I don't care for giant cases as I generally have a few of them around. This is a nice compromise, but obviously a fair amount of work to get it all in there. I really debated a 100% scratch build, but by the end of this, I'd had more than enough drilling and tapping for one project. I think it turned out to be a good balance and I like the look of the 740 from the outside more than anything I'd be willing to build/cut myself.
> 
> What I discovered was that having them in same loop, even with more rad (420+280 vs 280x2 now) was had both the CPU and GPU running hotter than now with the same clocks/voltages.
> 
> Part of the issue is undoubtedly a function of the lack of GPU temp factoring in to pump/fan speed (all PWM) since I only have one pump it's speed was based on CPU. However, the real issue I was facing was under high CPU and high GPU load, everything was just snow-balling.
> 
> The MB comes with sensor probes, I'm thinking of adding them to the video card VRMs and using that for more precise pump/fan control now with 2 pumps.
> 
> Unfortunately, the R5E only has CPU and Fan1,2,3. With 2 pumps, I'm down to 2 channels which means the case fans have to share with one of the radiators. It seems to work as I have both rads pulling into the case, so the CPU's rad fan speed is shared with the case-fans on front and back. I do often have a hot CPU and cold GPUs outside gaming, but its pretty rare for me to have hot GPUs and cold CPU. So, its relatively sane as an approach. Looked at external controllers - clunky (no place to put them) and/or too tied to windows (I run linux 90% of the time).
> 
> Too bad the RVE doesn't support the Asus fan extension boards... Given that we can't be too far away (6-9 months??) from the next X line, I'm not willing to upgrade an X99 system at this point (RVE-10) vs throwing the new hotness into this case when it comes (provided its worth it - we'll see).


Awesome setup man and do agree I rather the look and layout of your case as opposed to giant cases. I'm extremely limited with space in my 400c case but everything's working out so far. Gpu temps are a bit hotter than I'd like, they max out at 70 but that's overclocked and only running games that use the SLI confíg. Can't ask more from my 360/120 setup lol. Have the 360 for CPU and right after CPU the 120 rad gives the water a little boost before going into the gpu's. The gpu blocks do take in a lot of heat since they're cooling everything in the cards as opposed to just the chip.

I'll eventually get a 280 and a 240 which should give me much better temps. Specially having the 240 up top bringing in cool air. I now have the 120 sitting as an exhaust on the rear of the case, stupid move since it's basically sucking in hot air from within the case lol.

Best of luck with everything!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Awesome setup man and do agree I rather the look and layout of your case as opposed to giant cases. I'm extremely limited with space in my 400c case but everything's working out so far. Gpu temps are a bit hotter than I'd like, they max out at 70 but that's overclocked and only running games that use the SLI confíg. Can't ask more from my 360/120 setup lol. Have the 360 for CPU and right after CPU the 120 rad gives the water a little boost before going into the gpu's. The gpu blocks do take in a lot of heat since they're cooling everything in the cards as opposed to just the chip.
> 
> I'll eventually get a 280 and a 240 which should give me much better temps. Specially having the 240 up top bringing in cool air. I now have the 120 sitting as an exhaust on the rear of the case, stupid move since it's basically sucking in hot air from within the case lol.
> 
> Best of luck with everything!


Yeah, 2 rads without a "basement" is tricky - went through most of the variations with two similar machines (5960 and 6950) of big/little, push/pull, top/front before this setup. The best alternative I found and could fit in a case was push through 420 on top, push-pull through 280 in front. Dust is an issue with that, but temp/noise-wise it was the best one. I also went through variations of loop and ended up with:

pump->280->gpu->420->cpu

Worked reasonably well until CPU+GPU full load.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Yeah, 2 rads without a "basement" is tricky - went through most of the variations with two similar machines (5960 and 6950) of big/little, push/pull, top/front before this setup. The best alternative I found and could fit in a case was push through 420 on top, push-pull through 280 in front. Dust is an issue with that, but temp/noise-wise it was the best one. I also went through variations of loop and ended up with:
> 
> pump->280->gpu->420->cpu
> 
> Worked reasonably well until CPU+GPU full load.


Right now I have pump>360>cpu>120>gpu but as I mentioned the 120 is at the rear sucking in all the hot air lol. Going to fix that this week hopefully.

Wish I had space for a push pull at least on the main 360. I had a corsair h115 on the CPU in this configuration and worked nicely.


----------



## axiumone

6850k delided.




Solder replaced with thermal grizzly conductonaut, ihs placed on the chip, but not re-sealed.

Idle


Load - Corsair H100i v2 with 2 fans @ 1100 rpm, very quiet.


During gaming the chip stays around 60c on the hottest core.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> 6850k delided.
> During gaming the chip stays around 60c on the hottest core.


Interesting, hadn't looked, but didn't realize these chips had a dual substrate/interposer setup.

80C package temp?

What was your before spread?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I'm curious, I've been watching a lot from CES and it seems since Ryzen has popped up there a few "reviewers" have been slagging off Broadwell-E as 2 generation old technology comparing it to Kabylake.
So going off that train of thought buying Skylake-E (or X it seems they are going to use) would make that 1 generation old hardware and not the latest's chip revision.

It's strange when the competitor drops a new product anything else is crap.
I myself am generally interested in what Ryzen can do, but surely you wouldn't throw Broadwell-E to the wolves just because it has a higher TDP, we haven't seen a proper comparison yet.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I'm curious, I've been watching a lot from CES and it seems since Ryzen has popped up there a few "reviewers" have been slagging off Broadwell-E as 2 generation old technology comparing it to Kabylake.
> So going off that train of thought buying Skylake-E (or X it seems they are going to use) would make that 1 generation old hardware and not the latest's chip revision.
> 
> It's strange when the competitor drops a new product anything else is crap.
> I myself am generally interested in what Ryzen can do, but surely you wouldn't throw Broadwell-E to the wolves just because it has a higher TDP, we haven't seen a proper comparison yet.


The word TDP gets thrown around a lot, I wouldn't put much stock in what AMD have shown so far. We've not seen any overclocking, whether it be core or memory. All we know roughly, is that it's similar to BWE IPC...

Before long SKL-E KabyX will leave it for dust again no doubt...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I'm curious, I've been watching a lot from CES and it seems since Ryzen has popped up there a few "reviewers" have been slagging off Broadwell-E as 2 generation old technology comparing it to Kabylake.
> So going off that train of thought buying Skylake-E (or X it seems they are going to use) would make that 1 generation old hardware and not the latest's chip revision.
> 
> It's strange when the competitor drops a new product anything else is crap.
> I myself am generally interested in what Ryzen can do, but surely you wouldn't throw Broadwell-E to the wolves just because it has a higher TDP, we haven't seen a proper comparison yet.


Yep... still very much a tease-phase "we'll see".

The 2 DDR4 channels is of particular interest/concern to me as my personal use cases tend to be very sensitive to over-all DDR throughput in highly threaded applications. As such dual xeon @3.2GHz / DDR @2400 tend to match or exceed single 6950x @4.4GHz / DDR @3200.

Zen has only 2 DDR4 channels, which I think is a big mistake, but gaming won't notice initially. It will only notice when you run into SLI bottlenecking of TitanX/Vega 10/11 and beyond... but again, we'll see...


----------



## djgar

Well, there are a few other applications besides gaming - photography and video processing come to mind that benefit from the multiple cores and memory lanes ...


----------



## cg4200

Nice! on the 6850 delid I don't see many people on here deliding looks harder than skylake is.. I had 3d print made and did my 6700k myself it made me go from 4.8 to 4.9.. I have a 6850 was wondering how you delided yours? And did it help your cores much even temps out and lower them ? thanks


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Well, there are a few other applications besides gaming - photography and video processing come to mind that benefit from the multiple cores and memory lanes ...


Exactly. My applications aren't video/photo or the only ones that benefit from more DDR channels.

AMD can be forgiven for errorring on the side of single core IPC and throughput after the FX debacle, but it may mean that I benefit only in price competition and not directly from being able to use their stuff.

Intel has clearly been playing it safe in their own way and charging a premium and the result of Sky/Kaby with 0% IPC improvement 3 generations with 5-10% improvement from top-to-bottom in specific instances and none in others.

I want 2x16 cores @4-5GHz for $500-$1000 a chip. They can do it, but I'm too small of a market and margin, so they don't have to.


----------



## Seus

Should I worry about the readings in Intel burn test? I got readings ranging from 161.8 to 164.8 GFlops on my i7-6800k. Though, it passed 20 runs and temps were the exact same as other tests.


----------



## ucode

What clock? IIRC at 4GHz I got about 300GFLOPs with my 6800k. If running the same size test all residuals should be the same.


----------



## aNoN_

Hey guys. I'm curious on literally where to stop. I'm running my 6800K at 4.4Ghz and can't get stability in Battlefield 1 (no stability issues at 4.3ghz or lower). Game keeps crashing under a minute when entering a server. I've upped the Vcore to 1.46v for 4.4ghz right now and temps (in games) seem fine 60-70 Celsius under AIO water cooling.

other settings:
Uncore/cache: default 2.8ghz
vRIN/CPU Input Voltage: 2.0v
vRING: 1.2v
Loadline: Extreme
Vrin current protection: Extreme
PWM phase: Extreme
Agent voltage offset: +0.20

other hardware:
G.skill 3200mhz default speed.
Gigabyte X99 Ultra Gaming

I wonder if I can actually achieve stability by going even higher on the vcore? Temps seem fine as of yet, but are there any other concerns to keep in mind? I know the life-span of the CPU will be lowered if going past 1.4v. But I feel like I might just upgrade to a new CPU before that happens anyway. Is it just plain dumb to push towards 1.5v even if the temps are fine?

Thanks in advance


----------



## Silent Scone

Not all samples will manage 4.4. Temps can play a part in this, though.


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aNoN_*
> 
> Hey guys. I'm curious on literally where to stop. I'm running my 6800K at 4.4Ghz and can't get stability in Battlefield 1 (no stability issues at 4.3ghz or lower). Game keeps crashing under a minute when entering a server. I've upped the Vcore to 1.46v for 4.4ghz right now and temps (in games) seem fine 60-70 Celsius under AIO water cooling.
> 
> other settings:
> Uncore/cache: default 2.8ghz
> vRIN/CPU Input Voltage: 2.0v
> vRING: 1.2v
> Loadline: Extreme
> Vrin current protection: Extreme
> PWM phase: Extreme
> Agent voltage offset: +0.20
> 
> other hardware:
> G.skill 3200mhz default speed.
> Gigabyte X99 Ultra Gaming
> 
> I wonder if I can actually achieve stability by going even higher on the vcore? Temps seem fine as of yet, but are there any other concerns to keep in mind? I know the life-span of the CPU will be lowered if going past 1.4v. But I feel like I might just upgrade to a new CPU before that happens anyway. Is it just plain dumb to push towards 1.5v even if the temps are fine?
> 
> Thanks in advance


Hey I have only had my 6850 couple months and I have been reading a lot and asking questions on here lot of good advice... not sure if I would go everyday gaming over 1.45volts and that is if temps are good.. Mabe run a bench at 1.5 but not game.. I would download realbench if I were you and run stress test for 1hr watch temps if pass should be good enough for gaming.. I would try uping your cache to 33 or 34 tighten timings on memory test one more time and good to go nothing worse than jumping in a game for tem minutes that crashing...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Should I worry about the readings in Intel burn test? I got readings ranging from 161.8 to 164.8 GFlops on my i7-6800k. Though, it passed 20 runs and temps were the exact same as other tests.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> What clock? IIRC at 4GHz I got about 300GFLOPs with my 6800k. If running the same size test all residuals should be the same.


you need to have the same amount of ram committed to IBT to compare gflops.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you need to have the same amount of ram committed to IBT to compare gflops.


The amount of memory used is determined by the problem size









Cannot show my 6800k for now as have pulled it and trying out an older and cheaper Haswell.



First time on Xeons so some learning (headache) for me but should be able to get near 600 GFLOPS I guess. Not too bad on MT for the price but could really use some better single threaded performance though.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> The amount of memory used is determined by the problem size
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot show my 6800k for now as have pulled it and trying out an older and cheaper Haswell.
> 
> 
> 
> First time on Xeons so some learning (headache) for me but should be able to get near 600 GFLOPS I guess. Not too bad on MT for the price but could really use some better single threaded performance though.


I thought he asked about Intel Burn Test? Comparing gflops from 2 different programs.









[email protected]


----------



## ucode

They are just wrappers for Linpack, IBT and Linx do not actually do the linear calculations, they just make it easier to set the variables for Linpack and present the results that Linpack generates. One could just as easily use Linpack standalone.

Perhaps IBT in your ss is using an old Linpack bench, scores are very low. For instance my old laptop HSW CPU could hit 200GFLOPS.

Personally I would think running it to obtain the highest scores would stress it to the max but I have no proof of this.


----------



## Seus

Well *ucode* thank you I guess lol I decided to try the different stress levels. It had already passed 20 runs Very High when I posted but I decided to test out the other levels and see why I wasn't getting 300. After many successful runs it failed! This was on High:

Time (s) Speed (GFlops) Result
18.173 145.4137 3.316935e-002
18.039 146.4918 3.316935e-002
18.079 146.1644 3.316935e-002
18.048 146.4185 3.316935e-002
18.194 145.2405 6.029195e+007

What should I do? 12 hrs OCCT, 12 hrs Aida (FPU, CPU, and Cache), 3 hrs Aida Cache only, and 8hrs Real Bench. I literally made it my purpose to try and break this thing. 3-4 Chrome tabs open with Youtube on autoplay in HD and Office Docs open while running these tests. I was even playing BF1 with the Aida Cache only test.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aNoN_*
> 
> Hey guys. I'm curious on literally where to stop. I'm running my 6800K at 4.4Ghz and can't get stability in Battlefield 1 (no stability issues at 4.3ghz or lower). Game keeps crashing under a minute when entering a server. I've upped the Vcore to 1.46v for 4.4ghz right now and temps (in games) seem fine 60-70 Celsius under AIO water cooling.
> 
> other settings:
> Uncore/cache: default 2.8ghz
> vRIN/CPU Input Voltage: 2.0v
> vRING: 1.2v
> Loadline: Extreme
> Vrin current protection: Extreme
> PWM phase: Extreme
> Agent voltage offset: +0.20
> 
> other hardware:
> G.skill 3200mhz default speed.
> Gigabyte X99 Ultra Gaming
> 
> I wonder if I can actually achieve stability by going even higher on the vcore? Temps seem fine as of yet, but are there any other concerns to keep in mind? I know the life-span of the CPU will be lowered if going past 1.4v. But I feel like I might just upgrade to a new CPU before that happens anyway. Is it just plain dumb to push towards 1.5v even if the temps are fine?
> 
> Thanks in advance


The problem is that AVX uses a lot of voltage, i know games dont use AVX but for some reason i was having the same issues trying to get anything over 43. You need to drop the multi when AVX is in use and this will allow you to reach higher clocks.

Try this, IF and only IF temps allow. Leave all else on auto and i dont think you need to add to your agent offset if you're not OCing ram.

Input/VRIN - 1.9-2.0
RING - auto or 1.1 (youre not OCing cache)

*CPU: 44
vcore 1.4 (again if temps permit)
AVX offset 2 or 3* this is the number your multiplier will drop when AVX is detected

Try and test. Report back. You could try even 45 with 1.4 or may be a bit more voltage, all chips are different.

I could get 45 cpu with 1.4 and using 2 offset AVX. My input is at 1.9 which is just .5 more than 1.4 vocre (is what like to go by)
Running cache at 35 with 1.25v

All else auto or manually enter default values. This will allow you to run 44-45 multi must or always except when AVX is in use which is not often.

Pass 25 times Intel Burn Test on Very High settings, then Real bench stress test for another 30 mins to 1 hours.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Well *ucode* thank you I guess lol I decided to try the different stress levels. It had already passed 20 runs Very High when I posted but I decided to test out the other levels and see why I wasn't getting 300. After many successful runs it failed! This was on High:
> 
> Time (s) Speed (GFlops) Result
> 18.173 145.4137 3.316935e-002
> 18.039 146.4918 3.316935e-002
> 18.079 146.1644 3.316935e-002
> 18.048 146.4185 3.316935e-002
> 18.194 145.2405 6.029195e+007
> 
> What should I do? 12 hrs OCCT, 12 hrs Aida (FPU, CPU, and Cache), 3 hrs Aida Cache only, and 8hrs Real Bench. I literally made it my purpose to try and break this thing. 3-4 Chrome tabs open with Youtube on autoplay in HD and Office Docs open while running these tests. I was even playing BF1 with the Aida Cache only test.


Dont break it lol. I can't get the so called 300 that people talk about. IBT the max i get is ~160 so somethings not the same here but your chip is fine.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> They are just wrappers for Linpack, IBT and Linx do not actually do the linear calculations, they just make it easier to set the variables for Linpack and present the results that Linpack generates. One could just as easily use Linpack standalone.
> 
> Perhaps IBT in your ss is using an old Linpack bench, scores are very low. For instance my old laptop HSW CPU could hit 200GFLOPS.
> 
> Personally I would think running it to obtain the highest scores would stress it to the max but I have no proof of this.


yes and no. they do not run thge same problem size and IBT requires a manual update of the linpac libraries. the point is, you cannot compare gflops between the two as I said.
That said, neither is a gauge of real world performance unless one is doing DP floating point calcs. They load the FPU and not much else.

Hammering a single sub-structure with repetitive commands (like IBT or p95) is not what trips up these processors. Too many folks conflate high processor temperatures with problem/stress complexity.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> The problem is that AVX uses a lot of voltage


Actually uses a lot of current, the voltage increase is to make up for the losses from that. It's the current that can cause degradation, too much over voltage tends to kill semiconductors instantly.

Linpack degrades with HT if run on 2 threads to the same core so a 6800k should be run with 6 threads with each thread assigned to it's own core and those threads should not be in a parked state. Easiest way would be to temporarily disable HT in the BIOS if you want a quick check to see if that is what's happening.

IMO nothing wrong with reducing clocks with AVX2 if needed and unless one is running applications that make similar use of AVX2 as does Linpack then real world apps aren't going to be as demanding.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Dont break it lol. I can't get the so called 300 that people talk about. IBT the max i get is ~160 so somethings not the same here but your chip is fine.


I did get in the 160-165 range in IBT. I was initially just wondering about the varying results in speed if that was normal or not. It does seem perfectly fine. The last overclock I had that passed tests but eventually failed showed a lot of glitches and bugs in Windows whenever multitasking.

Could anyone explain this reading and if it's acceptable? I saw it stay at 3.2-3.5 during stress testing. Didn't take a screen shot of that run unfortunately.


----------



## aNoN_

Thanks for the advice. I'll try this and report back.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> The problem is that AVX uses a lot of voltage, i know games dont use AVX but for some reason i was having the same issues trying to get anything over 43. You need to drop the multi when AVX is in use and this will allow you to reach higher clocks.
> 
> Try this, IF and only IF temps allow. Leave all else on auto and i dont think you need to add to your agent offset if you're not OCing ram.
> 
> Input/VRIN - 1.9-2.0
> RING - auto or 1.1 (youre not OCing cache)
> 
> *CPU: 44
> vcore 1.4 (again if temps permit)
> AVX offset 2 or 3* this is the number your multiplier will drop when AVX is detected
> 
> Try and test. Report back. You could try even 45 with 1.4 or may be a bit more voltage, all chips are different.
> 
> I could get 45 cpu with 1.4 and using 2 offset AVX. My input is at 1.9 which is just .5 more than 1.4 vocre (is what like to go by)
> Running cache at 35 with 1.25v
> 
> All else auto or manually enter default values. This will allow you to run 44-45 multi must or always except when AVX is in use which is not often.
> 
> Pass 25 times Intel Burn Test on Very High settings, then Real bench stress test for another 30 mins to 1 hours.


Hello again, and thanks for helping out!

I fiddled around with the AVX setting and it didn't seem to help one bit. I still crash when trying to enter a server in BF1. I've tried a vast amount of different settings and configurations including, disable XMP and set memory settings manually (I heard from someone that XMP sometimes changes other settings which can negatively impact on OC stability) I tried with and without the enhanced halt states & EIST, I tried setting Vcore voltage to Auto. I've also tried different settings for Vrin Loadline, Vrin current protection & PWM phase, but they only seemed to increase instability so I left them on Auto. I tried literally everything EXCEPT increasing the Vcore past 1.45.

What am I doing wrong here guys?



Thanks in advance for your time!


----------



## djgar

You need to put your rig description in your signature, otherwise people have no clue what your setup is and they're not going to start looking for previous posts.


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aNoN_*
> 
> Thanks for the advice. I'll try this and report back.
> Hello again, and thanks for helping out!
> 
> I fiddled around with the AVX setting and it didn't seem to help one bit. I still crash when trying to enter a server in BF1. I've tried a vast amount of different settings and configurations including, disable XMP and set memory settings manually (I heard from someone that XMP sometimes changes other settings which can negatively impact on OC stability) I tried with and without the enhanced halt states & EIST, I tried setting Vcore voltage to Auto. I've also tried different settings for Vrin Loadline, Vrin current protection & PWM phase, but they only seemed to increase instability so I left them on Auto. I tried literally everything EXCEPT increasing the Vcore past 1.45.
> 
> What am I doing wrong here guys?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for your time!


Hey I have Msi not same as yours but try setting your vccu I set mine to 1.175 to help me with 4.6. and your cpu vccio try 1.050 and I set my other voltages manually took awhile to figure them out my Asus to msi made me realize all motherboard volt differently .. All chips won't do the same though you might have hit a wall good luck


----------



## cg4200

How is everyone delidding there 6850's these days ?? And how is the temp change ? I want to pop off the ihs and sand the edge's where the silicone holds the chip and put some clu and reseat but 500.00 chip I don't wan't to put in vice if I don't have to. Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

is everyone delidding their 6850s?


----------



## Silent Scone

Doubt it, I used Roman's delid-mate with Thermal Grizzly conductonaunt. Saw a small reduction in temps, enough to get a leg up to 4.5Ghz at 1.4v in RB. Hardly anything to write home about.


----------



## aNoN_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You need to put your rig description in your signature, otherwise people have no clue what your setup is and they're not going to start looking for previous posts.


Good idea, I should have thought of that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Hey I have Msi not same as yours but try setting your vccu I set mine to 1.175 to help me with 4.6. and your cpu vccio try 1.050 and I set my other voltages manually took awhile to figure them out my Asus to msi made me realize all motherboard volt differently .. All chips won't do the same though you might have hit a wall good luck


I will try that, thanks man!


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> is everyone delidding their 6850s?


good point (everyone)..Not the best way to word it just figured anyone with 6800 6850 who have delided would read and chime in.. I contacted rocklid and theirs won't work on broad well-e..I did my first 6700K with a vice worked no damage second one I got 3-d measurements from this site and for 14.00 us dollars had a safe way to do second one..great site lot of useful info !! I have read bond is harder to break on broad well-e can anyone who has done both confirm?? Roman's delid mate will look that up .. thanks


----------



## rolldog

Ok, now that I finally got all of my small issues fixed in my "new" build (with quotes because the hardware was actually purchased a year ago), I've been reading up on a lot of different things to do to get the best OC without throttling the CPU. I've read about using the AVX Offset, which apparently only works when your voltages are all set to Auto, I've read about using the Asus Thermal Control tool to drop the clock speed and voltages down before throttling kicks in and then raising the clock speeds and voltages back up when running single threaded vs multi threaded applications, and I've seen where some people choose to continue to OC the CPU by adjusting the multipliers and voltages manually, like we did with Haswell-E.

With my fairly new 6950X (very new in terms of hours used), what have most people found the best way to OC these processors? Should I download the Asus Thermal Control Tool, use AVX offset with auto voltages, or manually adjust the voltages to dial in the best settings? I've also heard it's almost impossible to run a 125 strap, which was doable with Haswell-E. Any words of advice before I start trying to find my optimal OC? By the way, my 6950X is on an Asus X99 Deluxe II and I have 32GB 4 x 8GB) Corsair Dominator 3333Mhz memory. I'd really appreciate some insight to what some people feel like works best with these CPUs so I can avoid hours of trial and error. Thanks!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rolldog*
> 
> Ok, now that I finally got all of my small issues fixed in my "new" build (with quotes because the hardware was actually purchased a year ago), I've been reading up on a lot of different things to do to get the best OC without throttling the CPU. I've read about using the AVX Offset, which apparently only works when your voltages are all set to Auto, I've read about using the Asus Thermal Control tool to drop the clock speed and voltages down before throttling kicks in and then raising the clock speeds and voltages back up when running single threaded vs multi threaded applications, and I've seen where some people choose to continue to OC the CPU by adjusting the multipliers and voltages manually, like we did with Haswell-E.
> 
> With my fairly new 6950X (very new in terms of hours used), what have most people found the best way to OC these processors? Should I download the Asus Thermal Control Tool, use AVX offset with auto voltages, or manually adjust the voltages to dial in the best settings? I've also heard it's almost impossible to run a 125 strap, which was doable with Haswell-E. Any words of advice before I start trying to find my optimal OC? By the way, my 6950X is on an Asus X99 Deluxe II and I have 32GB 4 x 8GB) Corsair Dominator 3333Mhz memory. I'd really appreciate some insight to what some people feel like works best with these CPUs so I can avoid hours of trial and error. Thanks!


Best approach is hours of trial and error LOL...

Personally, I start with fixed voltages and then work my way to an adaptive setup for "daily driver" use. If it doesn't need to be hot and loud, then why do it?

Having played extensively with HWE before the 6950 on the same MB(s), the only real surprise was that SA had 2 sweet spots: < 1.0 and 1.20+

Ultimately, the < 1.0 just wasn't stable with adaptive voltages for me.

Mileage may vary with newer batches:
4.3-4.4 @1.28-1.36 seems to be a pretty normal CPU cap for stable 6950
3.7 is a pretty hard cap for the cache and will require 1.28-1.35+
*NOTE: From various discussions, I would not run the cache 24/7 @1.30v or do any really heavy benching. That evidently has an enormous amount of current flowing through the CPU and the paraphrase from Raja? was "the quickest way to brutalize the uncore is run heavy benchmarking at or above 1.30v".

My stable setup is adaptive CPU, offset cache, auto SA (which hovers at 1.2v under load with 128G of ram and lower with fewer dimms), LLC5 and pretty much stock settings otherwise. Ram required 1.37 initial and 1.35 eventually as well as manually putting in the sticker timings for [email protected]

Worth noting that compared to later HWE batches, BWE voltage is higher for any given frequency. I have a 5960x that runs stable at adaptive 4.7Ghz topping out at 1.28v.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Doubt it, I used Roman's delid-mate with Thermal Grizzly conductonaunt. Saw a small reduction in temps, enough to get a leg up to 4.5Ghz at 1.4v in RB. Hardly anything to write home about.


Need to use a liquid metal TIM for the best results. Otherwise its pretty pointless to delid without it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rolldog*
> 
> Ok, now that I finally got all of my small issues fixed in my "new" build (with quotes because the hardware was actually purchased a year ago), I've been reading up on a lot of different things to do to get the best OC without throttling the CPU. *I've read about using the AVX Offset, which apparently only works when your voltages are all set to Auto*, I've read about using the Asus Thermal Control tool to drop the clock speed and voltages down before throttling kicks in and then raising the clock speeds and voltages back up when running single threaded vs multi threaded applications, and I've seen where some people choose to continue to OC the CPU by adjusting the multipliers and voltages manually, like we did with Haswell-E.
> 
> With my fairly new 6950X (very new in terms of hours used), what have most people found the best way to OC these processors? Should I download the Asus Thermal Control Tool, use AVX offset with auto voltages, or manually adjust the voltages to dial in the best settings? I've also heard it's almost impossible to run a 125 strap, which was doable with Haswell-E. Any words of advice before I start trying to find my optimal OC? By the way, my 6950X is on an Asus X99 Deluxe II and I have 32GB 4 x 8GB) Corsair Dominator 3333Mhz memory. I'd really appreciate some insight to what some people feel like works best with these CPUs so I can avoid hours of trial and error. Thanks!


this is not so. the AXV offset lowers the multiplier by the Offset entered when this instructio0n set is detected... not the voltage. Yes, dl the ATCT and certainly try it. the down clock and down volt cannot be reproduced with the bios as it is so it does come in handy and will (generally) allow you ot run a higher light-load clock than a straight OC.


----------



## rolldog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Best approach is hours of trial and error LOL...
> 
> Personally, I start with fixed voltages and then work my way to an adaptive setup for "daily driver" use. If it doesn't need to be hot and loud, then why do it?
> 
> Having played extensively with HWE before the 6950 on the same MB(s), the only real surprise was that SA had 2 sweet spots: < 1.0 and 1.20+
> 
> Ultimately, the < 1.0 just wasn't stable with adaptive voltages for me.
> 
> Mileage may vary with newer batches:
> 4.3-4.4 @1.28-1.36 seems to be a pretty normal CPU cap for stable 6950
> 3.7 is a pretty hard cap for the cache and will require 1.28-1.35+
> *NOTE: From various discussions, I would not run the cache 24/7 @1.30v or do any really heavy benching. That evidently has an enormous amount of current flowing through the CPU and the paraphrase from Raja? was "the quickest way to brutalize the uncore is run heavy benchmarking at or above 1.30v".
> 
> My stable setup is adaptive CPU, offset cache, auto SA (which hovers at 1.2v under load with 128G of ram and lower with fewer dimms), LLC5 and pretty much stock settings otherwise. Ram required 1.37 initial and 1.35 eventually as well as manually putting in the sticker timings for [email protected]
> 
> Worth noting that compared to later HWE batches, BWE voltage is higher for any given frequency. I have a 5960x that runs stable at adaptive 4.7Ghz topping out at 1.28v.


Awesome, thanks. At least I know what to expect. I was running HWE before this and was getting the same kind of clocks/voltage that you listed, but it seems like these processors aren't going to clock as high and will need higher voltage at the same clock speeds as HWE, which I imagine is from having more cores.


----------



## Yomny

When my avx offset is applied the voltage also drops. That's what adaptive does. Always did wonder how in the world does it know what volt to use when dropping the avx offset? I run 45 at 1.4voltd and drops to 43 for avx offset then the voltage is dropped to 1.34 or something like that iirc. Stable, I've tested. These computers are smart lol.


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Need to use a liquid metal TIM for the best results. Otherwise its pretty pointless to delid without it.


Conductonaut is liquid metal.


----------



## rolldog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> this is not so. the AXV offset lowers the multiplier by the Offset entered when this instructio0n set is detected... not the voltage. Yes, dl the ATCT and certainly try it. the down clock and down volt cannot be reproduced with the bios as it is so it does come in handy and will (generally) allow you ot run a higher light-load clock than a straight OC.


You're right. It lowers the multiplier but not the voltage.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> Conductonaut is liquid metal.


Yeah my mistake.


----------



## aNoN_

Ok, here's a small update. I increased stability significantly by adjusting one tiny little thing in bios: PLL Trim. I changed it from Auto to +15 and suddenly I was able to enter a game in BF1 and play without the game crashing or giving me BSOD. Though it's not 100% stable, I had a crash when trying to exit the game, so more tweaking is required. I'll go ahead fiddle around with the VCCU some more, The problem is that I don't know what the default voltage value for the VCCU is, I just put +0.20 on the Offset. I'm not sure if it induced stability or not. If anyone know what the default voltage for VCCU is then please let me know.

I also wonder how much can I safely increase the VRIN Voltage? I'm at 2.1v now which seem a bit high, most places seem to recommend 1.9 to 2.0 max. Also, will increasing VRING/Cache voltage help with OC stability even if the Cache isn't overclocked? According to some sources I checked, it will.

Any further tips is greatly welcome.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aNoN_*
> 
> Ok, here's a small update. I increased stability significantly by adjusting one tiny little thing in bios: PLL Trim. I changed it from Auto to +15 and suddenly I was able to enter a game in BF1 and play without the game crashing or giving me BSOD. Though it's not 100% stable, I had a crash when trying to exit the game, so more tweaking is required. I'll go ahead fiddle around with the VCCU some more, The problem is that I don't know what the default voltage value for the VCCU is, I just put +0.20 on the Offset. I'm not sure if it induced stability or not. If anyone know what the default voltage for VCCU is then please let me know.
> 
> I also wonder how much can I safely increase the VRIN Voltage? I'm at 2.1v now which seem a bit high, most places seem to recommend 1.9 to 2.0 max. Also, will increasing VRING/Cache voltage help with OC stability even if the Cache isn't overclocked? According to some sources I checked, it will.
> 
> Any further tips is greatly welcome.


Read this a while back and found it interesting about our chipset and mobo brands. May help you out.

http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2016/06/gigabyte-x99-soc-champion-6950x.html


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> good point (everyone)..Not the best way to word it just figured anyone with 6800 6850 who have delided would read and chime in.. I contacted rocklid and theirs won't work on broad well-e..I did my first 6700K with a vice worked no damage second one I got 3-d measurements from this site and for 14.00 us dollars had a safe way to do second one..great site lot of useful info !! I have read bond is harder to break on broad well-e can anyone who has done both confirm?? Roman's delid mate will look that up .. thanks


I have delidded soldered chips before for testing as has many others, most who test with accurate equipment will only get 2-5C max improvement by removing intels thicker bondline 80 w/mk solder (6-10 core cpus) and replacing with thinner bondline ~ 40-70 w/mk liquid metal. Not same as the 20+C lower temps from replacing intels thick bondline 5 w/mk paste (on 4 core cpus) with thinner bondline 40-70w/mk liquid metal. I get doing it just for fun, and nothing wrong with that. But for me, I would rather have solder and 3-4 C higher temps just for easier remounts vs delidded, not to mention the hassle of removing solder vs the 30 seconds to delid paste cpu.


----------



## axiumone

I mostly agree. The difference deliding a 6700k made was massive compared to a 6850k.


----------



## cg4200

+1 Good info man did not realize they use 80 w/mk .I was expecting more than 3-4 degrees though I run 4.6 @1.385 .. Was hoping for 8-10 degrees and mabe delid would get me 4.7..I looked up die mate also not for broadwell-e..Might have to wait little longer see if anyone puts out measurements for 3-d one. Not sure whats wrong with me it seems my ocd always gets the best of me.


----------



## Yomny

Been tying to find how voltage goes with the broadwell but can't find the diagram, can someone help. What I mean is input is basically the total amount which gets devided into the vcore and other stuff so when raising vcore, input is also increased or needs to be increased.

My question is when raising ring should input be increased or ring voltage doesn't fall under the cpus voltage. Thanks.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Been tying to find how voltage goes with the broadwell but can't find the diagram, can someone help. What I mean is input is basically the total amount which gets devided into the vcore and other stuff so when raising vcore, input is also increased or needs to be increased.
> 
> My question is when raising ring should input be increased or ring voltage doesn't fall under the cpus voltage. Thanks.


the major on-die voltages all draw from VCCIN (input).


----------



## skkane

Just got a 6900k. Is 4.3ghz @ 1.25v considered decent on these? 4.4 @ 1.25 crashes 2 mins in aida64 stress test.

I'm coming from a 5930k @ 4.5ghz 1.34v. I like the lower voltage on this, still gets to 90-92c during aida though (5930k @ 1.34 used to get 93-95)... not gonna bother going over 1.25v on it with this fractal cooler.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skkane*
> 
> Just got a 6900k. Is 4.3ghz @ 1.25v considered decent on these? 4.4 @ 1.25 crashes 2 mins in aida64 stress test.
> 
> I'm coming from a 5930k @ 4.5ghz 1.34v. I like the lower voltage on this, still gets to 90c during aida though... not gonna bother going over 1.25v on it with this fractal.


4.3 check
1.25 check
90C? uncheck... What is your cooling?

Cache at default?

FWIW expect 4.4+ to require 1.3+ for BW-E. Fine for core if you have the cooling, not fine for uncore.


----------



## skkane

It's a fractal design s36, got it for about 2 years now, guess the pump or something is going as the rad doesn't even get hot while the cpu is showing 90c... Will swap as I remember the 5930k only getting like 80c tops when it was brand new.

I have the cache at default yes. Anyway, happy @ 4.3. Will replace the cooler, waiting for that pretty nzxt x62 to come in stock altough i'm afraid about the smaller rad. Will see.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skkane*
> 
> It's a fractal design s36, got it for about 2 years now, guess the pump or something is going as the rad doesn't even get hot while the cpu is showing 90c... Will swap as I remember the 5930k only getting like 80c tops when it was brand new.
> 
> I have the cache at default yes. Anyway, happy @ 4.3. Will replace the cooler, waiting for that pretty nzxt x62 to come in stock altough i'm afraid about the smaller rad. Will see.


Oh, the fractal comment was the rad - sorry missed that.

Yeah, the 90c indicates either a mounting issue or just lack of cooling capacity if your AIO. I wouldn't want anything less than a very good 280 AIO. Still have an H110 running on a [email protected] in the basement, but its allowed to make more fan noise than something in my office.

edit: hmmm the S36 is a 360? I'd expect more out of it, but haven't tried, maybe they screwed up or as you say, something is failing.


----------



## sly cooper

nvm


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the major on-die voltages all draw from VCCIN (input).


Lol you tricked me, i still don't know if the ring is part of that group lol. Seems that's a yes? Thanks.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Lol you tricked me, i still don't know if the ring is part of that group lol. Seems that's a yes? Thanks.


yes.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes.


Now this just opens a bunch of other questions and raises doubts, maybe without reason. If, lets say i use the rule to have input .5v+ over vcore, where does this leave ring? How come its not mentioned anywhere on these guides that input should be raised somewhat when going from stock 1.05v in my case to say 1.3v for overclocking the uncore. Does that .5 volt input over vcore leave ample space for all other things needing voltage in the cpu?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Now this just opens a bunch of other questions and raises doubts, maybe without reason. If, lets say i use the rule to have input .5v+ over vcore, where does this leave ring? How come its not mentioned anywhere on these guides that input should be raised somewhat when going from stock 1.05v in my case to say 1.3v for overclocking the uncore. Does that .5 volt input over vcore leave ample space for all other things needing voltage in the cpu?


Most people when overclocked run around 0.55v - 0.65v over vcore. Should be within safe voltages for VCCIN.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Most people when overclocked run around 0.55v - 0.65v over vcore. Should be within safe voltages for VCCIN.


Thanks, i did mentioned i already knew and used this rule. Question still remains about there being anything particularly related to Ring voltage and input. The same way you just mentioned people running .55 to .65 over vcore, what about ring, since it falls under the total Input voltage. No one overclocks uncore and not cpu speed but for the sake of my question, if i were to overclock uncore and raise the ring voltage, would i need more VRIN?

In short i want to know if instability when OCing cache could be because the input voltage isn't being adjusted to compensate for added ring voltage. The input was increased for vcore but never increased when Ring voltage was being increased.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Thanks, i did mentioned i already knew and used this rule. Question still remains about there being anything particularly related to Ring voltage and input. The same way you just mentioned people running .55 to .65 over vcore, what about ring, since it falls under the total Input voltage. No one overclocks uncore and not cpu speed but for the sake of my question, if i were to overclock uncore and raise the ring voltage, would i need more VRIN?
> 
> In short i want to know if instability when OCing cache could be because the input voltage isn't being adjusted to compensate for added ring voltage. The input was increased for vcore but never increased when Ring voltage was being increased.


No one overclock's cache? lol where did you get that from?. Jpmboy has already answered your question about cache voltage being part of the vccin rail. Obviously each cpu is different and you will need to test if that has any effect on cache stability.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> No one overclock's cache? lol where did you get that from?. Jpmboy has already answered your question about cache voltage being part of the vccin rail. Obviously each cpu is different and you will need to test if that has any effect on cache stability.


Hey, thanks but do me a favor and read before posting, it seems you have a thing with just grabbing part of what i write and replying, you've done it twice. I said no one overclocks cache AND NOT CPU, right after i also said "for the sake of my question" which implied a hypothetical situation, what's the matter with you?

What jpmboy said, which i clearly understood is that ring voltage is part the VCCIN or input voltage. Now how in the world does that answer anything i wrote after that specific post? Do me a favor a back off if you're not going to help. I asked a valid question and you're wasting space and time here.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Now this just opens a bunch of other questions and raises doubts, maybe without reason. If, lets say i use the rule to have input .5v+ over vcore, where does this leave ring? How come its not mentioned anywhere on these guides that input should be raised somewhat when going from stock 1.05v in my case to say 1.3v for overclocking the uncore. Does that .5 volt input over vcore leave ample space for all other things needing voltage in the cpu?


this "rule" is somewhat untested at the low end (at least in my hands)... I mean, I'm running an 1.281V OC right now, 0.5V would put this at 1.781V for VCCIN on this 6950X (i'll assume that is at load with vdroop - if any). 0.6V would be slightly closer to what I run (1.93V idle, droops to 1.85 or so if I remember the numbers right. at 4.6 I run 1.97V input). The "rule" as I know it is AT LEAST 0.5-0.6V above vcore. Run with that in mind and you'll be fine.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> this "rule" is somewhat untested at the low end (at least in my hands)... I mean, I'm running an 1.281V OC right now, 0.5V would put this at 1.781V for VCCIN on this 6950X (i'll assume that is at load with vdroop - if any). 0.6V would be slightly closer to what I run (1.93V idle, droops to 1.85 or so if I remember the numbers right. at 4.6 I run 1.97V input). The "rule" as I know it is AT LEAST 0.5-0.6V above vcore. Run with that in mind and you'll be fine.


So this .5v-.6v over vcore for input voltage should cover any amount of ring voltage given? This is actually my concern, if increasing ring voltage to OC the cache does the input need adjustment?

I feel im not explaining myself. I'm not talking about rule/suggestion for input voltage and vcore. I'm talking about ring voltage and input voltage, since you mentioned ring is under the total input. Its been established that input needs to be increased to allow more voltage to the core but when you have that set, done and stable... If ring voltage is added from stock 1.050 or 1.1 whichever the case may be to 1.3-1.4v which is a substantial difference, does the input need to be increased as well to accommodate the extra voltage or does that .5-.6 rule we've been using take care of that.










Sort of talking to my self here, i think if ring had such an impact on the input voltage it would be mentioned more in all the OCing guides.


----------



## djgar

I have to admit I never dealt with ring voltage in my OC setup.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> So this .5v-.6v over vcore for input voltage should cover any amount of ring voltage given? This is actually my concern, if increasing ring voltage to OC the cache does the input need adjustment?
> I feel im not explaining myself. I'm not talking about rule/suggestion for input voltage and vcore. I'm talking about ring voltage and input voltage, since you mentioned ring is under the total input. Its been established that input needs to be increased to allow more voltage to the core but when you have that set, done and stable... If ring voltage is added from stock 1.050 or 1.1 whichever the case may be to 1.3-1.4v which is a substantial difference, does the input need to be increased as well to accommodate the extra voltage or does that .5-.6 rule we've been using take care of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of talking to my self here, i think if ring had such an impact on the input voltage it would be mentioned more in all the OCing guides.


one more time... AT LEAST 0.5-0.6V above vcore. From experience.. increasing vcore or ring (cache) voltage may require increasing VCCIN.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I have to admit I never dealt with ring voltage in my OC setup.


Cache. I'm pretty sure you have.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> one more time... AT LEAST 0.5-0.6V above vcore. From experience.. increasing vcore or ring (cache) voltage may require increasing VCCIN.
> Cache. I'm pretty sure you have.


So, when you increase ring voltage, how much do you increase input?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I have to admit I never dealt with ring voltage in my OC setup.


What do you have your cache/uncore speed set to?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> What do you have your cache/uncore speed set to?


It's all in my sig ...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> one more time... AT LEAST 0.5-0.6V above vcore. From experience.. increasing vcore or ring (cache) voltage may require increasing VCCIN.
> Cache. I'm pretty sure you have.


Ahh - ring = cache ?!


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> So, when you increase ring voltage, how much do you increase input?


There is no specific amount of voltage you need to increase. Test it to find out yourself what voltage your cpu need's.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> There is no specific amount of voltage you need to increase. Test it to find out yourself what voltage your cpu need's.


And to do so, use hwbot x265 benchmark, by far the best test I've used to catch le lack of input voltage.


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ This.,


----------



## Yomny

Anyone for 6800k can you share some insight on cache overclocking. I can't really get anything stable over 35 but I could run 35, boot and stress for 30 mins of any bench out there and longer of course at just 1.1 ring. The problems is that my pc shuts down randomly and I'm almost certain is the cache overclock messing me it as it doesn't happen at stock speeds with just the CPU core overclocked.

What voltages are you using for your uncore overclock. Another thing, how do you know if you need more ring votlltage or if input voltage needs adjustment.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> There is no specific amount of voltage you need to increase. Test it to find out yourself what voltage your cpu need's.


Ok let's say my cpu core overclock is stable at 1.42vcore and 1.93 input. Now I overclock my cache and crash, what do you do, just up the ring voltage?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This.,


Sucks can't see sigs in phone, what ring voltage did you need for your uncore overclock and how did you determine it. Just really need some help here with the uncore overclock it's killing me. The core cpu speed is fine and it's stable. Once I start upping the uncore I start getting random computer turn off and reboots.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> this "rule" is somewhat untested at the low end (at least in my hands)... I mean, I'm running an 1.281V OC right now, 0.5V would put this at 1.781V for VCCIN on this 6950X (i'll assume that is at load with vdroop - if any). 0.6V would be slightly closer to what I run (1.93V idle, droops to 1.85 or so if I remember the numbers right. at 4.6 I run 1.97V input). The "rule" as I know it is AT LEAST 0.5-0.6V above vcore. Run with that in mind and you'll be fine.


How did you determine the input you needed?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Sucks can't see sigs in phone, what ring voltage did you need for your uncore overclock and how did you determine it. Just really need some help here with the uncore overclock it's killing me. The core cpu speed is fine and it's stable. Once I start upping the uncore I start getting random computer turn off and reboots.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> How did you determine the input you needed?


My sig:

Strix X99 Gaming, 6900K @4.600GHz, 32GB (4x8) G Skill F4-3200C14Q-32GTZ, XSPC Raystorm 2x RX360 L-Cooler
24x7: 100 Strap adptv: 46 mult, 100.0 BCLK, 3.700GHz 37x NB, [email protected] 13-15-13-16-CR1, 1.44v DRAM,
vcore 1.395 turbo, vcache [email protected] offset, vccsa [email protected] offset, vccin 1.95, vccio 1.15, LLC +9
BIOS 1401, Win 10 Pro x64 1607

It's basically trial and error from a strategic start-up. For my OC I found I needed more vccin at max turbo than I'd like at more typical 24/7 states, so I use LLC 9 to up my 1.95 base setting to 1.98 at 100% speed.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Ok let's say my cpu core overclock is stable at 1.42vcore and 1.93 input. Now I overclock my cache and crash, what do you do, just up the ring voltage?


Can you run aida64 for at least a couple hours with just the cache stress test checked? I like to use that as well as Realbench and x265Hwbot benchmark for my main stress test programs.

So if more vring is not helping you stabilize your cache OC i would then try higher vccin up to 1.98v with a medium LLC and if you haven't already give vccu 25mv.

Oh and my mistake about earlier your right i should read stuff better.


----------



## Yomny

For reference PLL setting

I'm starting to look around for anything that could help with these weird random reboots. Seems LC PLL with high filter is best for when overclocking using turbo multiplier.

Bios settings for different boards

Here i see that it suggests i disabled a few of the power saving modes such as c1/3/6 which i dont have disabled. Could these things be whats causing me to shutdown at times? I'll never know lol.









Anyways so far i started with my "stable" overclock and started to increase cache multi using only default ring voltage. I could boot fine up until 34 and runs stable.

I guess to test if i need more input voltage when increasing ring i could increase ring voltage and not the speed, test and if crashing occurs it could mean the input needs more juice since the crash can't be because of the actual uncore speed(being stock).


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Can you run aida64 for at least a couple hours with just the cache stress test checked? I like to use that as well as Realbench and x265Hwbot benchmark for my main stress test programs.
> 
> So if more vring is not helping you stabilize your cache OC i would then try higher vccin up to 1.98v with a medium LLC and if you haven't already give vccu 25mv.
> 
> Oh and my mistake about earlier your right i should read stuff better.


Appreciate the help, i'm getting Aida as i type and will test cache. Right now im running 34 cache from 28 stock with stock voltage. I usually run LinX as this thing would give me an error within the first 5 runs. The odd thing is that i can never catch an instability while stress testing, i only assume it because my PC just turns off and reboots. I've tested 1 realbench, 30 mins of IBT, LinX, partially running 6 threads on Prime95 and 6 other threads on OCCT. I've tried most and it passes, then one day PC turns off lol.

No sweat about the miscommunication, english isn't my first language so at times i tend to over-complicate my explanations trying too hard to explain my self lol and it could just lead to confusion, like i probably did above


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> For reference PLL setting
> 
> I'm starting to look around for anything that could help with these weird random reboots. Seems LC PLL with high filter is best for when overclocking using turbo multiplier.
> 
> Bios settings for different boards
> 
> Here i see that it suggests i disabled a few of the power saving modes such as c1/3/6 which i dont have disabled. Could these things be whats causing me to shutdown at times? I'll never know lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways so far i started with my "stable" overclock and started to increase cache multi using only default ring voltage. I could boot fine up until 34 and runs stable.
> 
> I guess to test if i need more input voltage when increasing ring i could in*crease ring voltage and not the speed, test* and if crashing occurs it could mean the input needs more juice since the crash can't be because of the actual uncore speed(being stock).


not the way to go. set a ring voltage of 1.9-1.95V with a mid level LLC as llchronic described, set an uncore frequency of 36 and increase ring voltage until it is stable to 1h realbench cache test. If the voltage is going higher than you are conformable with, lower the uncore multiplier by one. It is MUCH LESS convoluted than you are making it out to be.
leave PLL alone at this point., the Auto rules are fine. Since you are not changing straps or BCLK, Auto is fine.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> not the way to go. set a ring voltage of 1.9-1.95V with a mid level LLC as llchronic described, set an uncore frequency of 36 and increase ring voltage until it is stable to 1h realbench cache test. If the voltage is going higher than you are conformable with, lower the uncore multiplier by one. It is MUCH LESS convoluted than you are making it out to be.


You mean set input to 1.9-1.95v? Normally it would be less complex but in my case something is causing my PC to shutdown, i'm assuming due to other testing that its the cache OC. Normally you set it, test and you should be ok as you mentioned. I can do that, set it, test and forget it. It pretty much passes any test, then two days down the road, reboot. Appreciate your help. I'll continue testing and see.

You guys running x265 bench and using Win 10, did you have to enable your HPET?

I did in order to run it and it turns out my realbench score dropped 20 points, turned it back off and increased score again. not cool.


----------



## djgar

Please illumine my ignorance - is ring voltage vccin or vcache? Sounds like vccin, not vcache?

TIA


----------



## Kimir

ring=cache
vccin=input.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> You mean set input to 1.9-1.95v? Normally it would be less complex but in my case something is causing my PC to shutdown, i'm assuming due to other testing that its the cache OC. Normally you set it, test and you should be ok as you mentioned. I can do that, set it, test and forget it. It pretty much passes any test, then two days down the road, reboot. Appreciate your help. I'll continue testing and see.
> 
> You guys running x265 bench and using Win 10, did you have to enable your HPET?
> 
> I did in order to run it and it turns out my realbench score dropped 20 points, turned it back off and increased score again. not cool.


lol 0- yeah - i mean VCCIN/Input voltage. You have to enable HPET to run x265. it's no big deal to toggle HPET.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> ring=cache
> vccin=input.


Thanks! VCCIN I was familiar with - ring I was not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol 0- yeah - i mean VCCIN/Input voltage. You have to enable HPET to run x265. it's no big deal to toggle HPET.


Hey, you threw me off!







I'm now illumined!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Thanks! VCCIN I was familiar with - ring I was not.
> Hey, you threw me off!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now illumined!


http://www.overclock.net/t/1601679/broadwell-e-thread/4520_20#post_25782383


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1601679/broadwell-e-thread/4520_20#post_25782383


I clearly claim my right to be mentally obscured by non-related circumstances and happenings around me that have nothing to do with anything ... or something like that ...


----------



## Yomny

Thanks to all, very little helps. I'm going to work with Aida and x265. So far I'm testing 1.92 input with vcore 1.43 and 1.35 ring votlage and seems to pass at least 10 Linx runs. Not the standard but usually when voltages are off wack this test would fail within the first 5 runs. I'll proceed to test Aida and Realbench later on.

Someone mentioned Realbench cache testing, is this just the regular stress test in Realbench?


----------



## djgar

For cache testing best is to use AIDA64 cache test. 2 hours should do it.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> this "rule" is somewhat untested at the low end (at least in my hands)... I mean, I'm running an 1.281V OC right now, 0.5V would put this at 1.781V for VCCIN on this 6950X (i'll assume that is at load with vdroop - if any). 0.6V would be slightly closer to what I run (1.93V idle, droops to 1.85 or so if I remember the numbers right. at 4.6 I run 1.97V input). The "rule" as I know it is AT LEAST 0.5-0.6V above vcore. Run with that in mind and you'll be fine.


So it's good for me I think








Vcore to 1.274v, Input to 1.856v idle, 1.804v load


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> For cache testing best is to use AIDA64 cache test. 2 hours should do it.


Running that at the moment. Watch me pass that and then pc reboots lol. I'm starting to think the mobo is acting up on me. Thanks. I'm stressing cache, cpu & fpu just in case.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Thanks to all, very little helps. I'm going to work with Aida and x265. So far I'm testing 1.92 input with vcore 1.43 and 1.35 ring votlage and seems to pass at least 10 Linx runs. Not the standard but usually when voltages are off wack this test would fail within the first 5 runs. I'll proceed to test Aida and Realbench later on.
> 
> Someone mentioned Realbench cache testing, is this just the regular stress test in Realbench?


Pretty sure he meant aida64 cache

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> For cache testing best is to use AIDA64 cache test. 2 hours should do it.


^^^


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Running that at the moment. Watch me pass that and then pc reboots lol. I'm starting to think the mobo is acting up on me. Thanks. I'm stressing cache, cpu & fpu just in case.


Sometimes it's better to just stress cache to narrow down identifying the problem.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I clearly claim my right to be mentally obscured by non-related circumstances and happenings around me that have nothing to do with anything ... or something like that ...


Plausible deniability.


----------



## Yomny

Alright guys, here's my 2hr Aida64 benchy. I wish i could say i feel better but this rediculous reboots have caught me by surprise when i've thought to be stable. I'm positive im making progress here so lets see. I cant boot at 36 uncore, not even with 1.4 ring voltage so i didn't even bother since i could run 35 with just 1.1 ring voltage.

I've set LLC to Extreme or last level on my board, no overshooting voltage just rock steady Input at 1.929v

Input 1.93v
Cpu core 45 @ 1.43
AVX offset 2 so (43 core cpu @ 1.36vcore) as shown in aida, bad boy uses AVX.
Cache multi 35 @ 1.1v ring(1.126 windows)

Aside from Aida64 ive done 30mins LinX, 30mins Realbench stress and quite a few others. Thanks for your help, i'll go play a bit and see if this darn thing decides to reboot lol.

The shot could be a little confusing with vcore as it reads in Aida 1.43 and 1.36 on HWinfo, this is because it was caught in a transition from AVX to non, i run an offset so AVX instructions see 43 multi with 1.36vcore and non AVX uses 45 multi cpu core with 1.43v.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Alright guys, here's my 2hr Aida64 benchy. I wish i could say i feel better but this rediculous reboots have caught me by surprise when i've thought to be stable. I'm positive im making progress here so lets see. I cant boot at 36 uncore, not even with 1.4 ring voltage so i didn't even bother since i could run 35 with just 1.1 ring voltage.
> 
> *I've set LLC to Extreme or last level on my board, no overshooting voltage just rock steady Input at 1.92v*
> Input 1.93v
> Cpu core 45 @ 1.43
> AVX offset 2
> Cache multi 35 @ 1.1v ring(1.126 windows)
> 
> Aside from Aida64 ive done 30mins LinX, 30mins Realbench stress and quite a few others. Thanks for your help, i'll go play a bit and see if this darn thing decides to reboot lol.


One point of clarification. disabling LLC (eg, defeating any vdroop) actually can lead to load line overshoot (and undershoot) on the time scale LLC was introduced to "compensate" for (milliseconds - undetectable without an oscilloscope). So... simply said, a bit of vdroop is a good thing.
IN these diagrams - "offset" = vdroop.
Vcore or VCCIN - it's the same effect.


granted, today's power sections deal with this much better than this 775 socket example, but load-change (read "current-change" ) induced voltage swings must occur when you change current under "constant" voltage conditions. LLC is there to compensate for that, not what you see with any OS tool or multimeter connected to the MB.

Use the setting that works best for your setup. I only post this so LLC is better understood.


----------



## Yomny

Thanks for that, everything that helps understand these terms in bios is always very helpful. In my case LLC is for input voltage. I think I have about 5 levels but they use names. Under 4 level LLC input drops a about 10mv when under load never exceeding what's set in bios not at idle or at partial loads. Under 5, highest level, input remains exactly at what's set in bios under high load and drops just a bit ~10mv under idle conditions. I'm pretty happy with the LLC in this board.

PS- Update, BSOD on the test after the 2 hour aida lol. I was running Realbench for another hour and 15 mins into it, i blue screened. Upping the ring and testing again, this time im starting with Realbench.







Telling you this thing has a mind of its own.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Thanks for that, everything that helps understand these terms in bios is always very helpful. In my case LLC is for input voltage. I think I have about 5 levels but they use names. Under 4 level LLC input drops a about 10mv when under load never exceeding what's set in bios not at idle or at partial loads. Under 5, highest level, input remains exactly at what's set in bios under high load and drops just a bit ~10mv under idle conditions. I'm pretty happy with the LLC in this board.
> 
> PS- Update, BSOD on the test after the 2 hour aida lol. I was running Realbench for another hour and 15 mins into it, i blue screened. Upping the ring and testing again, this time im starting with Realbench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling you this thing has a mind of its own.


yeah I know LLC affects VCCIN on x99. It is incorporated onm voltage rails subject to load libe overshoot. .. for example, I run 1.95V set in bios. idle is ~ 1.9V, full TDP-level) load droops to ~1.84. LLC at mid level on this board (5).








see page 56, figure 5-5.

core-i7-lga2011-3-datasheet-vol-1.pdf 795k .pdf file


----------



## Yomny

I've spent a whole day basically testing this thing. Realbench is killing me, I've tested up to 1.96 input and 1.25 ring and can't even get a 32 uncore to pass Realbench. What's up with that thing. I could easily pass Linx, Aida for the two hours mentioned above and basically anything except Realbench stress. The the only thing that comes to mind is that all other tests except Realbench use avx so the run less multiplier and less CPU core voltage, in my case. Realbench is using the 1.43vcore with 45 multi. I'll try prime 95 tomorrow, older version non avx to see if I could pass.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> I've spent a whole day basically testing this thing. Realbench is killing me, I've tested up to 1.96 input and 1.25 ring and can't even get a 32 uncore to pass Realbench. What's up with that thing. I could easily pass Linx, Aida for the two hours mentioned above and basically anything except Realbench stress. The the only thing that comes to mind is that all other tests except Realbench use avx so the run less multiplier and less CPU core voltage, in my case. Realbench is using the 1.43vcore with 45 multi. I'll try prime 95 tomorrow, older version non avx to see if I could pass.


Have you tested RAM just to rule that out?

I cant pass RB or AIDA with my RAM at [email protected] and my Cache at 36, but it flys through everything with it at [email protected]


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Have you tested RAM just to rule that out?
> 
> I cant pass RB or AIDA with my RAM at [email protected] and my Cache at 36, but it flys through everything with it at [email protected]


Haven't tested recently but I did test when I was clocking the core speed. I'm running default xmp 2400 and it did pass 200% mentest and the other non windows memtest86 I believe it's called. At this point I'm at 30 cache but that's with stock voltage on ring and it's a pathetic overclock lol. Seems I've hit a wall with the core speed at 45 and voltage. Maybe if I back it down I could get 35/36 cache but don't really think it'll be worth it.

Also I haven't tested anything over 1.97 input, don't really feel I could go higher without thermal issues as I'm running into package temps of 80, barely but it has touch that point.

Testing hci memtest, 12 threads or apps covering all ram. Sucks that I can't overclock uncore. I tried lower core and higher uncore but the performance isn't worth it. I'm just a bit or a lot ocd and like to have things balanced or even so I feel not clocking higher uncore is a bad thing. I get better performance out of higher core and default uncore. Seems my 45 core speed didn't leave much overhead for anything else. Oh well maybe someday I'll realize I was doing something stupidly wrong and my chip wasn't an uncore crap lol.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

No matter how cool this chip is it wont get stable at 4.6ghz. Even with xmp profile and cache set to 31. Wont do it at even 1.5v.


----------



## Kimir

4.6 is asking alot on BW-E, 4.5 is nice already!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how cool this chip is it wont get stable at 4.6ghz. Even with xmp profile and cache set to 31. Wont do it at even 1.5v.


And if we could only guess what chip it is and where it sits ...


----------



## Silent Scone

As above, lower your sights...


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> And if we could only guess what chip it is and where it sits ...


My bad it's the 6800k.


----------



## Yomny

Yeah I can't get 46 either no matter what voltage, don't feel bad lol. Even with avx offset.


----------



## xTesla1856

Yet here I am, thinking 43 is good enough


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Yet here I am, thinking 43 is good enough


Not many will be running 4.5 or above. I have a reasonable 6850K here that's delidded. 4.4Ghz is 1.34v. 4.5Ghz is 1.4v.


----------



## StullenAndi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Dont break it lol. I can't get the so called 300 that people talk about. IBT the max i get is ~160 so somethings not the same here but your chip is fine.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> My bad it's the 6800k.


There are much better 6800k out there and even these chips are not 4.6G stable, maybe realbench but thats another case.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Not many will be running 4.5 or above. I have a reasonable 6850K here that's delidded. 4.4Ghz is 1.34v. 4.5Ghz is 1.4v.


that's actually a pretty good 6850K.


----------



## nqduy

Holy crap! My 6850k wouldn't even hit 4.4 with less than 1.37! Hold on to it, my friend.


----------



## cg4200

Just curious I have my 6850 running [email protected] and 34 @1.125 cache took other peoples advice not to run higher cache I need to up volts for not much better results but more heat 4hr realbench ..also aida 64 with gpu stress test enabled while watching netfix movie's for couple hours and msi /intel extreme tuning and some gta v with a little witcher and that is (after a lot of failed test's and voltage adjustment's) with some good advice from members on here cheers!..So I am happy with results but would still like to delid at some point and go from 2 360 dual blackice rads to 2 560 rads when I redo shortly.
I have not ran prime for heat concern do not want to hit 90's I know some people adjust settings I am not familiar with prime.
Is there any other stress test that does cache and core besides aida 64
And what is wrong with realbench? I see some people say it is not the best to test system stability ...Thanks


----------



## djgar

The combination of GSAT, AIDA64 cache and RealBench seems a good stress suite to cover pretty much all angles properly.


----------



## Rune

Hi there. Got sent here from LTT to ask a few questions. Here is my original post from there:
Quote:


> Hi there. I couldn't seem to find any direct information on this online, and its been bugging me lately. My CPU package temp seems to be abnormally high on idle. I was wondering if any other 6850k owner out there could share their temps or advice on this? I've currently got 4.5ghz running on 1.31v.
> 
> At idle, all 6 cores stay within 25-30c but the package temp will never go below 54c.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When gaming, cores generally stay in the mid 50s to low 60s, with the package temp going up to 66-67 after a decent amount of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried turning up fans, removing the case sidepanels, reapplying thermal paste (x2), and a variety of dances to remove bad juju. Nothing seems to work. Outside of aida64 I also tried using XTU and hwmonitor for temps. Same readings.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, on the recommendation of someone from that thread, I lowered my VCCIN from auto (running at 1.9v) to 1.7v and experienced package temp drops to 51 idle, 62 load. Rather oddly, my core temps seem to have gone down as well. BF1 after an hour seems to max out at 50c. An improvement, but still seems to be really high for idle. Any ideas? Thanks!


----------



## Silent Scone

No need to lower VCCIN like that. Depends on how long you've been monitoring it

The package temp tells you the average core temperature over a polling period, a disparity of around 10 degrees or more from your core temperature is normal. It's under load where attention needs to be paid. Make sure you only have one polling application open at a time (AIDA in this case). Anything under 80c is within acceptable limits.

You've not given any info on your cooling, so hard to know what you can do to improve things if you need to at all.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's actually a pretty good 6850K.


I know, right? It's shniice.

Does ok in a few things at 4.6, too


----------



## Rune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No need to lower VCCIN like that. Depends on how long you've been monitoring it
> 
> The package temp tells you the average core temperature over a polling period, a disparity of around 10 degrees or more from your core temperature is normal. It's under load where attention needs to be paid. Make sure you only have one polling application open at a time (AIDA in this case). Anything under 80c is within acceptable limits.
> 
> You've not given any info on your cooling, so hard to know what you can do to improve things if you need to at all


In that first situation, temps were monitored for about an hour. It couldn't have been an accurate average if core temp was always 25-30 and package temp was 55-60...And at idle that was probably closer to 30c difference instead of 10.
As for cooling, I've got a custom loop with a lot of EK parts. Supremacy EVO with arctic silver 5 and a thick 360 rad in push/pull.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rune*
> 
> In that first situation, temps were monitored for about an hour. It couldn't have been an accurate average if core temp was always 25-30 and package temp was 55-60...And at idle that was probably closer to 30c difference instead of 10.
> As for cooling, I've got a custom loop with a lot of EK parts. Supremacy EVO with arctic silver 5 and a thick 360 rad in push/pull.


It is quite a large disparity, but under load what you're seeing is ok - that's what counts. Are you running a fixed voltage for VCORE and Uncore?

Here's mine at idle...


----------



## Rune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It is quite a large disparity, but under load what you're seeing is ok - that's what counts. Are you running a fixed voltage for VCORE and Uncore?
> 
> Here's mine at idle...


I see. Yeah, fixed voltage for vcore just for testing purposes.


----------



## Silent Scone

Who knows. You'll see an improvement by tuning in dynamic voltage settings. Like I say, at load is where you want to keep an eye on things.

Always worth investing in an inline sensor to check on your water temps, too.

EDIT: Contact AIDA technical support and check that the readouts are compatible with your motherboard.


----------



## xTesla1856

I finally managed to get 44x to work on my 6800K. I used adaptive voltage with 1.4v additional turbo voltage. I set LLC at level 5 and the VRMs to Extreme (so they always stay on). Same thing for the DRAM VRMs. Memory is sitting at 3200MhZ CL16. It passed 2 runs of Firestrike and 3 runs of cinebench, while the hottest core was at 66°C. That's all I could test before crashing out at 2AM. When I get home today, I'll test for stability proper. What's the best tool for BW-E testing besides P95?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rune*
> 
> Hi there. Got sent here from LTT to ask a few questions. Here is my original post from there:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Now, on the recommendation of someone from that thread, I lowered my VCCIN from auto (running at 1.9v) to 1.7v and experienced package temp drops to 51 idle, 62 load. Rather oddly, my core temps seem to have gone down as well. BF1 after an hour seems to max out at 50c. An improvement, but still seems to be really high for idle. Any ideas? Thanks!


is the system stable with VCCIN that low? If yes, leave it set there. If there is a way to measure voltages on that MSI MB (with a DMM) I'd check what the voltage actually is.


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rune*
> 
> Hi there. Got sent here from LTT to ask a few questions. Here is my original post from there:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Now, on the recommendation of someone from that thread, I lowered my VCCIN from auto (running at 1.9v) to 1.7v and experienced package temp drops to 51 idle, 62 load. Rather oddly, my core temps seem to have gone down as well. BF1 after an hour seems to max out at 50c. An improvement, but still seems to be really high for idle. Any ideas? Thanks!


Hey man we have same Motherboard and chip ..
I am water cooled also and my package idle is 26c when cores 1-6 17-19c idle .. running a quick realbench my package hits 70c so when you are at load does not seem bad.. I have set almost all my volts and did not leave to auto.Make sure system agent is not on auto mine would go to 1.3 or so ..my vccin is 1.92 but I am running overclock or would not need to be that high. I doubt its a bad mount if your cores are good maybe try msi intel extreme tuning it reports volts pretty good I find if not mabe a faulty sensor ..


----------



## Rune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Hey man we have same Motherboard and chip ..
> I am water cooled also and my package idle is 26c when cores 1-6 17-19c idle .. running a quick realbench my package hits 70c so when you are at load does not seem bad.. I have set almost all my volts and did not leave to auto.Make sure system agent is not on auto mine would go to 1.3 or so ..my vccin is 1.92 but I am running overclock or would not need to be that high. I doubt its a bad mount if your cores are good maybe try msi intel extreme tuning it reports volts pretty good I find if not mabe a faulty sensor ..


My system agent is actually still on auto. What did you find to be an acceptable number? Fairly sure my auto set it to 1.368v


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I finally managed to get 44x to work on my 6800K. I used adaptive voltage with 1.4v additional turbo voltage. I set LLC at level 5 and the VRMs to Extreme (so they always stay on). Same thing for the DRAM VRMs. Memory is sitting at 3200MhZ CL16. It passed 2 runs of Firestrike and 3 runs of cinebench, while the hottest core was at 66°C. That's all I could test before crashing out at 2AM. When I get home today, I'll test for stability proper. What's the best tool for BW-E testing besides P95?


Try x264/5 should be more than enough. If you want you could always try prime 95 version 26, OCCT is ok and also Aida64(2 hours more than fine) if you can. I would stay away from real bench stress as i caused nightmares for me and it stresses your GPU to almost 100% so the heat will be crazy.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Try x264/5 should be more than enough. If you want you could always try prime 95 version 26, OCCT is ok and also Aida64(2 hours more than fine) if you can. I would stay away from real bench stress as i caused nightmares for me and it stresses your GPU to almost 100% so the heat will be crazy.


Thanks a lot, I will try AIDA and x264/5 encoding.







Hope this thing survives.

On the other hand, I got an offer this morning for a 5960X that does 4.6 24/7 stable at 1.30V for a very good price. Decisions, decisions


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Thanks a lot, I will try AIDA and x264/5 encoding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this thing survives.
> 
> On the other hand, I got an offer this morning for a 5960X that does 4.6 24/7 stable at 1.30V for a very good price. Decisions, decisions


a 4.6 5960X is close, naybe equal to a 4.3 Broadwell with the same core count.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Thanks a lot, I will try AIDA and x264/5 encoding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this thing survives.
> 
> On the other hand, I got an offer this morning for a 5960X that does 4.6 24/7 stable at 1.30V for a very good price. Decisions, decisions


I'll sure you'll be fine, these tests aren't toasters from hell. I pulled a 2hr run with aida at 45 with great temps. I could also do x264/5 without issues.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> a 4.6 5960X is close, naybe equal to a 4.3 Broadwell with the same core count.


In games too, or strictly compute?


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rune*
> 
> My system agent is actually still on auto. What did you find to be an acceptable number? Fairly sure my auto set it to 1.368v


I am at work now but I am pretty sure 1.126 is what I am running.. My auto ran Same as yours funny way high I could probably go lower..I do have newest bios also and running windows 10.. And not to insult you I am on my phone replying just checking you installed all the drivers and newest bios.. it should not matter if when gaming..good luck


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> a 4.6 5960X is close, naybe equal to a 4.3 Broadwell with the same core count.


Core-for-core, for computes my 4.4 6950x edges out my 4.7 5960x in some cases ever so slightly, but core for core it's close and depends on the compiler, OS, application, etc...

That 300Mhz roughly maps to the 5-10% advertised IPC gains of BW over HW (300/4700 = 6.4%)

Its more interesting what BWE does with a comparatively gimped cache frequency (3.6-3.7) vs 4.2-4.5 for HWE... even for things that are sensitive to cache throughput. I was concerned this would leave BWE slower on a core-for-core basis.


----------



## ithree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rune*
> 
> Now, on the recommendation of someone from that thread, I lowered my VCCIN from auto (running at 1.9v) to 1.7v and experienced package temp drops to 51 idle, 62 load. Rather oddly, my core temps seem to have gone down as well. BF1 after an hour seems to max out at 50c. An improvement, but still seems to be really high for idle. Any ideas? Thanks!


Check if c-states are enabled. With c-states disabled IDLE temps will be noticeably higher. With c-states enabled you get benefit of lower idle power consumption at expense of a slight DPC latency increase (dozen microseconds). Don't trust the wattage reported by the CPU -- look at kill-a-watt meter from the wall with and without c-states enabled.

Keep Speed Step (EIST) turned off though -- downclocking the CPU is worthless versus modern c-states and doesn't save any power or heat at idle.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ithree*
> 
> Check if c-states are enabled. With c-states disabled IDLE temps will be noticeably higher. With c-states enabled you get benefit of lower idle power consumption at expense of a slight DPC latency increase (dozen microseconds). Don't trust the wattage reported by the CPU -- look at kill-a-watt meter from the wall with and without c-states enabled.
> 
> Keep Speed Step (EIST) turned off though -- downclocking the CPU is worthless versus modern c-states and doesn't save any power or heat at idle.


We've already established he is running a fixed voltage, so this has already been suggested.


----------



## Yomny

Guys, for those with 6800k can you confirm something for me. My board wont give my the 3.6ghz boost with default settings and all things auto, basically default optimized. To my understanding 3.4 default speed and 36 is boost now i can't get that, i get max 35.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Core-for-core, for computes my 4.4 6950x edges out my 4.7 5960x in some cases ever so slightly, but core for core, buts its close and depends on the compiler, OS, application, etc...
> 
> That 300Mhz roughly maps to the 5-10% advertised IPC gains of BW over HW (300/4700 = 6.4%)
> 
> Its more interesting what BWE does with a comparatively gimped cache frequency (3.6-3.7) vs 4.2-4.5 for HWE... even for things that are sensitive to cache throughput. I was concerned this would leave BWE slower on a core-for-core basis.


for sure.. thankfully ASUS came out with the OC socket otherwise I'm not sure we would have seen the OC socket on any x99 boards.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Guys, for those with 6800k can you confirm something for me. My board wont give my the 3.6ghz boost with default settings and all things auto, basically default optimized. To my understanding 3.4 default speed and 36 is boost now i can't get that, i get max 35.


in bios set SYnch All Cores but leave the multiplier on auto and disable core enhancement - this should run the max turbo multiplier on all cores.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> for sure.. thankfully ASUS came out with the OC socket otherwise I'm not sure we would have seen the OC socket on any x99 boards.
> in bios set SYnch All Cores but leave the multiplier on auto and disable core enhancement - this should run the max turbo multiplier on all cores.


Wish i had that option, it did it for my with my other righ skylake and asrock board. Gigabyte doesn't have that. What i see in bios is that 2 cores active max 38 multi anything over that is set to 35. Those are the default(auto) values. Unless i change them i think the board will just run like that. Now if i enable XMP i will get full 38 on all cores. Sucks!! gigabyte is not making me happy lately.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Wish i had that option, it did it for my with my other righ skylake and asrock board. Gigabyte doesn't have that. What i see in bios is that 2 cores active max 38 multi anything over that is set to 35. Those are the default(auto) values. Unless i change them i think the board will just run like that. Now if i enable XMP i will get full 38 on all cores. Sucks!! gigabyte is not making me happy lately.


sorry bro. I don't know giga bios very well. BUt a bunch of folks around here do.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> sorry bro. I don't know giga bios very well. BUt a bunch of folks around here do.


Always appreciate your help anyways. When I set xmp I get all cores 38. Without xmp I get 35, I guess gigabyte decided to skip the 36 and do what it wants lol. I'll be switching out boards. I'm having issues also with the random shutdowns. Narrowed things down to Mobo. Just now testing with default settings it did the shutdown thing again taking me to bios saying some "settings" aren't compatible with hardware. It's just not playing nice with broadwell.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Always appreciate your help anyways. When I set xmp I get all cores 38. Without xmp I get 35, I guess gigabyte decided to skip the 36 and do what it wants lol. I'll be switching out boards. I'm having issues also with the random shutdowns. Narrowed things down to Mobo. Just now testing with default settings it did the shutdown thing again taking me to bios saying some "settings" aren't compatible with hardware. It's just not playing nice with broadwell.


switching out for what mobo?


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Guys, for those with 6800k can you confirm something for me. My board wont give my the 3.6ghz boost with default settings and all things auto, basically default optimized. To my understanding 3.4 default speed and 36 is boost now i can't get that, i get max 35.


Did you install the Turbo Boost 3.0 drivers?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> switching out for what mobo?


Not sure, only other I've tried is asrock. Would like to switch to asus but man the prices are just a bit high for me right now. I was checking out yours, 'cry' and that patented socket design with the extra pins caught my eye. I was looking at Asrock x99 extreme 4, x99x fatal1ty or somewhere along those lines. Just want something that's a bit more proven with broawell-e, I know knots if another all support it but I guess I just want better compatibility.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Did you install the Turbo Boost 3.0 drivers?


I did actually from day 1 and even have the little app that lets you set the fastest core to specific applications.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Not sure, only other I've tried is asrock. Would like to switch to asus but man the prices are just a bit high for me right now. I was checking out yours, 'cry' and that patented socket design with the extra pins caught my eye. I was looking at Asrock x99 extreme 4, x99x fatal1ty or somewhere along those lines. Just want something that's a bit more proven with broawell-e, I know knots if another all support it but I guess I just want better compatibility.


check the OCN market place for an R5E... it and the R5E10 are the best x99 boards IMO. The Giga OC champ is a very good one also.

edit: but know that the OC socket is not gonna help with BWE CPUs.


----------



## Rune

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> I am at work now but I am pretty sure 1.126 is what I am running.. My auto ran Same as yours funny way high I could probably go lower..I do have newest bios also and running windows 10.. And not to insult you I am on my phone replying just checking you installed all the drivers and newest bios.. it should not matter if when gaming..good luck


Thanks for the advice on SAv. I've lowered it to the number you suggested, but it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference if any. I'll keep tweaking around since my chip seems to be okay with me just entering in random numbers


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> check the OCN market place for an R5E... it and the R5E10 are the best x99 boards IMO. The Giga OC champ is a very good one also.
> 
> edit: but know that the OC socket is not gonna help with BWE CPUs.


Appreciate the suggestion, I'll look into it. As of now the pc shutdown once more at default clocks so I'm trying disabling xmp and if it still does it I'm going for another board.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

I know 4.5 Ghz isn't bad, I havent even seen anyone reporting a stable build and voltages for 4.6 yet, but will delidding it maybe do the trick? BTW, I've tested multiple thermal pastes, Arctic Silver does better than Grizzly hydronaut? AS lowered my temps 5 degrees at idle. FYI.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> I know 4.5 Ghz isn't bad, I havent even seen anyone reporting a stable build and voltages for 4.6 yet, but will delidding it maybe do the trick? BTW, I've tested multiple thermal pastes, Arctic Silver does better than Grizzly hydronaut? AS lowered my temps 5 degrees at idle. FYI.


AS is good, but....I'm not sure it's that good. Could have just been a bad mount.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> I know 4.5 Ghz isn't bad, I havent even seen anyone reporting a stable build and voltages for 4.6 yet, but will delidding it maybe do the trick? BTW, I've tested multiple thermal pastes, Arctic Silver does better than Grizzly hydronaut? AS lowered my temps 5 degrees at idle. FYI.


To be honest, you'll be lucky if you find many people running 4.5 stable either. As for the thermal compound, might be how you applied it. Hydronaut has always provided better results for me.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> AS is good, but....I'm not sure it's that good. Could have just been a bad mount.


That is what I initially thought. I tested 3 mounts and applications to this one AS. Every mount was very similar. The AS, lowered my temps first mount. So I kept it and have been running it for 2 months now. Considering the fanfare behind hydronaut, I was kind of shocked that the same paste that was good years ago, still holds true.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> That is what I initially thought. I tested 3 mounts and applications to this one AS. Every mount was very similar. The AS, lowered my temps first mount. So I kept it and have been running it for 2 months now. Considering the fanfare behind hydronaut, I was kind of shocked that the same paste that was good years ago, still holds true.


Kryonaut is the good one from Thermal Grizzly.


----------



## Nicklas0912

hello, I have a problem.

One of my cores getting way to Hot, 10 + More c than all the others.

And that does so the CPU is unstabil at 4.5Ghz.

What can I do to fix this?
This is at full load, but after 10-12 sec, it crash cause the one core get to hot only.. the rest is only at the max 62.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> hello, I have a problem.
> 
> One of my cores getting way to Hot, 10 + More c than all the others.
> 
> And that does so the CPU is unstabil at 4.5Ghz.
> 
> What can I do to fix this?
> This is at full load, but after 10-12 sec, it crash cause the one core get to hot only.. the rest is only at the max 62.


tried reseating the cooler?


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> tried reseating the cooler?


Fixed it. CPU input was at 1.98, now 1.78 and now max temp is 63c

But it still crash at 4.5, and if i give more vcore it crash faster than before. So dont know


----------



## tistou77

Put the CPU Input at 1.85v for test


----------



## Raghar

BTW a little question. I seen this table 
That L3 cache number is quite strange. It looks like someone summed L2 and L3 and divided it by 2.

Any ideas?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> BTW a little question. I seen this table
> That L3 cache number is quite strange. It looks like someone summed L2 and L3 and divided it by 2.
> 
> Any ideas?


Found that a little odd as well, but considering the source(s) too early to say...

What I find odd is that they would be wasting Si area on a HEDT processor with their nonsense GPU cores???

Go home iGPU, you're drunk.

Or, could be bad guessing, we've seen that before...

I was a little surprised at how sad the iGPU on the 6700K performed. At the time, you had a CPU that gave the best performance possible of any CPU in games with a GPU that completely failed at 1080p gaming... Like 20fps sort of failure...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> BTW a little question. I seen this table
> That L3 cache number is quite strange. It looks like someone summed L2 and L3 and divided it by 2.
> 
> Any ideas?


it's not from Intel?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Found that a little odd as well, but considering the source(s) too early to say...
> 
> *What I find odd is that they would be wasting Si area on a HEDT processor with their nonsense GPU cores???
> 
> Go home iGPU, you're drunk.*
> 
> Or, could be bad guessing, we've seen that before...
> 
> I was a little surprised at how sad the iGPU on the 6700K performed. At the time, you had a CPU that gave the best performance possible of any CPU in games with a GPU that completely failed at 1080p gaming... Like 20fps sort of failure...


what a tragedy if any X class chipo has an iGPU.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> BTW a little question. I seen this table
> That L3 cache number is quite strange. It looks like someone summed L2 and L3 and divided it by 2.
> 
> Any ideas?


We're getting much more L2/core on Skylake-X, likely due to AVX512. Hence not as much L3 is needed.


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Put the CPU Input at 1.85v for test


did not solved it sadly.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> did not solved it sadly.


please fillout rigbuilder and add it to your signature block... helps to know what you a re trying to get 4.5 on.


----------



## xTesla1856

Guys I need your help. I'm paging all the experienced guys in here to read this:

About 2 weeks ago, my rig started behaving very weirdly (sig rig). BSOD's out of the blue, seemingly at random. Codes are "PFN_LIST CORRUPT", "SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION". Also, sometimes the Windows 10 recovery would crash as well and give me some fatal sys32 driver error. Funny thing is, I reinstalled Windows 3 days ago, because of these very issues, thinking it was just a botched driver or update. But today, about 2 hours into playing Forza, it started again. "PFN_LIST_CORRUPT" BSOD, a few seconds before that, I'd get stuttering and a Windows10 notification saying "Having problems with audio playback?". Wouldn't reboot, it power cycled itself a few times, then booted into the BIOS, recognizing only 12 out of 16GB of RAM (3 DIMM LED's on my board lit up, not 4). Now at stock settings, it booted into Windows again, and I'm typing this post with no shenanigans happening.

I had a similar issue with my old RVE and 5820K, it turned out it was a defective stick of Trident Z. Now I ask you guys, what should I check, what should I do? I'm at the very end of wits here. The rig used to work PERFECTLY up until about 2 weeks ago. Could it be my SSD or a hard drive?

I appreciate any and all help


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Guys I need your help. I'm paging all the experienced guys in here to read this:
> 
> About 2 weeks ago, my rig started behaving very weirdly (sig rig). BSOD's out of the blue, seemingly at random. Codes are "PFN_LIST CORRUPT", "SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION". Also, sometimes the Windows 10 recovery would crash as well and give me some fatal sys32 driver error. Funny thing is, I reinstalled Windows 3 days ago, because of these very issues, thinking it was just a botched driver or update. But today, about 2 hours into playing Forza, it started again. "PFN_LIST_CORRUPT" BSOD, a few seconds before that, I'd get stuttering and a Windows10 notification saying "Having problems with audio playback?". Wouldn't reboot, it power cycled itself a few times, then booted into the BIOS, recognizing only 12 out of 16GB of RAM (3 DIMM LED's on my board lit up, not 4). Now at stock settings, it booted into Windows again, and I'm typing this post with no shenanigans happening.
> 
> I had a similar issue with my old RVE and 5820K, it turned out it was a defective stick of Trident Z. Now I ask you guys, what should I check, what should I do? I'm at the very end of wits here. The rig used to work PERFECTLY up until about 2 weeks ago. Could it be my SSD or a hard drive?
> 
> I appreciate any and all help


Where to begin. No sure your current overclocking situation. Best bet would be to start from scratch. Computer, love me but damn they could really ruin your day. Start ruling out ram, run some memtest86+. Also set all bios settings back to default before running tests.

I'm on a similar boat right now. All stock settings and start testing ram, from there see if there's anything to test ssd.

Maybe aida64 stress test ssd, memory and all else, using stock clocks. This after you've tested memory and passed ok. This should give you something on the ssd. After this at least if all goes well you'll be able to focus on other besides ssd and ram.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Guys I need your help. I'm paging all the experienced guys in here to read this:
> 
> About 2 weeks ago, my rig started behaving very weirdly (sig rig). BSOD's out of the blue, seemingly at random. Codes are "PFN_LIST CORRUPT", "SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION". Also, sometimes the Windows 10 recovery would crash as well and give me some fatal sys32 driver error. Funny thing is, I reinstalled Windows 3 days ago, because of these very issues, thinking it was just a botched driver or update. But today, about 2 hours into playing Forza, it started again. "PFN_LIST_CORRUPT" BSOD, a few seconds before that, I'd get stuttering and a Windows10 notification saying "Having problems with audio playback?". Wouldn't reboot, it power cycled itself a few times, then booted into the BIOS, recognizing only 12 out of 16GB of RAM (3 DIMM LED's on my board lit up, not 4). Now at stock settings, it booted into Windows again, and I'm typing this post with no shenanigans happening.
> 
> I had a similar issue with my old RVE and 5820K, it turned out it was a defective stick of Trident Z. Now I ask you guys, what should I check, what should I do? I'm at the very end of wits here. The rig used to work PERFECTLY up until about 2 weeks ago. Could it be my SSD or a hard drive?
> 
> I appreciate any and all help


Check your memory stability, HCI memtest, and Gsat are good. Had a similar issue while back and diagnosed as bad ram module.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I was a little surprised at how sad the iGPU on the 6700K performed. At the time, you had a CPU that gave the best performance possible of any CPU in games with a GPU that completely failed at 1080p gaming... Like 20fps sort of failure...


KB-X are repackaged desktop chips, thus they likely retained GPU. And GPU on K CPUs is supposed to run OS as a backup, not do any reasonable gaming. They should call it integrated backup of GPU.

Thus seeing weird stuff like GPU on HEDP is somehow expected. If Intel forced everyone into new socket and chipset ONLY to have integrated GPU, that would be tragedy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yuhfhrh*
> 
> We're getting much more L2/core on Skylake-X, likely due to AVX512. Hence not as much L3 is needed.


Only 128 MB is needed as i7-5775C shown when it was tested in games.

Where have you seen the info about more L2 cache? If it will be just 1 MB per core, it's peanuts when plugged only into 13.75 MB L3.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> KB-X are repackaged desktop chips, thus they likely retained GPU. And GPU on K CPUs is supposed to run OS as a backup, not do any reasonable gaming. They should call it integrated backup of GPU.
> 
> Thus seeing weird stuff like GPU on HEDP is somehow expected. If Intel forced everyone into new socket and chipset ONLY to have integrated GPU, that would be tragedy.
> Only 128 MB is needed as i7-5775C shown when it was tested in games.
> 
> Where have you seen the info about more L2 cache? If it will be just 1 MB per core, it's peanuts when plugged only into 13.75 MB L3.


"Chip Warmer?"









Games are not the only use for CPUs... but we've seen multiple references to Intel optimizing the cache and as a result reducing L3. The question will be what their metric for "good enough" was in doing so?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Guys I need your help. I'm paging all the experienced guys in here to read this:
> 
> About 2 weeks ago, my rig started behaving very weirdly (sig rig). BSOD's out of the blue, seemingly at random. Codes are "PFN_LIST CORRUPT", "SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION". Also, sometimes the Windows 10 recovery would crash as well and give me some fatal sys32 driver error. Funny thing is, I reinstalled Windows 3 days ago, because of these very issues, thinking it was just a botched driver or update. But today, about 2 hours into playing Forza, it started again. "PFN_LIST_CORRUPT" BSOD, a few seconds before that, I'd get stuttering and a Windows10 notification saying "Having problems with audio playback?". Wouldn't reboot, it power cycled itself a few times, then booted into the BIOS, recognizing only 12 out of 16GB of RAM (3 DIMM LED's on my board lit up, not 4). Now at stock settings, it booted into Windows again, and I'm typing this post with no shenanigans happening.
> 
> I had a similar issue with my old RVE and 5820K, it turned out it was a defective stick of Trident Z. Now I ask you guys, what should I check, what should I do? I'm at the very end of wits here. The rig used to work PERFECTLY up until about 2 weeks ago. Could it be my SSD or a hard drive?
> 
> I appreciate any and all help


clear cmos and run at complete defaults. run HCi Memtest for 200-500%. or 1h GSAT. if it runs clean, oc the ram only and test again. If clean, then go about overclocking the CPU. If the ram runs clean at defaults but fails the OC (XMP specifically) the manufacturer will replace them under the lifetime warranty.


----------



## xTesla1856

Memtest HCI is detecting some errors, right after the popups show, the rig BSODd with MEMORY MANAGEMENT as the fault. Went into the BIOS, entered manual timings, now the rig won't even boot anymore. System serviceexception and windows recovery is blaming a driver again. No idea what to do.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Memtest HCI is detecting some errors, right after the popups show, the rig BSODd with MEMORY MANAGEMENT as the fault. Went into the BIOS, entered manual timings, now the rig won't even boot anymore. System serviceexception and windows recovery is blaming a driver again. No idea what to do.


Seems ram takes the blame. Try one stick or different ones at a time and see or just rma the kit. Maybe someone could offer more helpful insight, sorry bout that.


----------



## xTesla1856

This would be my 2nd defective Trident Z kit back to back then. Needless to say, they lost a customer.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> This would be my 2nd defective Trident Z kit back to back then. Needless to say, they lost a customer.


I feel you I've been dealing with gigabyte for over 10 years and just now I'm hanging a horrible experience with some shutdowns. Could be ram, g skill as well or mobo. Sometimes change is good.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> This would be my 2nd defective Trident Z kit back to back then. Needless to say, they lost a customer.


really - that is very unusual. did you load optimized defaults or clrcmos before testing??? are the sticks in the correct slots and fully inserted??


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> really - that is very unusual. did you load optimized defaults or clrcmos before testing??? are the sticks in the correct slots and fully inserted??


Yes and yes. I double checked everything, tested XMP as well as manual timings to no avail. Played with voltages, bumped DRAM to 1.4v and added some VCCSA and VCCIO. Tomorrow I'll test each stick individually and see what's what.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Go Patriot Viper. In my Asus X99 -II mobo, its the only quad channel kit that has ever been stable. Of course overclocking it, hasnt been successful, but at 3400Mhz XMP profile and Cas 16 @ 1.35v, it seems to be very stable. IMO, your issue is your ram. Not your SSD/HD. Make sure you have memory training on in your bios as well.


----------



## nqduy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Yes and yes. I double checked everything, tested XMP as well as manual timings to no avail. Played with voltages, bumped DRAM to 1.4v and added some VCCSA and VCCIO. Tomorrow I'll test each stick individually and see what's what.


I have the same board with 6850k @ 4.4 and I'm running 4 x 16GB 3200MHz Corsair LPX and they've been very stable. I went with the LPX because the Cryorig R1 Ult doesn't leave a lot of clearance, so it's either Corsair LPX or Kingston HyperX.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Yes and yes. I double checked everything, tested XMP as well as manual timings to no avail. Played with voltages, bumped DRAM to 1.4v and added some VCCSA and VCCIO. Tomorrow I'll test each stick individually and see what's what.


Sorry bro - you know the odds of getting 2 bad kits in a row? Huuuge.








Luckily, I've run all sorts of GSkill ram on this R5E10 (and on the R5E).. IDK, upwards of 8 or more kits from 16-64GB without a bad stick yet, not including the ridiculous number of kits on the z170 boards here.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Yes and yes. I double checked everything, tested XMP as well as manual timings to no avail. Played with voltages, bumped DRAM to 1.4v and added some VCCSA and VCCIO. Tomorrow I'll test each stick individually and see what's what.


As JP has mentioned, the odds are pretty overwhelming.

But let us know what happens when you test at default settings in HCI. That means with everything left at default.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> As JP has mentioned, the odds are pretty overwhelming.
> 
> But let us know what happens when you test at default settings in HCI. That means with everything left at default.


Last night, I tested all sticks together with XMP, default stock (2133MHz) and manual timings. I tested voltages from 1.2v (stock 2133MHz), 1.35v(XMP), to 1.4v(manual timings and XMP). The result was the same every time:

8 instances of HCI Memtest at 2048MB each, the test would go to about 60ish% without errors, then every instance would find errors and pop-up several alerts. Right after that (2 seconds later maybe), the computer would BSOD (MEMORY_MANAGEMENT *OR* PFN_LIST_CORRUPT). After that it would refuse to boot properly and would power cycle itself about 5-6 times. Then, still refusing to boot, Windows Recovery would also fail, blaming a different driver in system32 every time. After clearing the CMOS and entering BIOS and reverting to stock, the PC would boot. But then it all starts again. I opened up Forza Horizon 3, and about 3-4 minutes into playing, the PC will BSOD again (MEMORY_MANAGEMENT, *OR* SYSTEM THREAD EXCEPTION NOT HANDLED).

The error in HCI Memtest says "Memtest has detected that your computer cannot accurately store data in RAM. You need to fix this." I'm at work right now, so I can't do any more testing, but when I get home, I'll test each stick individually to see if it's faulty RAM or something else.

chkdsk says my boot drive is fine, and so does Samsung Magician. I might also pick up a second spare kit of RAM for situations like this.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Last night, I tested all sticks together with XMP, default stock (2133MHz) and manual timings. I tested voltages from 1.2v (stock 2133MHz), 1.35v(XMP), to 1.4v(manual timings and XMP). The result was the same every time:
> 
> 8 instances of HCI Memtest at 2048MB each, the test would go to about 60ish% without errors, then every instance would find errors and pop-up several alerts. Right after that (2 seconds later maybe), the computer would BSOD (MEMORY_MANAGEMENT *OR* PFN_LIST_CORRUPT). After that it would refuse to boot properly and would power cycle itself about 5-6 times. Then, still refusing to boot, Windows Recovery would also fail, blaming a different driver in system32 every time. After clearing the CMOS and entering BIOS and reverting to stock, the PC would boot. But then it all starts again. I opened up Forza Horizon 3, and about 3-4 minutes into playing, the PC will BSOD again (MEMORY_MANAGEMENT, *OR* SYSTEM THREAD EXCEPTION NOT HANDLED).
> 
> The error in HCI Memtest says "Memtest has detected that your computer cannot accurately store data in RAM. You need to fix this." I'm at work right now, so I can't do any more testing, but when I get home, I'll test each stick individually to see if it's faulty RAM or something else.
> 
> chkdsk says my boot drive is fine, and so does Samsung Magician. I might also pick up a second spare kit of RAM for situations like this.


just to verify... the 2133 HCi run is after changing nothing in bios following a clear cmos? If yes, switch to bios 2 and try the same again... load optimized defaults and change nothing (except boot drive if needed of course). Stil fails at 60ish %?
*don't run 2048x8 with 16GB of ram. use 1538x8.*


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> just to verify... the 2133 HCi run is after changing nothing in bios following a clear cmos? If yes, switch to bios 2 and try the same again... load optimized defaults and change nothing (except boot drive if needed of course). Stil fails at 60ish %?
> *don't run 2048x8 with 16GB of ram. use 1538x8.*


Yes, clear CMOS and nothing else changed in the BIOS. I'll try 1538x8 tonight. Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Yes, clear CMOS and nothing else changed in the BIOS. I'll try 1538x8 tonight. Thanks


yeah - running the ram that hi in HCI maybe using the page file and fouling for some reason. running 12288 out of 16384 is plenty.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - running the ram that hi in HCI maybe using the page file and fouling for some reason. running 12288 out of 16384 is plenty.


The pagefile is disabled, or at least it should be. Prior to the 8x2048 run, I did a 6x2048 run, also resulting in the same BSOD.


----------



## Yomny

Maybe trying with a different kit. At times i buy some from Amazon knowing you could return with ease and literally no cost out of pocket since they refund immidiately. I've done it once and ended up keeping the part though lol.
I think it'll safe you a headache or two.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Maybe trying with a different kit. At times i buy some from Amazon knowing you could return with ease and literally no cost out of pocket since they refund immidiately. I've done it once and ended up keeping the part though lol.
> I think it'll safe you a headache or two.


Yeah amazon is pretty great, unfortunately we don't get it in Switzerland. I just bought a HyperX Fury 2x8GB to test and avoid downtime if I end up RMAing the Tridents.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Yeah amazon is pretty great, unfortunately we don't get it in Switzerland. I just bought a HyperX Fury 2x8GB to test and avoid downtime if I end up RMAing the Tridents.


Hope it all works out man, i feel your pain as ive had to RMA my PSU and GPU thinking they were causing an issue i still have lol. Its hell but hopfully you get this resolved and be back to enjoying your PC.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Hope it all works out man, i feel your pain as ive had to RMA my PSU and GPU thinking they were causing an issue i still have lol. Its hell but hopfully you get this resolved and be back to enjoying your PC.


I've been through these RAM issues often enough to know what to try and test. Although last time, it resulted in a whole new PC and thousands gone...


----------



## xTesla1856

@Jpmboy Little update: I tried 1538x8, about 20% into HCI every worker finds an error. When the last worker found its error, the computer bluescreens with MEMORY_MANAGEMENT. This was with manual timings at 1.4v.

Update 2: Stock settings in BIOS, nothing touched (2133mhz default): 8x1538: computer shuts down halfway through the memtest. No bluescreen, no warning, no error nothing. Black screen, power supply "clink" as the cap discharges. Reboots itself right after to login screen, no issues. Did this test again, after it rebooted itself (same settings, mind you):

Now at 270% completion, not a single issue. Weird.

Update 3: Each stick individually 1538x2:

Update 4: 2x8GB kit of HyperX Fury 2133MHz:

Will update.....


----------



## Raghar

Immediate shutdown is caused by MB overvoltage/overcurrent protection. Most often it happens when someone is trying to measure with multimeter and it slides.

You should monitor also 3.3 V line on your PSU.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Immediate shutdown is caused by MB overvoltage/overcurrent protection. Most often it happens when someone is trying to measure with multimeter and it slides.
> 
> You should monitor also 3.3 V line on your PSU.


The mobo sounds like the culprit. The odd thing here is that it seems to do this when enabling XMP only. I tried an alternate PSU and did the same thing. Tried default optimized settings w/XMP and shutdown happened while same default settings w/o XMP and it was all fine.

I really dont want to think its the fact that the Ram being used wasn't listed in the compatibility list for the mobo. Ive changed out my ram sticks for Crucial's which are listed in the compatibility list and so far, even overclocked cpu/uncore and xmp enabled and all seems fine.









If thats the case then gigabyte is very darn delicate and serious about ram compatibility.

I tested the ram, that was giving me issues, in a different machine and 200 % plus in memtest ran withouth hiccups, same for memtet86+ 2 full passes @ 2+ hours long so the ram wasn't the problem it seems to have been the compatibility issue.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> @Jpmboy Little update: I tried 1538x8, about 20% into HCI every worker finds an error. When the last worker found its error, the computer bluescreens with MEMORY_MANAGEMENT. This was with manual timings at 1.4v.
> 
> Update 2: Stock settings in BIOS, nothing touched (2133mhz default): 8x1538: computer shuts down halfway through the memtest. No bluescreen, no warning, no error nothing. Black screen, power supply "clink" as the cap discharges. Reboots itself right after to login screen, no issues. Did this test again, after it rebooted itself (same settings, mind you):
> 
> Now at 270% completion, not a single issue. Weird.
> 
> *EDIT* 600% in to the test, MEMORY_MANAGEMENT BSOD. Every worker found an error again.
> 
> Update 3: Each stick individually 1538x2:
> 
> Update 4: 2x8GB kit of HyperX Fury 2133MHz:
> 
> Will update.....


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> The mobo sounds like the culprit. The odd thing here is that it seems to do this when enabling XMP only. I tried an alternate PSU and did the same thing. Tried default optimized settings w/XMP and shutdown happened while same default settings w/o XMP and it was all fine.
> 
> I really dont want to think its the fact that the Ram being used wasn't listed in the compatibility list for the mobo. Ive changed out my ram sticks for Crucial's which are listed in the compatibility list and so far, even overclocked cpu/uncore and xmp enabled and all seems fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If thats the case then gigabyte is very darn delicate and serious about ram compatibility.
> 
> I tested the ram, that was giving me issues, in a different machine and 200 % plus in memtest ran withouth hiccups, same for memtet86+ 2 full passes @ 2+ hours long so the ram wasn't the problem it seems to have been the compatibility issue.


it does it no matter the BIOS setting. I tested every scenario so far. Every time the same error occurs, sooner or later. 3.3 Voltage is at 3.298 according to the BIOS. 5v and 12v are also fine.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> it does it no matter the BIOS setting. I tested every scenario so far. Every time the same error occurs, sooner or later. 3.3 Voltage is at 3.298 according to the BIOS. 5v and 12v are also fine.


Sorry man we got a bit confused here. I thought that "shutdown" situation was in reference to something i posted a while back and i think I've finally pinpointed the mobo as the problem.


----------



## Alex230

Guys, sorry for the intrusion, just a quick question.

I wanted to ask you if all X99 boards do a complete shutdown and power on after you change something in the bios. I mean even if don't do any changes and just enter and exit the bios, the pc shuts down and restarts itself.

6800k (stock) + AsRock X99 Taichi and 2x8 GB Gskill Tridend Z @ 3200mhz (need to update my sig)

Thanks.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> @Jpmboy Little update: I tried 1538x8, about 20% into HCI every worker finds an error. When the last worker found its error, the computer bluescreens with MEMORY_MANAGEMENT. This was with manual timings at 1.4v.
> 
> Update 2: Stock settings in BIOS, nothing touched (2133mhz default): 8x1538: computer shuts down halfway through the memtest. No bluescreen, no warning, no error nothing. Black screen, power supply "clink" as the cap discharges. Reboots itself right after to login screen, no issues. Did this test again, after it rebooted itself (same settings, mind you):
> 
> Now at 270% completion, not a single issue. Weird.
> 
> Update 3: Each stick individually 1538x2:
> 
> Update 4: 2x8GB kit of HyperX Fury 2133MHz:
> 
> Will update.....


well... (this is a nail biter)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex230*
> 
> Guys, sorry for the intrusion, just a quick question.
> 
> I wanted to ask you if all X99 boards do a complete shutdown and power on after you change something in the bios. I mean even if don't do any changes and just enter and exit the bios, the pc shuts down and restarts itself.
> 
> 6800k (stock) + AsRock X99 Taichi and 2x8 GB Gskill Tridend Z @ 3200mhz (need to update my sig)
> 
> Thanks.


not always, but some changes to the UEFI require the system to re-perform the POST series of tests (power on self test) from a "cold" boot start, and not necessarily what you might think. On many boads there is a need when simply crossing a multiplier threshold eg, 45 to 46.


----------



## NewbieOC

Hi guys sorry new here and willing to learn everything I can.
Specs:
asus rampage extreme v
I7 6800k
Evga 1200w p2 plat
16gb corsair dominator platinum 3200mhz
Kraken x62 cooler

New to overclocking and read half this thread so far.
At 4.2ghz but at 1.37v from what I'm seeing on here most get lower core volts. Or is mine that bad... cache x36
And stable so far. Temps 80c below under stress tests. Realbench, aida64.
Please advise me


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NewbieOC*
> 
> Hi guys sorry new here and willing to learn everything I can.
> Specs:
> asus rampage extreme v
> I7 6800k
> Evga 1200w p2 plat
> 16gb corsair dominator platinum 3200mhz
> Kraken x62 cooler
> 
> New to overclocking and read half this thread so far.
> At 4.2ghz but at 1.37v from what I'm seeing on here most get lower core volts. Or is mine that bad... cache x36
> And stable so far. Temps 80c below under stress tests. Realbench, aida64.
> Please advise me


Welcome! Need to see more of the bios settings to try to help. VCCIN, LLC, cache voltage etc.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NewbieOC*
> 
> Hi guys sorry new here and willing to learn everything I can.
> Specs:
> asus rampage extreme v
> I7 6800k
> Evga 1200w p2 plat
> 16gb corsair dominator platinum 3200mhz
> Kraken x62 cooler
> 
> New to overclocking and read half this thread so far.
> At 4.2ghz but at 1.37v from what I'm seeing on here most get lower core volts. Or is mine that bad... cache x36
> And stable so far. Temps 80c below under stress tests. Realbench, aida64.
> Please advise me


Fill out a system specs thing so we check it out, i know you've already listed your specs but in a few posts, that wont be visible anymore. Maybe focus on core and getting the highest OC you want, then do uncore/cache.

As mentioned we need a bit more details like ring voltage, what setting for vcore: adaptive, fixed, offset.

What are you using to stress? and are you using an AVX offset? AVX requires more current to be stable.

Of course every cpu is different but you should get 42 with less than 1.35.


----------



## Alex230

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well... (this is a nail biter)
> not always, but some changes to the UEFI require the system to re-perform the POST series of tests (power on self test) from a "cold" boot start, and not necessarily what you might think. On many boads there is a need when simply crossing a multiplier threshold eg, 45 to 46.


Thanks for the fast reply. Yes, I know it needs a power down - power on cycle when you change multipliers, voltages and such. My old P67 did the same when changing certain oc features.

But my Taichi does the power off - on cycle every time i enter the bios. So even if I just enter the bios, do absolutely nothing and exit it with or without saving, doesn't matter, it still does the off - on cycle.

And to be on topic, oc'd my 6800k to 4.2Ghz with AsRock Turbo OC feature in the bios just to see at what settings everything settles on. Obviously the voltage was way to high for 4.2, 1.37v. So i manually toned it down to 1.25v. Nothing else was touched. Ram is on XMP 2.0 @ 3200mhz, (Gskill Trident Z).

Passes cinebench ,tried occt and aida 64 stress test for about 40 mins each, all good. Temps are hovering in high 60s low 70s (DeepCool Maelstrom 240T AIO with 2x Cougar Vortex HDB 12mm fans in pull, all in an NZXT s340 case - _i really need to update my rig specs here on the forum_).

Problems appear when I try IBT. It fails to pass the 3rd run. Tried 1.27v and 1.3v, same issue. Strangely, it runs everything else just fine ,even tried some gaming.

Any advice? thanks!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex230*
> 
> Thanks for the fast reply. Yes, I know it needs a power down - power on cycle when you change multipliers, voltages and such. My old P67 did the same when changing certain oc features.
> 
> But my Taichi does the power off - on cycle every time i enter the bios. So even if I just enter the bios, do absolutely nothing and exit it with or without saving, doesn't matter, it still does the off - on cycle.
> 
> And to be on topic, oc'd my 6800k to 4.2Ghz with AsRock Turbo OC feature in the bios just to see at what settings everything settles on. Obviously the voltage was way to high for 4.2, 1.37v. So i manually toned it down to 1.25v. Nothing else was touched. Ram is on XMP 2.0 @ 3200mhz, (Gskill Trident Z).
> 
> Passes cinebench ,tried occt and aida 64 stress test for about 40 mins each, all good. Temps are hovering in high 60s low 70s (DeepCool Maelstrom 240T AIO with 2x Cougar Vortex HDB 12mm fans in pull, all in an NZXT s340 case - _i really need to update my rig specs here on the forum_).
> 
> *Problems appear when I try IBT. It fails to pass the 3rd run*. Tried 1.27v and 1.3v, same issue. Strangely, it runs everything else just fine ,even tried some gaming.
> 
> Any advice? thanks!


what input voltage (VCCIN). And I have no idea why the rig does an AC cycle on every bios entry.


----------



## xTesla1856

Sit Rep:

Every stick passed 150% in HCI at stock BIOS settings (1538MB)
Every slot passed 150% in HCI with the same stick and stock BIOS settings (1538MB)

This is getting more frustrating by the minute....


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Sit Rep:
> 
> Every stick passed 150% in HCI at stock BIOS settings (1538MB)
> Every slot passed 150% in HCI with the same stick and stock BIOS settings (1538MB)
> 
> This is getting more frustrating by the minute....


Board and ram compatibility? In my case i cant use more than one stick. I could one stick in any dimm slot, even with xmp and overclocked cpu core/uncore. If i try inserting my second stick, anywhere, the PC only passes HCI with default settings, no xmp no nothing! Go figure. The sticks are fine, i tried them in another board, overclocked and with default bios settings, passed HCI and memtest86.

Board is to blame in my case and it also seems your board is at fault since the sticks seems to be fine. My .02 cents, please do take lightly.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Sit Rep:
> 
> Every stick passed 150% in HCI at stock BIOS settings (1538MB)
> Every slot passed 150% in HCI with the same stick and stock BIOS settings (1538MB)
> 
> This is getting more frustrating by the minute....


erm.. put them all back in (the appropriate slots) and run it the same way each stick and each slot was verified to work.


----------



## NewbieOC

Trying to overclock to 4.2ghz with lower vcore. Most of users here with 6800k don't require as much as 1.37v for 4.2 or is my cpu that crap?

asus rampage extreme v
6800k
evga 1200 p2
kraken x62
corsair 16gb dominator plat 3200mhz

xmp
cpu strap 100mhz
blck frequency 100
4.2 ghz clock
avx 3
cache 36
ddr4 3200mhz
llc 7

core volt - 1.37 manual
cache volt - 1.3
agent - offset 0.075 (gets to 1.08v)
input volt -1.9v
dram 1.4v
vccio cpu- 1.075v
vccio pch 1.05v

Temps below 80c
run aida 64 1hr stabel, realbench 2hr stable. hci memtest 8hr 0error last night.

Dropped vcore to 1.35v failed
honestly please help with above. thanks


----------



## Raghar

There was no question.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NewbieOC*
> 
> Trying to overclock to 4.2ghz with lower vcore. Most of users here with 6800k don't require as much as 1.37v for 4.2 or is my cpu that crap?
> 
> asus rampage extreme v
> 6800k
> evga 1200 p2
> kraken x62
> corsair 16gb dominator plat 3200mhz
> 
> xmp
> cpu strap 100mhz
> blck frequency 100
> 4.2 ghz clock
> avx 3
> cache 36
> ddr4 3200mhz
> llc 7
> 
> core volt - 1.37 manual
> cache volt - 1.3
> agent - offset 0.075 (gets to 1.08v)
> input volt -1.9v
> dram 1.4v
> vccio cpu- 1.075v
> vccio pch 1.05v
> 
> Temps below 80c
> run aida 64 1hr stabel, realbench 2hr stable. hci memtest 8hr 0error last night.
> 
> Dropped vcore to 1.35v failed
> honestly please help with above. thanks


Why dont you try testing without uncore or anything else overclocked besides your cpu(no ram, no uncore, no anything. You should be getting a much higher clock. Specially with 42 and avx ofset of 3 which basically puts you back at "stock" boost speeds of 38 core cpu speeds.

Fill in your system specs as i cant tell what board you're using, in some boards the higher LLC is actually a lower setting.

My suggestions, focus on just cpu core.

Try

44 multi at 1.35vcore
Input 1.9v
AXV offset 2

dont overclock anything else just yet. Set ring/cache voltage to 1.1 and leave cache speed stock.

Try your stress tester. I find OCCT to be very efficient.

Even if your cpu is crap, you should still be able to get 42 with less vcore.


----------



## NewbieOC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Why dont you try testing without uncore or anything else overclocked besides your cpu(no ram, no uncore, no anything. You should be getting a much higher clock. Specially with 42 and avx ofset of 3 which basically puts you back at "stock" boost speeds of 38 core cpu speeds.
> 
> Fill in your system specs as i cant tell what board you're using, in some boards the higher LLC is actually a lower setting.
> 
> My suggestions, focus on just cpu core.
> 
> Try
> 
> 44 multi at 1.35vcore
> Input 1.9v
> AXV offset 2
> 
> dont overclock anything else just yet. Set ring/cache voltage to 1.1 and leave cache speed stock.
> 
> Try your stress tester. I find OCCT to be very efficient.
> 
> Even if your cpu is crap, you should still be able to get 42 with less vcore.


I just used those setting and didn't even make it into Windows blue screen overclock failed. Whea un correctable error


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NewbieOC*
> 
> I just used those setting and didn't even make it into Windows blue screen overclock failed. Whea un correctable error


WHEA is vcore and/or vccin on this platform


----------



## NewbieOC

im not too worried about 4.4ghz i just want 4.2 stable. but 1.37v seems to be around where it doesnt crash.


----------



## cekim

Well, this is strange... It's been a while since I monitored temps on my 6950x in linux. I don't recall seeing this before:


This is while running stressapp.

At idle its 45-48C?



am I just not remembering this from before, or is there some wonk here?

6950x in daily-driver trim I've had since summer:
RVE + EK Full MB block (PCH, VRM, CPU)
Core: 4.4GHz 1.35v
Cache: 3.6 1.20v
SA: Auto (1.2v)
LLC=Auto (I see the same thing on LLC5)
128G @3000 (1.35v)

I made a bunch of changes to the loop recently and core temps are great (~55C under heavy load), but "package" seems to registering very high, even at idle.

The other change I made was a case mod to mount dual pumps in an air 740 which removes the "hole" behind the CPU (its solid acrylic now). Wondering if heat is getting trapped on the back of the CPU? However, I don't see/feel heat accumulating back there when I point the IR sensor at it...


----------



## xTesla1856

I think I finally figured out the root cause of my RAM problems: G.Skill only rates my kit for Z170 and Z270, not for X99. Also my kit is apparently only dual channel, not quad channel. There are Quad-channel kits specifically for X99. I'm gonna buy one of those and see if the problems go away









Mistakes were made....


----------



## Kimir

The first batch of 3200c13 TZ were only certified for z170 too and it works just fine, certification doesn't mean jack to me.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> The first batch of 3200c13 TZ were only certified for z170 too and it works just fine, certification doesn't mean jack to me.


The next time someone buys memory not valid for the platform they are using, and can't get it working, I'll remember to quote your username in that case


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The next time someone buys memory not valid for the platform they are using, and can't get it working, I'll remember to quote your username in that case


It was funny to me, as I checked the ASUS QVL for the Rampage 10 and my kit was listed on there (albeit with tighter timings than mine). When you look on G.Skills website, you see that th 4x4GB ktis are only rated for Z170 and Z270, the 4x8GB kits however list X99, Z170 and Z270 as well as a full motherboard breakdown for X99. I really hope my issues disappear with the new kit.

Another question: Is there a way to know if the 16-18-18-38 Tridents are B-Die? Or should I just get the lowest timings I can find?

Appreciate everyone's help


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

I remember a person back when on x99 was having issues with his/her ram and it was rated dual channel. Bought some quad channel, and all the issues went away.

As for the ram, I'd get the G. Skill 3200MHz 14,14,14 4x8gb kit if I was going x99 today.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> I remember a person back when on x99 was having issues with his/her ram and it was rated dual channel. Bought some quad channel, and all the issues went away.
> 
> As for the ram, I'd get the G. Skill 3200MHz 14,14,14 4x8gb kit if I was going x99 today.


Yeah, that's the one I'm gonna get. Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Yeah, that's the one I'm gonna get. Thanks


good choice, the 16-18-18 kit in not b-die (prety sure it's E).


----------



## rt123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> good choice, the 16-18-18 kit in not b-die (prety sure it's E).


Pretty sure no 8GB sticks are E-DIE anymore. Because then they'd have to be double sided. And double sided is more expensive to make then single sided.

You see a company cutting on their own profits???

Days of sticking to flat timings to get B-DIE are long gone.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rt123*
> 
> Pretty sure no 8GB sticks are E-DIE anymore. Because then they'd have to be double sided. And double sided is more expensive to make then single sided.
> 
> You see a company cutting on their own profits???
> 
> Days of sticking to flat timings to get B-DIE are long gone.


What about 4GB sticks, as those seem to be hit-or-miss with X99? I was mainly concerned with the 16-18-18-38 kits with 4x4GB


----------



## rt123

There is no 4GB B-DIE. B-die is a 1Gbit IC, and the minimum 8 X IC arrangement on a DDR4 stick gives you an 8GB stick.

To get a 4GB stick, they'd have to put 4 ICs per stick, I'm not sure that can be done.


----------



## Yomny

Well turns out my gskills 16gb 2x8gb kit was alsot labeled z170. I guess they got me too, hence the trouble i've been having with ram. What about ram that's not labeled for a specific chipset. I have a set og 8gb Crucial Ballistix LT sport which also doesn't work right on my gigabyte x99 mobo?


----------



## Gunslinger.

I've been running two 2x8GB kits on my X99 since they've been available, you have to be missing something in the bios.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> I've been running two 2x8GB kits on my X99 since they've been available, you have to be missing something in the bios.


This isn't helpful...

1) Not all configurations will respond the same when mixing memory kits

2) What exactly is he missing in the BIOS that's apparently so obvious

3) I'm wearing a black sweater


----------



## xTesla1856

You and me wouldn't be the first ones to have issues with Z170 (only) labeled Tridents...


----------



## Gunslinger.

All of my 2x 2x8GB kits were identical not mixed.

I've used G.Skill 3600 C15's, C16's and C17's.

I'm currently running a set of Corsair 3600 C17's

Again, all with zero issues

RVE, 5960X


----------



## djgar

My F4-3200C14Q-32GTZ kit is z170/z270 / dual channel but is working pretty nicely @ 3400 on my Stryx


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> You and me wouldn't be the first ones to have issues with Z170 (only) labeled Tridents...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> All of my 2x 2x8GB kits were identical not mixed.
> 
> I've used G.Skill 3600 C15's, C16's and C17's.
> 
> I'm currently running a set of Corsair 3600 C17's
> 
> Again, all with zero issues
> 
> RVE, 5960X


I've used Z170 kits too, including now, but that is by the by...

all you're given him is the "works on my machine award", which makes him think he's doing something fundamentally wrong...


----------



## cekim

Some experimentation WRT temps resulted in my concluding:
1. the package temp is reflecting the steady-state of the VRM owing to the mono-block. It rides in a relative narrow range that seems to have little to do with core temps

2. Linux has really screwed up cpufreq behavior - essentially turning a 6950x into a xeon (locked) processor...

- A fresh install has things behaving as they did before with the clocks ramping up to 4.4GHz on all cores.
- Update the kernel package and suddenly I'm limited to 4.0GHz on 2 threads and 3.5GHz on the remainder under peak load

Ugh... So, it seems they are ignoring the bios and asking the processor what it wants to do now. It''s been a long time since I needed to hack the kernel, it seems that day has come again... I'll be removing the clamp from the cpufreq driver.

They are chopping nearly full GHz off 8/9 of my 10 cores. Thanks.... BTW, this seems to be true from 3.10.5xxx RH kernels to 4.9.5 so far... So, its not a one-off glitch. What I can't yet figure out is how the update of the 3.10.5xx kernel broke the 3.10.3xx kernel? I should be able to switch back and forth between kernel A and B and get the old behavior... I can not.

I'll need to figure out what the update changed that applies to all kernels. "cpupower" is the application that you use to change things, but its a very thin app that just writes the /sys/xxxx filesystem. However, I can't manually go back to the 3.10.3xxx kernel and write those values either... very strange...

yet another fresh install while I figure out the kernel edits off-line... back to working - just don't touch anything!


----------



## Gunslinger.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've used Z170 kits too, including now, but that is by the by...
> 
> all you're given him is the "works on my machine award", which makes him think he's doing something fundamentally wrong...


Maybe he is, hard to say unless you're sitting there looking at his bios settings.

I'm far from the only person using 8GB sticks of B-die on X99, that is my point.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rt123*
> 
> Pretty sure no 8GB sticks are E-DIE anymore. Because then they'd have to be double sided. And double sided is more expensive to make then single sided.
> You see a company cutting on their own profits???
> *Days of sticking to flat timings to get B-DIE are long gone*.


as long as it's 100% new stock... good to know.


----------



## rt123

B-die hit retail end of December 2015, around Christmas.

I would say they stopped making Double E around April-May 2016, when B-die production was up in full force. I think most of old stock should be gone in the time we have had after that. Atleast on Newegg, Amazon or some other retailer might get you old stock. But Newegg stock moves quickly.


----------



## FeelKun

Just ordered a 6800k. Upgrading from a 3570k. Need advice on what motherboard to get and ram. I don't need anything crazy like the asus rampage v10 ;p.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FeelKun*
> 
> Just ordered a 6800k. Upgrading from a 3570k. Need advice on what motherboard to get and ram. I don't need anything crazy like the asus rampage v10 ;p.


Get a mobo with OC socket( extra pins in socket for cache and memory overclocking ) and some G. Skill 3200MHz 4x8gb 14,14,14.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FeelKun*
> 
> Just ordered a 6800k. Upgrading from a 3570k. Need advice on what motherboard to get and ram. I don't need anything crazy like the asus rampage v10 ;p.


Word of advise, make sure you ram is in the compatibility list for your mobo. As much as many say it doesn't matter, it seems to do matter. Other than that, any board that suits your needs, that be ssd, m.2 or 4x 4pin fan headers or just 3x 3 pins headers.. its your call. Asus, is expensive, gigabyte had worked well for me and affordable with plenty features so has ASrock(currently own 2).

There's you famous 4 or 5, Asus, MSI, Asrock, Gigabyte and lastly EVGA. I may be missing some info but its not that complicated.

Go to PCpartpicker.com and check out the reviews, same thing to do on newegg.com


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Get a mobo with OC socket( extra pins in socket for cache and memory overclocking ) and some G. Skill 3200MHz 4x8gb 14,14,14.


About this, you wont break records with the 6800k so you may want to save the money and use it for another piece of hardware. Anyone here and in most guides out there will tell you broadwell-e dont clock that high.


----------



## FeelKun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Word of advise, make sure you ram is in the compatibility list for your mobo. As much as many say it doesn't matter, it seems to do matter. Other than that, any board that suits your needs, that be ssd, m.2 or 4x 4pin fan headers or just 3x 3 pins headers.. its your call. Asus, is expensive, gigabyte had worked well for me and affordable with plenty features so has ASrock(currently own 2).
> 
> There's you famous 4 or 5, Asus, MSI, Asrock, Gigabyte and lastly EVGA. I may be missing some info but its not that complicated.
> 
> Go to PCpartpicker.com and check out the reviews, same thing to do on newegg.com


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> About this, you wont break records with the 6800k so you may want to save the money and use it for another piece of hardware. Anyone here and in most guides out there will tell you broadwell-e dont **** high.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Get a mobo with OC socket( extra pins in socket for cache and memory overclocking ) and some G. Skill 3200MHz 4x8gb 14,14,14.


Thanks for the input. I added my current rig to my sig. I just really need a motherboard (biased towards MSI but after seeing all the flashy RGB the newer carbon model has...) and ram. What's the average overclock? No idea about all the other overclocking to do with x99 boards like cache,etc. < So that would be a learning curve. Not looking towards to newer SSDS atm (960 pro) but might in the future. I'll probably grab a used 1080 for sli when next gen drops.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> About this, you wont break records with the 6800k so you may want to save the money and use it for another piece of hardware. Anyone here and in most guides out there will tell you broadwell-e dont **** high. That's funny I entered clock high and it added the little stars.


lol - you left the "L" out in a typoo.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - you left the "L" out in a typoo.










So thats what happened


----------



## rt123




----------



## Kimir

censorship at its finest. Yet Jpm found the typo instantly, from experience perhaps?


----------



## Silent Scone

Plus the swear words JP probably invented


----------



## xTesla1856

I'm in a bit of a temptation-problem (again, I know, I know







)

I got an offer for a 5960X that does 4.6 at 1.3v 24/7 stable (4.7 maybe with higher volts). The guy wants 799 for it and I could get it tomorrow and pay cash. He's a friend of a friend, so I know it's legit because he bought 8 of them for binning. It's under warranty and in the original box still.

My 6800K currently does 4.3 stable at 1.35v and 4.4 meh-stable if I spam it with 1.4v.


----------



## Silent Scone

Depends...

If you need the extra cores or not. 4.6 is nothing to sniff at - but I'd be more concerned with if you think you'll benefit.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Depends...
> 
> If you need the extra cores or not. 4.6 is nothing to sniff at - but I'd be more concerned with if you think you'll benefit.


I don't benefit at all for games and single thread applications (my main use) but I've become bored of my 6800K and would like to see what I can push out of this 5960X. Maybe I'll keep both chips and build a test bench or something







Plus, 799 is a fair price IMO.


----------



## Silent Scone

It's not something I'd personally entertain at this stage, but if you've got the money to throw at it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> censorship at its finest. Yet Jpm found the typo instantly, from experience perhaps?


How else would I know? the only way to learn.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I'm in a bit of a temptation-problem (again, I know, I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> I got an offer for a 5960X that does 4.6 at 1.3v 24/7 stable (4.7 maybe with higher volts). The guy wants 799 for it and I could get it tomorrow and pay cash. He's a friend of a friend, so I know it's legit because he bought 8 of them for binning. It's under warranty and in the original box still.
> 
> My 6800K currently does 4.3 stable at 1.35v and 4.4 meh-stable if I spam it with 1.4v.


If you're considering it then you could afford it. Its from a reliable source, so why not. I know what you mean by getting bored of a certain hardware. If i could i'd get a full z270 setup now just for the hell of it. I'm pretty happy with my 6800k, so far managed a 44 with 1.32v so nice and cool and those 6 cores do wonders.

Go for it, if the price is right. You may want to test the chip first, if possible. Those lottery or binned chips are tested under certain conditions and with specific boards so results may vary.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> How else would I know? the only way to learn.


This little situation i've caused still makes me laugh. I went back and corrected the source of all of this


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Get a mobo with OC socket( extra pins in socket for cache and memory overclocking ) and some G. Skill 3200MHz 4x8gb 14,14,14.


I have a question about ram before I upgrade.. I am using my 3000 dual channel 2x16 14-14-14-34 from my z170 build. I was gonna get the g-skill 3466 16 -18-18-38 4x8 I figured it was the best binned chips being the fastest and could get timings tighter hoping 15-15-15-35..Now I see the
3200 14-14-14-34 and if you could also tighten timings on that..wouldn't the 3466 still be faster in benchmarks and game fps?? am I way off in my thinking ?? thanks


----------



## mkimbro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> I have a question about ram before I upgrade.. I am using my 3000 dual channel 2x16 14-14-14-34 from my z170 build. I was gonna get the g-skill 3466 16 -18-18-38 4x8 I figured it was the best binned chips being the fastest and could get timings tighter hoping 15-15-15-35..Now I see the
> 3200 14-14-14-34 and if you could also tighten timings on that..wouldn't the 3466 still be faster in benchmarks and game fps?? am I way off in my thinking ?? thanks


cg4200

Just my two cents. I would say don't waste your money...... I have a system all most like yours. I have different memory, i.e. G.Skill 2666 32GB, G.Skill 3200 32GB, Corsair Vengeance LED Red 3000 32GB , Corsair Dominator Platinum SE 3200 23GB, and now Corsair Vengeance White 3200 32GB

You may see about a 1000 to1200 points difference in bench marks. But as for actual speed difference, as in feel. Good luck in seeing it.

I wish I could "sell" all this DDR4 ram I have now. It has been a waste of money for me. All these products are just smoke and mirrors. IMHO


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> I have a question about ram before I upgrade.. I am using my 3000 dual channel 2x16 14-14-14-34 from my z170 build. I was gonna get the g-skill 3466 16 -18-18-38 4x8 I figured it was the best binned chips being the fastest and could get timings tighter hoping 15-15-15-35..Now I see the
> 3200 14-14-14-34 and if you could also tighten timings on that..wouldn't the 3466 still be faster in benchmarks and game fps?? am I way off in my thinking ?? thanks


the GSkill 3200c14 kit is what you want for x99. 3466 kits are z170/z270 dual channel - you may get them to for for you, with knowledge and tweaking, but no guarantees they will work together and certainly not XMP.


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkimbro*
> 
> cg4200
> 
> Just my two cents. I would say don't waste your money...... I have a system all most like yours. I have different memory, i.e. G.Skill 2666 32GB, G.Skill 3200 32GB, Corsair Vengeance LED Red 3000 32GB , Corsair Dominator Platinum SE 3200 23GB, and now Corsair Vengeance White 3200 32GB
> 
> You may see about a 1000 to1200 points difference in bench marks. But as for actual speed difference, as in feel. Good luck in seeing it.
> 
> I wish I could "sell" all this DDR4 ram I have now. It has been a waste of money for me. All these products are just smoke and mirrors. IMHO


Hey bud I appreciate the input.. you seem to collect ram like I do motherboards lol.. Real reason I was upgrading was because I am using my dual channel ram from my z170 build while it works after reading shouldn't I be running quad channel on my x99 board?? this is my first x99 build.. And I am not sure but I run [email protected] cache I run at 34and @35 I need to jack up the volts. I was hoping if I get quad channel ram maybe I would get more stable cache overclock.. Thanks again


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the GSkill 3200c14 kit is what you want for x99. 3466 kits are z170/z270 dual channel - you may get them to for for you, with knowledge and tweaking, but no guarantees they will work together, and certainly not XMP.


Hey I double checked the 3466 g-skill 16 cas is quad and xmp enabled.. The price on the egg is about the same g-skill 3200 14 cas quad weird.. both are the new rgb ones just want to make sure I can turn lights off if I want..Do you think the 3200 14-14-14-34 would bench better?? Thanks


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> good choice, the 16-18-18 kit in not b-die (prety sure it's E).


Is one die better for X99 than the other one?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Hey I double checked the 3466 g-skill 16 cas is quad and xmp enabled.. The price on the egg is about the same g-skill 3200 14 cas quad weird.. both are the new rgb ones just want to make sure I can turn lights off if I want..Do you think the 3200 14-14-14-34 would bench better?? Thanks


Hello

As @Jpmboy wrote above the 3466MHz RGB kits are qualified for Z270 only and are also spec'd as dual channel. Success with these kits on X99, especially at the stated speed, will be dependent on the IMC and one's tuning skills.
.


----------



## mkimbro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Hey I double checked the 3466 g-skill 16 cas is quad and xmp enabled.. The price on the egg is about the same g-skill 3200 14 cas quad weird.. both are the new rgb ones just want to make sure I can turn lights off if I want..Do you think the 3200 14-14-14-34 would bench better?? Thanks


I don't know if this will help you. but here's a test with Aida64 with the G.Skill memory F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW Quad 32GB
@ 14-14-14-34. Maybe you can compare to what you already have. Give or take a couple of points.

http://s143.photobucket.com/user/mkimbro/media/G.Skill CR2 vs G.Skill CR1.jpg.html

This is using the MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon (Bios1.3)
Don't know if this helps.... just another 25 year rookie.......and option.


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkimbro*
> 
> I don't know if this will help you. but here's a test with Aida64 with the G.Skill memory F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW Quad 32GB
> @ 14-14-14-34. Maybe you can compare to what you already have. Give or take a couple of points.
> 
> http://s143.photobucket.com/user/mkimbro/media/G.Skill CR2 vs G.Skill CR1.jpg.html
> 
> This is using the MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon (Bios1.3)
> Don't know if this helps.... just another 25 year rookie.......and option.


Hey nice of you to upload test results for me since we have same board and chip..+1 ..I ran the test with my cpu still running 4.6 should I change it to 4.3 what you are running ? or is it only testing ram and cache witch I am also running 3.4 same as you??
And everything in my test show's slower read/write/copy than yours I did not think that the difference would be that huge..I see your memory bus ratio is 48:3 mine 60:4 would that be why I manually set my timings.. thanks again


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Hey nice of you to upload test results for me since we have same board and chip..+1 ..I ran the test with my cpu still running 4.6 should I change it to 4.3 what you are running ? or is it only testing ram and cache witch I am also running 3.4 same as you??
> And everything in my test show's slower read/write/copy than yours I did not think that the difference would be that huge..I see your memory bus ratio is 48:3 mine 60:4 would that be why I manually set my timings.. thanks again


Quoting my last post went in bios changed from 200 to 266 @3200 14-14-14-34 and it got better but way off from your score seems my ram is holding me back new test
...thanks


----------



## BIGTom

So brief story, had to replace my Asus X99 Deluxe and 5820k with a new Deluxe II and 6800k last week. Finally settling in to work on overclocking this chip today.

So far, I have passed 1 hour RealBench with 4.1ghz at 1.2 vcore. Would like to see what I can get out of it, but so far my attempts for 4.2 or 4.3 have not gone so well.

Will be pushing this chip most of the day today, if anyone is interested in providing guidance along the way, it would be appreciated. Any suggestions for input voltage, is it just as Haswell-E?


----------



## mkimbro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Hey nice of you to upload test results for me since we have same board and chip..+1 ..I ran the test with my cpu still running 4.6 should I change it to 4.3 what you are running ? or is it only testing ram and cache witch I am also running 3.4 same as you??
> And everything in my test show's slower read/write/copy than yours I did not think that the difference would be that huge..I see your memory bus ratio is 48:3 mine 60:4 would that be why I manually set my timings.. thanks again


cj4200

looking at your testing, it looks like your memory is rated @ 3000mhz with the memory bus @ 1500Mhz. Where as mine is rated @ 3200Mhz. because I have the G.Skill memory F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW with a memory bus @ 1600Mhz.. So I think this is going to make a difference.

You can change it in the bios, however this is why your are probably seeing small differences, as in synthetic benchmarks. This is what I was saying earlier. From my testing you are going to see small changing in real speed.

I have some Corsair Vengeance LED rated @ 3000Mhz, and it's only about 1000 to 1100 points slower in different benchmarks. But I don't actually see anything in real speed difference.
You "might" see it in overclocking, but I would say small.

I would say, if you are looking for the fastest benchmark, then purchase the fastest 3200Mhz in quad DDR4 memory you can afford. and be happy with it.









One more thing I would say. Each of the brand memory responses react differently in different motherboards. There is no two alike....
I have spent a lot of money on memory, for basically no reason. Just thought I could be one of the fastest. Guess not.....









Like I say, just my lousy two cents...


----------



## xTesla1856

CPU is not downclocking anymore, despite multiple BIOS resets and clear CMOS button pushes...










EDIT: nvm, Windows Power settings were somehow messed up.


----------



## VinnieM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> Quoting my last post went in bios changed from 200 to 266 @3200 14-14-14-34 and it got better but way off from your score seems my ram is holding me back new test
> ...thanks


Looks like you're running dual channel instead of quad channel! That's gonna make a difference. Check if the modules are inserted into the right slots. The first time I used quad channel I put the modules in wrongly, resulting in dual channel instead of quad. Took me a while before I noticed


----------



## BIGTom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BIGTom*
> 
> So brief story, had to replace my Asus X99 Deluxe and 5820k with a new Deluxe II and 6800k last week. Finally settling in to work on overclocking this chip today.
> 
> So far, I have passed 1 hour RealBench with 4.1ghz at 1.2 vcore. Would like to see what I can get out of it, but so far my attempts for 4.2 or 4.3 have not gone so well.
> 
> Will be pushing this chip most of the day today, if anyone is interested in providing guidance along the way, it would be appreciated. Any suggestions for input voltage, is it just as Haswell-E?


Ok so I am doing something terribly wrong or this chip is a bottom of the barrel.

All attempts for 4.2ghz have failed up to 1.312v and 1.95v input with LLC 5. 1.312v went about 20mins into RealBench with WHEA UNCORRECTABLE.

Is this chip bad?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BIGTom*
> 
> Ok so I am doing something terribly wrong or this chip is a bottom of the barrel.
> 
> All attempts for 4.2ghz have failed up to 1.312v and 1.95v input with LLC 5. 1.312v went about 20mins into RealBench with WHEA UNCORRECTABLE.
> 
> Is this chip bad?


What are you temps like.


----------



## mkimbro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VinnieM*
> 
> Looks like you're running dual channel instead of quad channel! That's gonna make a difference. Check if the modules are inserted into the right slots. The first time I used quad channel I put the modules in wrongly, resulting in dual channel instead of quad. Took me a while before I noticed


VinnieM

Good Eye.......







I did not catch that..... That will make some difference as-well.


----------



## BIGTom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What are you temps like.


Max core reported 67 degrees prior to crash.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> CPU is not downclocking anymore, despite multiple BIOS resets and clear CMOS button pushes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: nvm, Windows Power settings were somehow messed up.


this can happen automatically if windows fails to load or crashes under some situations. Very annoying!


----------



## swingarm

I have a 5960X(for about a year) and am happy with it plus it folds really good also. I though about getting 6950x but the price and the thinking of how much improvement I would be getting over the 5960X kind of nixed that idea.


----------



## inedenimadam

Just plugging in here. Picked up a 6800k to replace my dead 5820k. First impressions ain't so hot. looks like 1.35+ for 4.3, as it just crashed x264 after about 45 minutes. Whop whop....

Best way (without DMM) to obtain accurate VCore? Trust VID reported by HWiNFO?

Where is the danger zone for voltage on these chips? Hopefully higher than HW-E?


----------



## dbLIVEdb

If you have an ASUS board try the 5 way optimization and see what it reports. You can see what your max threshold is with that tool.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Just plugging in here. Picked up a 6800k to replace my dead 5820k. First impressions ain't so hot. looks like 1.35+ for 4.3, as it just crashed x264 after about 45 minutes. Whop whop....
> 
> Best way (without DMM) to obtain accurate VCore? Trust VID reported by HWiNFO?
> 
> Where is the danger zone for voltage on these chips? Hopefully higher than HW-E?


Welcome to the fun times of owning a 6800K







Mine takes 1.37v for 4.4GHz. They do like their volts, but given how my previous 5820K struggled to even hit 4.3GHz somewhat stable, I'm happy. One thing I'm still disappointed with BW-E is how the cache is nearly impossible to OC.


----------



## scare19

what version of linx i have to use for oc with 6800k ?


----------



## tistou77

The last, LinX 0.7.0


----------



## StullenAndi

Does anyone know the highest clock in this forum for a 6800k, realbench stable?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Just plugging in here. Picked up a 6800k to replace my dead 5820k. First impressions ain't so hot. looks like 1.35+ for 4.3, as it just crashed x264 after about 45 minutes. Whop whop....
> 
> Best way (without DMM) to obtain accurate VCore? Trust VID reported by HWiNFO?
> 
> Where is the danger zone for voltage on these chips? Hopefully higher than HW-E?


I use AID64. reports vcore and VID.


----------



## scare19

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> The last, LinX 0.7.0


can u pass me the link plz ?


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scare19*
> 
> can u pass me the link plz ?


You have the choice









https://www.google.fr/search?q=LinX+0.7.0&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:fr-FR:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gfe_rd=cr&ei=TP2NWPDIMY3u8weF5byoDw&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I use AID64. reports vcore and VID.


Aida is reporting VCore as max 0.064. With my -A, VID was always lower than VCore by .016 on the last chip. I may just use VID and call it close enough, I dont think there is ANY headroom left on this chip to push up clocks.

Kind of looks like I got a dud CPU, 4.3 stable 1.36, max temp 65, overnight realbench encode stable. The good news is that the IMC needed no extra voltage to get 32GB running at 3200 C15, cache and SA at .001 offset to get static numbers. I have not touched cache multi yet either, so there might still be some room to regain the difference in core clock with a decent cache and RAM O/C. Scoring 1330 in CineBench, which is less than 50 points away from the 4.5/4.2 of my dead 5820k.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> *Aida is reporting VCore as max 0.064.* With my -A, VID was always lower than VCore by .016 on the last chip. I may just use VID and call it close enough, I dont think there is ANY headroom left on this chip to push up clocks.
> 
> Kind of looks like I got a dud CPU, 4.3 stable 1.36, max temp 65, overnight realbench encode stable. The good news is that the IMC needed no extra voltage to get 32GB running at 3200 C15, cache and SA at .001 offset to get static numbers. I have not touched cache multi yet either, so there might still be some room to regain the difference in core clock with a decent cache and RAM O/C. Scoring 1330 in CineBench, which is less than 50 points away from the 4.5/4.2 of my dead 5820k.


really? you have installed the Intel ME and chipset driver for your bios? I've never seen AID64 do that.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> really? you have installed the Intel ME and chipset driver for your bios? I've never seen AID64 do that.


I installed chipset and Device manager reported no conflicts. I will grab the ME and see if that solves it.

Edit: No dice. Newest downloadable version from the ASUS website installed.


----------



## cg4200

So I ordered some new ram today after realizing dual channel ram I was using from my old z170 build vs quad channel make big difference.. Thanks again for the help guy's
And on to the next thing. I have read a few people on here who use water chillers.. So I plan to keep my three radiators hooked up and have quick release fittings to hook up to a water chiller. Mainly just for benchmarks my titan xp it seems if I hit 30C it drops down from 2139..my 6850 temp wise is fine though.. I thought about running 2 loop's instead of my 1...my ocd running wild just to hit 8300 in firestrike ultra I'm at 8282..So my question is I know its small but if I add to my loop just for benching if I can get this chiller for 140.00 if not I won't buy it

do you think it would shave off 10-15 degrees?? If not maybe get bigger one or should I run 1 loop for 6850 1 for titan xp and tap in water chiller on just titan xp.. I know usually you take rad's out with waterchiller but I don't need to go sub 0 and won't use chiller all the time don't wan't to have condensation problems .. I don't want to buy if its only 5 degrees or so .Thanks


----------



## mkimbro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> So I ordered some new ram today after realizing dual channel ram I was using from my old z170 build vs quad channel make big difference.. Thanks again for the help guy's
> And on to the next thing. I have read a few people on here who use water chillers.. So I plan to keep my three radiators hooked up and have quick release fittings to hook up to a water chiller. Mainly just for benchmarks my titan xp it seems if I hit 30C it drops down from 2139..my 6850 temp wise is fine though.. I thought about running 2 loop's instead of my 1...my ocd running wild just to hit 8300 in firestrike ultra I'm at 8282..So my question is I know its small but if I add to my loop just for benching if I can get this chiller for 140.00 if not I won't buy it
> 
> do you think it would shave off 10-15 degrees?? If not maybe get bigger one or should I run 1 loop for 6850 1 for titan xp and tap in water chiller on just titan xp.. I know usually you take rad's out with waterchiller but I don't need to go sub 0 and won't use chiller all the time don't wan't to have condensation problems .. I don't want to buy if its only 5 degrees or so .Thanks


cg4200

W O W







Now that's taking it to the extreme.....









Hope it works and you get good numbers. I'm trying to get my system stable at 4.4Mhz (I purchased a Silicon Lottery CPU that's rated @ 4.5) and using Corsair Vengeance LED 3200Mhz, with the fastest timing. For me it's weird that one time I can OCCT 4.4.2 without a hitch, but the next time it fails 5 min later... very confusing.

Good luck hope it works, hope it's a speed daemon.....


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> So I ordered some new ram today after realizing dual channel ram I was using from my old z170 build vs quad channel make big difference.. Thanks again for the help guy's
> And on to the next thing. I have read a few people on here who use water chillers.. So I plan to keep my three radiators hooked up and have quick release fittings to hook up to a water chiller. Mainly just for benchmarks my titan xp it seems if I hit 30C it drops down from 2139..my 6850 temp wise is fine though.. I thought about running 2 loop's instead of my 1...my ocd running wild just to hit 8300 in firestrike ultra I'm at 8282..So my question is I know its small but if I add to my loop just for benching if I can get this chiller for 140.00 if not I won't buy it
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think it would shave off 10-15 degrees?? If not maybe get bigger one or should I run 1 loop for 6850 1 for titan xp and tap in water chiller on just titan xp.. I know usually you take rad's out with waterchiller but I don't need to go sub 0 and won't use chiller all the time don't wan't to have condensation problems .. I don't want to buy if its only 5 degrees or so .Thanks


I'm pretty sure 1/13hp is not strong enough. @Jpmboy runs a chiller. I'm sure he can shed some light on this for you.


----------



## pangallosr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> So I ordered some new ram today after realizing dual channel ram I was using from my old z170 build vs quad channel make big difference.. Thanks again for the help guy's
> And on to the next thing. I have read a few people on here who use water chillers.. So I plan to keep my three radiators hooked up and have quick release fittings to hook up to a water chiller. Mainly just for benchmarks my titan xp it seems if I hit 30C it drops down from 2139..my 6850 temp wise is fine though.. I thought about running 2 loop's instead of my 1...my ocd running wild just to hit 8300 in firestrike ultra I'm at 8282..So my question is I know its small but if I add to my loop just for benching if I can get this chiller for 140.00 if not I won't buy it
> 
> do you think it would shave off 10-15 degrees?? If not maybe get bigger one or should I run 1 loop for 6850 1 for titan xp and tap in water chiller on just titan xp.. I know usually you take rad's out with waterchiller but I don't need to go sub 0 and won't use chiller all the time don't wan't to have condensation problems .. I don't want to buy if its only 5 degrees or so .Thanks


tl:dr..... get a larger chiller
I'm running a 1/10hp. The loop will heat up faster than the chiller can cool it for maintaining lower temps.
I originally put the chiller just straight into my loop, 4790k @4.7ghz and two Titan X (M) @ 1451mhz in parallel.
Within about three minutes the chiller which is set to 7C will have to kick on and loop temperature is 35C. Runs about 15 seconds and then kicks off for about 1 minute then kicks back on again.
My suspicion that the problem is the temperature sensor is probably in the chiller heat exchanger and cools it before the liquid actually reaches the desired temp. Heat exchanger size is really the most important aspect imo.
The on/off cycle is way too frequent and can cause the chiller to wear out prematurely.
To counter this though, I went with a 30gal ice chest as a reservoir. This increased the cycle time to on for 5 minutes and off for 20.
Most of the time it rarely comes on unless I am gaming for in excess of 4 hours or [email protected] for more than 10 hours.
You should also consider a second pump due to the added length of tubing, depending how far away the chiller is.

To save the headache of trying to come up with ways to keep the chiller from wearing out too soon...... just get a larger chiller.
This is what I would have done if I could have had one sent to me. USPS restrictions for me.


----------



## sena

Folks what are normal temps for 6950X overclocked to 4.375 GHz on 1.375V?

In real bench only one core is above 80C?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkimbro*
> 
> cg4200
> 
> W O W
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's taking it to the extreme.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope it works and you get good numbers. I'm trying to get my system stable at 4.4Mhz (I purchased a Silicon Lottery CPU that's rated @ 4.5) and using Corsair Vengeance LED 3200Mhz, with the fastest timing. For me it's weird that one time I can OCCT 4.4.2 without a hitch, but the next time it fails 5 min later... very confusing.
> 
> Good luck hope it works, hope it's a speed daemon.....


Yeah I have been known to go overboard on some things ok a lot of things..lol
It took me awhile to go thru settings on this Msi to get stable I would think it was good then crash after 45 minutes realbench some on auto were to high some not high enough . Not sure what your volts are but for me to go to 4.6 I am running vdroop ultra 75% phases optimized and the big ones for me were cpu vccio 1.090 and cpu vccu 1.170 cpu sa 1.160 ring [email protected] and core adaptive [email protected] newest bios .. Good luck man


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pangallosr*
> 
> tl:dr..... get a larger chiller
> I'm running a 1/10hp. The loop will heat up faster than the chiller can cool it for maintaining lower temps.
> I originally put the chiller just straight into my loop, 4790k @4.7ghz and two Titan X (M) @ 1451mhz in parallel.
> Within about three minutes the chiller which is set to 7C will have to kick on and loop temperature is 35C. Runs about 15 seconds and then kicks off for about 1 minute then kicks back on again.
> My suspicion that the problem is the temperature sensor is probably in the chiller heat exchanger and cools it before the liquid actually reaches the desired temp. Heat exchanger size is really the most important aspect imo.
> The on/off cycle is way too frequent and can cause the chiller to wear out prematurely.
> To counter this though, I went with a 30gal ice chest as a reservoir. This increased the cycle time to on for 5 minutes and off for 20.
> Most of the time it rarely comes on unless I am gaming for in excess of 4 hours or [email protected] for more than 10 hours.
> You should also consider a second pump due to the added length of tubing, depending how far away the chiller is.
> 
> To save the headache of trying to come up with ways to keep the chiller from wearing out too soon...... just get a larger chiller.
> This is what I would have done if I could have had one sent to me. USPS restrictions for me.


Hey man thanks a lot that's the kind of info I was looking for. After reading what you did for your set up I will hold off and get bigger one as to keep up with temperature and not wear out premature. thanks again


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cg4200*
> 
> So I ordered some new ram today after realizing dual channel ram I was using from my old z170 build vs quad channel make big difference.. Thanks again for the help guy's
> And on to the next thing. I have read a few people on here who use water chillers.. So I plan to keep my three radiators hooked up and have quick release fittings to hook up to a water chiller. Mainly just for benchmarks my titan xp it seems if I hit 30C it drops down from 2139..my 6850 temp wise is fine though.. I thought about running 2 loop's instead of my 1...my ocd running wild just to hit 8300 in firestrike ultra I'm at 8282..So my question is I know its small but if I add to my loop just for benching if I can get this chiller for 140.00 if not I won't buy it
> 
> do you think it would shave off 10-15 degrees?? If not maybe get bigger one or should I run 1 loop for 6850 1 for titan xp and tap in water chiller on just titan xp.. I know usually you take rad's out with waterchiller but I don't need to go sub 0 and won't use chiller all the time don't wan't to have condensation problems .. I don't want to buy if its only 5 degrees or so .Thanks


the 1/13HP will cool it down to 12-15C... but you must turn off any fans on rads in the loop. Otherwise you have a really inefficient air conditioner. If possible, make the chiiler the last thing in the loop before the cooling block you want to chill. It will help the titanXP a lot if you can keep the core tem,ps below 30C. There is another step at around 7-10C.
Main things.. watch for any condensation once the loop cools down (below the dew point) and be sure to have a high flow rate - like 3 LPM. I would not use a viscous or colored premix (at all). Grocery store distilled water with a few % antifreeze, or 20% clear premix is fine. I run 20% clear/DW/1% redline water wetter.


----------



## inedenimadam

So far this 6800k is stable. 4.3/3.6 @ 1.360/1.194. Handbrake encode 2 hours stays below 65. I might still have some room on the cache, but I degraded my last chip on the cache, so I am wary. Gave a quick and dirty test on RAM speeds past the rated 3200 of my sticks, but no dice...guess its going to require voltage. The drop in speeds vs. my 5820k essentially flushes out in CineBench R15. My 5820k with RAM all tweaked out hit 1400, this 6800k is hitting 1390 before pushing the cas down or even touching secondaries. It might pull ahead nicely if the IMC improvement proves true.

TurboBoost 3.0 was introduced, why? I guess if you leave it at stock...but as it is a software based implementation, it just seems lazy and amounts to mostly intel marketing. I wonder if Zen has them in such a tissy that they are grabbing at straws to strengthen the brand? Should I just uninstall the software?

Also going to test stability with AVX, what negative offset are you guys finding reasonable?


----------



## xTesla1856

Had to lower my OC last night, as it just wasn't stable in games over longer periods. Benches at 4.4 just fine, but after 2-3 hours of gameplay, I would get either a WHEA error or a Clock Watchdog timeout. upping vCore all the way to 1.38, adding VCCSA and VCCIO didn't help either. 4.3 at 1.33v seems to be a wall for my chip. cache is at 31x multi rght now, will play with it more later. Also, I'm waiting for a 32GB X99 Trident Z 3200MHz CL14 kit. Should be very fun to play with









Any news on the new HEDT chips/paltform? Are they due out this year still, or not?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> So far this 6800k is stable. 4.3/3.6 @ 1.360/1.194. Handbrake encode 2 hours stays below 65. I might still have some room on the cache, but I degraded my last chip on the cache, so I am wary. Gave a quick and dirty test on RAM speeds past the rated 3200 of my sticks, but no dice...guess its going to require voltage. The drop in speeds vs. my 5820k essentially flushes out in CineBench R15. My 5820k with RAM all tweaked out hit 1400, this 6800k is hitting 1390 before pushing the cas down or even touching secondaries. It might pull ahead nicely if the IMC improvement proves true.
> 
> TurboBoost 3.0 was introduced, why? I guess if you leave it at stock...but as it is a software based implementation, it just seems lazy and amounts to mostly intel marketing. I wonder if Zen has them in such a tissy that they are grabbing at straws to strengthen the brand? Should I just uninstall the software?
> 
> Also going to test stability with AVX, what negative offset are you guys finding reasonable?


I do 2 avx offset and I've read most around here do 3. For me 2 drops enough and not too much at the same time with also a nice drop in voltage.


----------



## bondibro

So I went out and upgraded from my 6850k to a 6950x and so far so good. Couple of quick questions -

I am stable @ 4.3 1.275v, I tried 4.4 @ same voltage and it crashed while running aida64 test. Can I bump the voltage up a little more or is that pushing it up a little high? I am using a h115i cooler too.

thanks in advance


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bondibro*
> 
> So I went out and upgraded from my 6850k to a 6950x and so far so good. Couple of quick questions -
> 
> I am stable @ 4.3 1.275v, I tried 4.4 @ same voltage and it crashed while running aida64 test. Can I bump the voltage up a little more or is that pushing it up a little high? I am using a h115i cooler too.
> 
> thanks in advance


A lot depends on the cooling system, these puppies run hot at high voltages. my 6950X has been at 1.281V (adaptive) since launch, and run at 1.35V adaptive for 44 regularly. When it's pushed to 45 and 46, the voltages are not 24/7. BUT, you can use the ASUS thermal control tool (if you have an ASUS board). see the link in my sig.
nothing like an unlocked 10 core!


----------



## bondibro

Thanks Jpmboy! I'll check it out. I am using a Asus x99 gaming board.

This processor is a beast!!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> A lot depends on the cooling system, these puppies run hot at high voltages. my 6950X has been at 1.281V (adaptive) since launch, and run at 1.35V adaptive for 44 regularly. When it's pushed to 45 and 46, the voltages are not 24/7. BUT, you can use the ASUS thermal control tool (if you have an ASUS board). see the link in my sig.
> nothing like an unlocked 10 core!


1.35v adaptive 4.4 with no AVX offset is my daily-driver since launch...
Thought I had a hiccup with temps (see back a page or 2), but turns out I just haven't been paying attention to the number that was higher than expected. Due to the mono-block, the package seems to register the VRM temps rather than core temps.

So, basically the package "idles" at 40-45C while the cores are at 21. When the cores rise above the package, the package value follows, but the package temp ends up riding in a very narrow range (45-60C) while the cores run from 21-60C based on load.


----------



## tistou77

Hello

The IMC and the Cache (or Uncore as called before), it's the same thing, right ?


----------



## navjack27

IMC is the "external" memory controller and the cache is the cache... wait, now i'm even questioning life... does the same thing on the chip "control" both things? (instinct says no)


----------



## tistou77

I'm talking about the Cache (as we set it in the bios) and not Cache Lx


----------



## tistou77

Indeed, according to this image, the IMC and the Cache (Uncore) are separated, I always believed that it was the same thing











But does the Vcache control the IMC and Cache ?

Thanks


----------



## navjack27

I'm not going to be any help in this lol. Another all nighter and my brain is shot. Well I'll leave with this closing note about cache.

Why didn't Intel put the L4 cache in broadwell-e? With owning now a haswell-e and a broadwell-C I still can't beat some of my previous benchmarks. Mainly graphical ones, the Min fps numbers. At this point call me the town crazy that constantly jabbers on about level 4 cache as if it's the missing link...


----------



## tps3443

I'm about to upgrade, it's tax season. And considering my 5.1Ghz delided 6600K was getting hosed everyday while encoding 4K and other apps running as well.

I'm only going to get a CPU, and board. Thats all I need

I'm considering the,

I7 5960X, or i7 6950X.

The 5960X is a beast at 4.5Ghz. And around only $800 at microcenter the 5960x is a deal! The 6950X is the turbo diesel of a CPU lol. I'd probably try for 4.4 on it. The 6900K is not worth the $200 premium over the 5960x. Plus, the 5960x, overclocks great! With roughly the same IPC.

What do u guys think? Both CPU's are more than what I need. But I'd keep them for probably 5 years from now.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> I'm about to upgrade, it's tax season. And considering my 5.1Ghz delided 6600K was getting hosed everyday while encoding 4K and other apps running as well.
> 
> I'm only going to get a CPU, and board. Thats all I need
> 
> I'm considering the,
> 
> I7 5960X, or i7 6950X.
> 
> The 5960X is a beast at 4.5Ghz. And around only $800 at microcenter the 5960x is a deal! The 6950X is the turbo diesel of a CPU lol. I'd probably try for 4.4 on it. The 6900K is not worth the $200 premium over the 5960x. Plus, the 5960x, overclocks great! With roughly the same IPC.
> 
> What do u guys think? Both CPU's are more than what I need. But I'd keep them for probably 5 years from now.


Not sure if the price of the 6950x is still current at microcenter but at 1600 i'd get the 5960 and a gtx 1080 lol. Regardless of getting GPU or not i still think the 5960x is more than enough for anything you could throw at it. Unless you do some sort of professional thing that could really use that power.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Not sure if the price of the 6950x is still current at microcenter but at 1600 i'd get the 5960 and a gtx 1080 lol. Regardless of getting GPU or not i still think the 5960x is more than enough for anything you could throw at it. Unless you do some sort of professional thing that could really use that power.


Or it's a hobby and enjoy the extra unneeded HP


----------



## xTesla1856

If money is not an object (which often on this forum it isn't), absolutely go for the hight end


----------



## Yomny

Damn! 1600, sure why not lol. I'd take the best intel has to offer but darn get a titan X or something to go with it lol. "When in rome" just for the sake of hobby


----------



## Maintenance Bot

5960x , $100 per core.

6950x, $160 per core.

I know what I would do or did


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maintenance Bot*
> 
> 5960x , $100 per core.
> 
> 6950x, $160 per core.
> 
> I know what I would do or did


erm.. what was the 5960X launch price? comparing current per core prices for a New vs end-of-life part is not quite on the level.


----------



## sena

Do it, 6950X is beast, i am very proud owning it.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> erm.. what was the 5960X launch price? comparing current per core prices for a New vs end-of-life part is not quite on the level.


True, I did not account for that.


----------



## swingarm

If I had the money to spend I would do the 6950X but I don't so I'd get the 5960X.


----------



## Sh3perd

I made a thread about this, but i figured id post this here too:

I have a 6850k oc'ed to 4.3 @ 1.36v, and with water cooling, These are the temps Im getting.

Little hot, no? Would that be indicative of tim application or not good seating of the waterblock?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sh3perd*
> 
> I made a thread about this, but i figured id post this here too:
> 
> I have a 6850k oc'ed to 4.3 @ 1.36v, and with water cooling, These are the temps Im getting.
> 
> Little hot, no? Would that be indicative of tim application or not good seating of the waterblock?


What sort of water cooling. Seems it could go cooler. Temps are pretty close from core to core so no tim or block reseat needed. Just seems the cooler isn't up to the task.


----------



## Sh3perd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> What sort of water cooling. Seems it could go cooler. Temps are pretty close from core to core so no tim or block reseat needed. Just seems the cooler isn't up to the task.


Two 360 rads in push/pull. shouldnt be a cooler issue.

So youre saying that the temp delta between the hottest core and the coldest core at max temp is normal with these cpu's?


----------



## Nizzen

First test after boot. Used my "24/7" settings for my 6900k











Now I can [email protected] and play BF1 at the same time XD


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sh3perd*
> 
> I made a thread about this, but i figured id post this here too:
> 
> I have a 6850k oc'ed to 4.3 @ 1.36v, and with water cooling, These are the temps Im getting.
> 
> Little hot, no? Would that be indicative of tim application or not good seating of the waterblock?


uh,, the temperature spread on those cores is pretty large IMO. (besides, any core @ 90C is not good)


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> First test after boot. Used my "24/7" settings for my 6900k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I can [email protected] and play BF1 at the same time XD


You did mean 6950X, no?









Edit: Unless, using the 6900K settings on the 6950X?


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> Do it, 6950X is beast, i am very proud owning it.


Think the price will down after Zen is released? I currently have a 6800k and wouldn't mind upgrading to 10core only if price is reasonable.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mickeykool*
> 
> Think the price will down after Zen is released? I currently have a 6800k and wouldn't mind upgrading to 10core only if price is reasonable.


zen is 8 core... and unlikely to "threaten" a 6950X at anything.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> You did mean 6950X, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Unless, using the 6900K settings on the 6950X?


Using 6900k settings on 6950x yes







I had to try 6950x


----------



## gotmoo

Hey guys, fairly new to the boards here, I recently put together a broadwell-e machine and have been reading through this thread extensively - lots of helpful information! My setup is as follows:

CPU: i7-6900K
Motherboard: ASUS X99 Deluxe II
Cooler: Noctua D15S
RAM: Corsair DDR4 128gb @ 2400mhz
GPU: GTX1080
PSU: Dark power pro 11 850w

I have found a stable "safe" OC for my setup - 4.2GHz @ 1.20 Vcore. I'm currently using manual mode in the UEFI. I did want to use adaptive mode as outlined by several guides and posts I've read through. However, my CPU's factory VID appears to be set at 1.237V, and when in adaptive mode, I cannot get a lower Vcore regardless of what value I input, this appears to be a known fact of broadwell-e. Instead, I was hoping to achieve clock and voltage savings through the speed step and c-states. I initially read about it in this post by Qwinn over on asus forums:

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?85183-Adaptive-vs-Manual-C-States-Enabled
Quote:


> Title pretty much says it all. Is there any data on which method is superior in terms of performance and processor longevity?
> 
> For months I've been on adaptive core and offset cache. After reading up on a discussion on overclock.net, I have been playing with setting both voltages to manual instead and enabling C-States all the way up to C6 (non retention). Interesting results. My temps are a bit cooler, and in OCCT the "CPU" temperature was always about 5-6 degrees hotter than the hottest core, now it's about equal to the hottest core. For example, with adaptive/offset, a long OCCT run would yield a max "CPU" temp spike of 80-81c, with max core temp around 75-76c. On manual + c-states, I get maximum 74c on both CPU and hottest core. Also seem to see somewhat cooler idle voltages with manual + c states.
> 
> If you just look at the AIDA voltages, Manual + C-States is clearly superior, though it may be deceptive. With Adaptive I'll see core voltage drop to around 0.776v, and offset cache to 1.0v. With the C-States, I see core voltage go as low as 0.11v and cache to 0.66v. However, it looks like at least some processors spike to the full 1.280v core and 1.22v cache more often at idle than adaptive/offset seemed to.
> 
> One thing I've found that was unexpected was that C-States appear to be working even if I set the Windows power plan minimum processor state to 100%. My understanding was that doing so would effectively disable speedstep/c-states, but nope. Changing the minimum processor percent doesn't seem to do much of anything under manual + c-states. It was definitely effective in adaptive/offset, all cores would stay pegged at max frequency and voltage at 100%.
> 
> Performance wise, I *think* I was getting slightly better benchmark scores under adaptive/offset, not a lot, but measurable. For example, in FFXIV Heavensward benchmark, I could sometimes beat 22200 on adaptive, I haven't managed to beat 22120 yet on the manual + cstates version.
> 
> Any thoughts or knowledge on this that you guys can send my way as I decide which way I'm going to stick? Is one method better in terms of extending processor longevity than the other, or performance? If the expected outcome is different than what I'm reporting here, please tell me, I may just not have optimized one or the other properly.
> 
> Note: In all my experience with Adaptive, I had always left C-States on Auto. Tried briefly using adaptive with C-States disabled but didn't seem to see much of a difference in anything.


However, regardless of which c-states setting I use, my Vcore remains static. The clock speed does drop to 1200Mhz on idle. I initially thought the monitor programs are just not capturing it, but every program I've used (HWinfo, HWmonitor, CPU-Z, AIDA64) all report the CPU VID/Vcore as static 1.2V constantly, regardless of load. I'm hesitant to use offset option within adaptive mode as I've read it may cause instability during idle/low load states. I'm not aiming for top benchmarks, only want some extra performance without compromising the longevity of the parts.

How can I get Vcore to drop on manual mode during idle as others have clearly been able to do it? Would really appreciate any advice, thanks!


----------



## djgar

@gotmoo - when using adaptive, what did you put for offset and what for turbo?

You want auto for offset and 1.2 for turbo.


----------



## gotmoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> @gotmoo - when using adaptive, what did you put for offset and what for turbo?
> 
> You want auto for offset and 1.2 for turbo.


Yep that's what I had them. But as per VID set on all broadwell-e CPUs by Intel, voltage on adaptive cannot go below minimum VID at a given processor clock. It varies a bit by individual processor, and appears to be 1.237V for me, i.e. even if I set the voltage to 1.000V in UEFI, the actual voltage will still be 1.237V.

I have tried putting -0.037V in offset under adaptive to get vcore to 1.2V. It works, but I just worry about system stability at idle/low load states.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gotmoo*
> 
> Yep that's what I had them. But as per VID set on all broadwell-e CPUs by Intel, voltage on adaptive cannot go below minimum VID at a given processor clock. It varies a bit by individual processor, and appears to be 1.237V for me, i.e. even if I set the voltage to 1.000V in UEFI, the actual voltage will still be 1.237V.
> 
> I have tried putting -0.037V in offset under adaptive to get vcore to 1.2V. It works, but I just worry about system stability at idle/low load states.


That's weird. I'm using adaptive with turbo set to 1.395. At rest I get a vid of ~.77 and vcore of ~.84.


----------



## gotmoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> That's weird. I'm using adaptive with turbo set to 1.395. At rest I get a vid of ~.77 and vcore of ~.84.


It's not a problem when setting a turbo v higher than minimum VID, just can't set lower. Yes when I set to adaptive, I get the proper drops on idle just like you.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gotmoo*
> 
> Yep that's what I had them. But as per VID set on all broadwell-e CPUs by Intel, voltage on adaptive cannot go below minimum VID at a given processor clock. It varies a bit by individual processor, and appears to be 1.237V for me, i.e. even if I set the voltage to 1.000V in UEFI, the actual voltage will still be 1.237V.
> 
> I have tried putting -0.037V in offset under adaptive to get vcore to 1.2V. It works, but *I just worry about system stability at idle/low load states*.


you should - and this is very hard to test for. Only way to run below vid is to disable SVID and best to use manual override.


----------



## gotmoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you should - and this is very hard to test for. Only way to run below vid is to disable SVID and best to use manual override.


How are some people able to get voltage drops in their CPU while on manual? I've enabled all c-states in UEFI and the voltage does not budge...CPU clocks down correctly tho


----------



## sena

Guys, what are your input voltages, i observed that i need pretty high input to maintain clock stable?
btw motheboard is under water too, if that is important.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sh3perd*
> 
> Two 360 rads in push/pull. shouldnt be a cooler issue.
> 
> So youre saying that the temp delta between the hottest core and the coldest core at max temp is normal with these cpu's?


Woah, my bad the picture came out a bit small on my phone and was looking at the tj max up top. Yeah way too much of a delta. Tim spread and reseat, may have a pocket somewhere.


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> Guys, what are your input voltages, i observed that i need pretty high input to maintain clock stable?
> btw motheboard is under water too, if that is important.


Have at least .4+ over the vcore.

I'm at 1.85 for 1.32vcore since I've also overclocked the uncore and that takes part of the input voltage.


----------



## sena

Auuuch, that is very good, i need 1.98V to be stable at everything over 4.2, not good sample, damn it.


----------



## xTesla1856

Is there a place where I can buy colored Tops for the Trident Z RAM only? The X99 kit I ordered only comes in silver with white tops, which doesn't fit in my build. I would like either black or red tops.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gotmoo*
> 
> How are some people able to get voltage drops in their CPU while on manual? I've enabled all c-states in UEFI and the voltage does not budge...CPU clocks down correctly tho


Did you enable package C-states? verify that windows power plan has min proc state = 0%
Anyway, just switch to adaptive votage and disable c-states. this way you avoid core parking.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Did you enable package C-states? verify that windows power plan has min proc state = 0%
> Anyway, just switch to adaptive votage and disable c-states. this way you avoid core parking.


Hello

^^This. Contrary to the nonsense posted by some it is not possible for VCORE to be lowered when set to manual mode. The reported voltage reduction happens deep in the cores as a result of C-State implementation. The set VCORE does not change.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> Auuuch, that is very good, i need 1.98V to be stable at everything over 4.2, not good sample, damn it.


go into bios on your R5E10 and on this page set the two voltage steps as shown. Lower VCCIN to 1.93V anb set LLC 5. Unstable?


----------



## sblantipodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> BTW a little question. I seen this table
> That L3 cache number is quite strange. It looks like someone summed L2 and L3 and divided it by 2.
> 
> Any ideas?


what is the reason of increasing the PCI Exp lanes on a skylake-e processor?
44 lanes on a desktop cpu? for what ?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sblantipodi*
> 
> what is the reason of increasing the PCI Exp lanes on a skylake-e processor?
> 44 lanes on a desktop cpu? for what ?


Quad, tri SLI? Cant think of anything else.


----------



## sblantipodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yomny*
> 
> Quad, tri SLI? Cant think of anything else.


Multiple GPUs for rendering is OK, with Pascal tri way and four way sli is dead.


----------



## Gunslinger.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sblantipodi*
> 
> ...with Pascal tri way and four way sli is dead.


No it's not.









http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/timespy+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/4+gpu


----------



## tistou77

I confirm


----------



## sblantipodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/timespy+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/4+gpu


ah ok very useful to buy GPUs for 3d mark


----------



## Gunslinger.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sblantipodi*
> 
> ah ok very useful to buy GPUs for 3d mark










I've been doing it for going on 10 years.


----------



## cekim

As others have said, it depends on you and your preffered game(s) and you are definitely paying a huge (YUGE!) premium for a "little bit more". That said, if I want to drive 1400p @144, I need "a little bit more". 1 1080 gets me ~110-130fps in BF1. 2 1080s gets me 160-190 (i.e. more than 144 or 160 if I were to get a slightly faster monitor).

Those sync rates correspond to measurable reductions in click latency (measured time between change on the screen and my click response) for me. They also correspond to measurable improvements in my ability to respond to other players faster.

This equation will get worse when 4K monitors can do 144Hz later this year.

I have other (work) uses for GPU computes which makes this easier, but the truth is that there is still a case for SLI, but the reality is that it is no guarantee that any given game will run, or improve if it does.

I do hope that DX12 and similar tech that is moving toward making computes more parallel and threaded will improve this situation in the future, but that's the future and there will be newer faster card by then, so you have to look at what you want and what you can do now...

VR for instance seems like a natural for SLI (left + right) but in most cases its downright failed to function in the past year, so you'd have gotten no benefit from it yet. By the time they sort that out, the newer card will be coming out.


----------



## sblantipodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been doing it for going on 10 years.


I was not criticizin. No need to argue on tastes


----------



## djgar

It's the perennial law of diminishing returns, and it's a different game (pun intended) for everyone based on your particular goals. There's no right or wrong, just less and less for your $$$







.

I'm no gamer so a lame GPU works fine for me, whereas for hobby I like pushing the CPU / memory.


----------



## tps3443

Ive already got a gtx1080. So, I really wouldn't need another.

I'm really serious about jumping on the i7 6950X.


----------



## tps3443

I'm gonna buy, and keep returning my 6950x until I get a great overclocking chip.

What would be considered excellent Binning?

4.2 stock voltage? 4.0 stock voltage?

Unless Silicon lottery gets them back in stock soon.

You guys enjoying yourself with one of these 10 core monsters?


----------



## Yomny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> I'm gonna buy, and keep returning my 6950x until I get a great overclocking chip.
> 
> What would be considered excellent Binning?
> 
> 4.2 stock voltage? 4.0 stock voltage?
> 
> Unless Silicon lottery gets them back in stock soon.
> 
> You guys enjoying yourself with one of these 10 core monsters?


If it makes you happy, i like to get one and stick to it. You'll never be happy, never knowing if you could have gotten a better one, that mentality isn't sound.









I cant find any pleasure in going through returns, achieve a high OC, then what?
Also the more you mess with something that higher the possibilities of screwing something up. Just my .02 cents which i know no one asked for but hey, its a forum


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> I'm gonna buy, and keep returning my 6950x until I get a great overclocking chip.
> 
> What would be considered excellent Binning?
> 
> 4.2 stock voltage? 4.0 stock voltage?
> 
> Unless Silicon lottery gets them back in stock soon.
> 
> *You guys enjoying yourself with one of these 10 core monsters*?


yup - sure am.


----------



## djgar

Any of you guys/gals check out the Realbench Leaderboard? That #1 entry looks kind of suspicious, specifically the image editing score with that hardware ...


----------



## sena

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> go into bios on your R5E10 and on this page set the two voltage steps as shown. Lower VCCIN to 1.93V anb set LLC 5. Unstable?


Thx, i am testing it now.

It wasnt stable, anyway thank you.

I have decided to dial back to 4.250 GHz, i just cant cool him at 4.375.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> I'm gonna buy, and keep returning my 6950x until I get a great overclocking chip.
> 
> What would be considered excellent Binning?
> 
> 4.2 stock voltage? 4.0 stock voltage?
> 
> Unless Silicon lottery gets them back in stock soon.
> 
> You guys enjoying yourself with one of these 10 core monsters?


I'm over the hype myself. I've been enjoying/running one at 4.4GHz @ 1.29v since about a week or two of release and if I push it I can probably get it to 4.5 but didn't bother since I lost my first one like a week after I bought it. I'm actually thinking of dropping this chip and using a 6850k since I'm using xeon CPU servers now for the heavy lifting. Never tried how far I can get with stock voltage.


----------



## Silent Scone

4.4 @ 1.29v is fairly fantastical. You must be pleased


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 4.4 @ 1.29v is fairly fantastical. You must be pleased


For me it is the same if the chip can do 4.4 @ 1.3v or 4.4 @ 1.37v, if it can't do 4,5 ghz anyway







Watercooling fixing the heat good enough. I don't need the cpu more than 2 years, because then there is something else I want to try.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> Thx, i am testing it now.
> 
> It wasnt stable, anyway thank you.
> 
> I have decided to dial back to 4.250 GHz, i just cant cool him at 4.375.


Damn... hard to believe a cpu can be that far off the normal operating range for vccin. is it stable at Optimized defaults?


----------



## sena

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Damn... hard to believe a cpu can be that far off the normal operating range for vccin. is it stable at Optimized defaults?


Didnt tested, but i think it is.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> Didnt tested, but i think it is.


if it is not.. or it requires high vccin, return it to Intel - fails to perform at stock within normal voltage ranges.


----------



## sena

Going to test i as soon i have time, thx.


----------



## sena

Its ok, i lowered it to 1.93V, no problems with stability.


----------



## Raghar

Isn't VCCIN 1.8V?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 4.4 @ 1.29v is fairly fantastical. You must be pleased


I got very lucky with it, @Jpmboy helped me OC it a while back.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> Its ok, i lowered it to 1.93V, no problems with stability.


changing VCCIN to any value is not Optimized Defaults. PLease clrcmos or load optimized defaults and re boot the system back into bios, What VCCIN is applied when this is set to Auto?


----------



## sena

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> changing VCCIN to any value is not Optimized Defaults. PLease clrcmos or load optimized defaults and re boot the system back into bios, What VCCIN is applied when this is set to Auto?


I have done some testing when i bought cpu, i guess its ok, i will clear cmos tomorrow


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> I have done some testing when i bought cpu, i guess its ok, i will clear cmos tomorrow


Thanks. I'm trying to see what the default VCCIN is.


----------



## Sh3perd

I posted a few pages back regarding insane temps on a 6870k (page 479).

Just a quick update: Re-pasted/re-seated it (dot method) and reset cmos to clear clocks, and at the moment max temp on this is 51C, and max delta between hottest core and coldest is ~7C so whatever the hiccup was is fixed.

Thanks to those who took the time to reply!

Ill start OC'ing now to see what I can get


----------



## Sh3perd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Isn't VCCIN 1.8V?


Usually default is 1.8888 for x99.

But rule of thumb is 0.4-0.6v greater than whatever your vcore is.


----------



## lilchronic

On my cpu and board at defaults vccin is 1.8v idle and 1.72v-1.73v under load
5820k and soc champion


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> On my cpu and board at defaults vccin is 1.8v idle and 1.72v-1.73v under load
> 5820k and soc champion


yep - i'd like to see if the OP's chip is stable at default VCCIN.


----------



## Iceman2733

What software u guys using for CPU temp monitoring? I was using core temp and now upon fresh install windows it won't install now apparently there is a issue with Windows 10 even tho it worked fine before. I don't wanna keep HWMonitor open all the time just for CPU temp monitoring

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Sh3perd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What software u guys using for CPU temp monitoring? I was using core temp and now upon fresh install windows it won't install now apparently there is a issue with Windows 10 even tho it worked fine before. I don't wanna keep HWMonitor open all the time just for CPU temp monitoring
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


I have personally seen some false temp readings with HWMonitor, so i dont use it anymore (YMMV).

Currently my go-to is RealTemp if we are disregarding OC precision and Aida64

edit: i just realized i misread. you want continuous cpu temp reading?


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sh3perd*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What software u guys using for CPU temp monitoring? I was using core temp and now upon fresh install windows it won't install now apparently there is a issue with Windows 10 even tho it worked fine before. I don't wanna keep HWMonitor open all the time just for CPU temp monitoring
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I have personally seen some false temp readings with HWMonitor, so i dont use it anymore (YMMV).
> 
> Currently my go-to is RealTemp if we are disregarding OC precision and Aida64
> 
> edit: i just realized i misread. you want continuous cpu temp reading?
Click to expand...

Thank you good sir I did try Realtemp unless I did something wrong which I am not sure how it was only monitoring 4 cores. Yes I used to like to leave Core temp open in the taskbar while messing around I could monitor temps and such.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Sh3perd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Thank you good sir I did try Realtemp unless I did something wrong which I am not sure how it was only monitoring 4 cores. Yes I used to like to leave Core temp open in the taskbar while messing around I could monitor temps and such.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


I would go with OC precision X from EVGA. Regardless as to what hardware you have, you can customize it to show whatever you'd like, including all core temps.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What software u guys using for CPU temp monitoring? I was using core temp and now upon fresh install windows it won't install now apparently there is a issue with Windows 10 even tho it worked fine before. I don't wanna keep HWMonitor open all the time just for CPU temp monitoring
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


You can use AIDA64 to place selected readings in your task bar or a desktop OSD. I have it showing in the taskbar my two most used cores and all 4 dimms, and a desktop OSD showing dozens of readings..


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What software u guys using for CPU temp monitoring? I was using core temp and now upon fresh install windows it won't install now apparently there is a issue with Windows 10 even tho it worked fine before. I don't wanna keep HWMonitor open all the time just for CPU temp monitoring
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


best to use AID 64, but core temp 1.5 runs fine on this w10 box (x99).


----------



## bondibro

with some further testing and tinkering I have my 6950x stable at 4.4 @ 1.285. Pretty stoked actually.

Quick question around cpu mix/max cache ratio - this is currently set to 31 - is that fine and should I bother changing it? If so, what should I try?

Cheers


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What software u guys using for CPU temp monitoring? I was using core temp and now upon fresh install windows it won't install now apparently there is a issue with Windows 10 even tho it worked fine before. I don't wanna keep HWMonitor open all the time just for CPU temp monitoring
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> best to use AID 64, but core temp 1.5 runs fine on this w10 box (x99).
Click to expand...

thanks good sir..... I will aida 64 when I get home. Yes Core temp worked fine before changing motherboard and a fresh install of Windows 10 now it comes up with drivers can not be loaded.... I was browsing there forum and they said it is an issue with driver signatures. I am not sure how it works for some and not others exist but unfortunately I became one of the unlucky ones lol

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bondibro*
> 
> with some further testing and tinkering I have my 6950x stable at 4.4 @ 1.285. Pretty stoked actually.
> 
> Quick question around cpu mix/max cache ratio - this is currently set to 31 - is that fine and should I bother changing it? If so, what should I try?
> 
> Cheers


performancewise it's not going to make a huge difference but if you want to squeeze all the juice out then go for it. I get the same voltage as you @4.4 and I have cache setup at 35 but had to increase the cache voltage to around +319mv offset.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What software u guys using for CPU temp monitoring? I was using core temp and now upon fresh install windows it won't install now apparently there is a issue with Windows 10 even tho it worked fine before. I don't wanna keep HWMonitor open all the time just for CPU temp monitoring
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


I use a Logitech RGB 910 Orion Spark keyboard and using it to monitor the computer and displaying it on my iphone with the Arx software that runs with it. I see GPU/CPU temp and utilization.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N3OELPU/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> thanks good sir..... I will aida 64 when I get home. Yes Core temp worked fine before changing motherboard and a fresh install of Windows 10 now it comes up with drivers can not be loaded.... I was browsing there forum and they said it is an issue with driver signatures. I am not sure how it works for some and not others exist but unfortunately I became one of the unlucky ones lol
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


With Windows 10, it is necessary to disable the "secure boot" in the bios for CoreTemp to work (with an installation in UEFI)


----------



## Shaded War

I'm having an issue with XMP and cpu voltage. Enabling it locks my voltage and multiplier and it never goes lower on desktop. Is there a way to set the rated memory speeds without enabling XMP or having to put in tons of secondary timings manually?

I'd prefer if my cpu didn't have to run at constant 1.22v 3.875Ghz (haven't overclocked yet).


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shaded War*
> 
> I'm having an issue with XMP and cpu voltage. Enabling it locks my voltage and multiplier and it never goes lower on desktop. Is there a way to set the rated memory speeds without enabling XMP or having to put in tons of secondary timings manually?
> 
> I'd prefer if my cpu didn't have to run at constant 1.22v 3.875Ghz (haven't overclocked yet).


Your XMP is setting your strap to 125, and the CPU behavior is expected when everything is left on auto.


----------



## Aenra

Greetings for starters.. new guy 

I wanted to thank each and every one of you. Three days ago i was clue-less, thanks to you guys, i'm happily tweaking my i7 6900k's voltages. Sometimes i forget what a boon the net is.. where else would i get all this info.. so many, many, but many thanks to you all. Much obliged folks!

[not to say that everything in here is gold, or that i did not find the evident childish remarks, but even so yeah?]

Just completed a looong, long Prime session and it's happily stable at 4,501.2

(obviously all cores, turbo off, hyperthreading on)

- bclk: 100.3

- gear ratio: 1.25

- cpu strap: 125.03 (it's for the GSkill modules and frankly am happy, turns out it was a LOT easier to OC with a 125 strap, less voltage required. On a 100 strap, it would fail Prime even with 1.380 vcore)

- vcore: 1.355

- llc: 100% (5/5 setting)

- all else: as it was, default, same with ram; no xmp, nothing. Only things i've changed are mentioned above.

Am currently trying to raise my uncore, which means i'm currently playing with the cache voltage. First time i am overclocking anything, so i can only base my thinking on what i've read thus far, it being rather inconclusive. There's this relatively new person here, he too was asking about cache voltage and its relation to input voltage. I've read the replies, yes. Except as stated, rather inconclusive. Zero point 5 upwards of vcore, sure, but is 0.5 input voltage and zero cache voltage the same as 0.5 input voltage and 1.3 cache voltage? No. Crashes in the second case. So where to start when that typical 0.5 is not enough?

My "methodology" thus far is the following:

My mobo has:

1.800 default Input Voltage

1.050 default Cache Voltage

a) I raised the Cache Voltage by .200 to a total of 1.250, so i also raised the Input Voltage by the exact same .200, to a new total of 2.000

b) I left my uncore to default, running a fresh Prime with only the voltages up, see if it's as stable as before ( my understanding is that raising vccin can be problematic[?] )

c) Assuming it is stable, i will start raising uncore as far as it can go (ie as far as said voltages allow it to) before becoming unstable.

That sound O.K. to you? If excessively high/stupid, suggest me a better method please. Or a faster one, lol

And thanks for reading


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> Greetings for starters.. new guy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to thank each and every one of you. Three days ago i was clue-less, thanks to you guys, i'm happily tweaking my i7 6900k's voltages. Sometimes i forget what a boon the net is.. where else would i get all this info.. so many, many, but many thanks to you all. Much obliged folks!
> [not to say that everything in here is gold, or that i did not find the evident childish remarks, but even so yeah?]
> 
> Just completed a looong, long Prime session and it's happily stable at 4,501.2
> (obviously all cores, turbo off, hyperthreading on)
> 
> - bclk: 100.3
> - gear ratio: 1.25
> - cpu strap: 125.03 (it's for the GSkill modules and frankly am happy, turns out it was a LOT easier to OC with a 125 strap, less voltage required. On a 100 strap, it would fail Prime even with 1.380 vcore)
> - vcore: 1.355
> - llc: 100% (5/5 setting)
> - all else: as it was, default, same with ram; no xmp, nothing. Only things i've changed are mentioned above.
> 
> Am currently trying to raise my uncore, which means i'm currently playing with the cache voltage. First time i am overclocking anything, so i can only base my thinking on what i've read thus far, it being rather inconclusive. There's this relatively new person here, he too was asking about cache voltage and its relation to input voltage. I've read the replies, yes. Except as stated, rather inconclusive. Zero point 5 upwards of vcore, sure, but is 0.5 input voltage and zero cache voltage the same as 0.5 input voltage and 1.3 cache voltage? No. Crashes in the second case. So where to start when that typical 0.5 is not enough?
> 
> My "methodology" thus far is the following:
> My mobo has:
> 1.800 default Input Voltage
> 1.050 default Cache Voltage
> 
> a) I raised the Cache Voltage by .200 to a total of 1.250, so i also raised the Input Voltage by the exact same .200, to a new total of 2.000
> b) I left my uncore to default, running a fresh Prime with only the voltages up, see if it's as stable as before ( my understanding is that raising vccin can be problematic[?] )
> c) Assuming it is stable, i will start raising uncore as far as it can go (ie as far as said voltages allow it to) before becoming unstable.
> 
> That sound O.K. to you? If excessively high/stupid, suggest me a better method please. Or a faster one, lol
> And thanks for reading


cache is not as straight forward to OC as core, since testing it's stability is not as easy. the way to approach overlcocking any substructure is to first see how far the frequency can be raised without any change in voltage setting (eg, can;lt use Auto then - set the voltage manually). increase the multi one step at a time until it fails to post or boot/load windows, then increase voltage until it successfully posts. boots, and passes 1h of AID64 cache test. This then defines a stable base to work from . From there you can go the same route: increase multi one notch and raise the voltage until it is stable again.. rinse and repeat.









as always.. have a complete system image before beginning to OC the rig.


----------



## Aenra

Fair enough.. least i know it's stable with 2.0 input and 1.25vring, may come in handy later on.

Will start the uncore from scratch. Again, lol

(this is taking way more than i originally thought it would; tedious procedure is an understatement)

Thanks btw


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> Fair enough.. least i know it's stable with 2.0 input and 1.25vring, may come in handy later on.
> Will start the uncore from scratch. Again, lol
> 
> (this is taking way more than i originally thought it would; tedious procedure is an understatement)
> 
> Thanks btw


2.0 vccin is on the high side, but I also need ~1.98 for stability at high utilization. What I do is set vccin to 1.95 and LLC to +9. This way on idle I get 1.95 and at turbo the LLC+9 raises it to 1.98.


----------



## Aenra

Thanks @djgar, will keep it in mind 

Got a new observation (as in expertise would be appreciated, lol).. as stated, on a 125 strap it had been significantly easier to OC main frequency, don't know why, but it was.

And what a surprise, the reverse appears to apply in the case of uncore. Severe difficulties even at 3000MHz. Switch to a 100 strap, 3.2 seems a breeze, i can tell i can go much higher.

Does either make sense?

And question number two, did you ever bother with vccu? Seen multiple posts from Asus board users stating it needs be raised in milivolts, then i see a ""guide"" advising a .250 value on a Gigabyte board :S

I know some few hours of empiricity are nothing, but thus far i -can- say that it helps in extreme conditions; ie with uncore set to a frequency your PC wouldn't even boot with, a vccu of .0025 or .0050 guarantees you it will. Obviously it's still unstable, but it boots. Also, while it -does- boot, it's slow as ****, like it's dragging. Remove vccu, no boot, or boot and WHEA error. Haven't dared up it more than 0.050, so can't say what occurs in higher values.


----------



## bondibro

Just following up. I am looking for some assistance with my OC

I am running a 6950x at 4.4ghz 1.295v and its stable in all tests I throw at it, including aida, UNTIL I open my video editing software (Davinci Resolve) and render a video to H.264.. The computer freezes and then BSOD with no specific error message.

I am wondering if there is something else I can do to get it to be stable? Not keen to really put the voltage above 1.3v. I haven't touched any other settings.

Right now I have it at 4.3ghz @ 1.275 and its rock solid..


----------



## xTesla1856

So what's the deal with Cache on Broadwell-E? Am I the only one who finds it impossible to get anything more than a 34 multi stable on cache?


----------



## thesandvolcano

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bondibro*
> 
> Just following up. I am looking for some assistance with my OC
> 
> I am running a 6950x at 4.4ghz 1.295v and its stable in all tests I throw at it, including aida, UNTIL I open my video editing software (Davinci Resolve) and render a video to H.264.. The computer freezes and then BSOD with no specific error message.
> 
> I am wondering if there is something else I can do to get it to be stable? Not keen to really put the voltage above 1.3v. I haven't touched any other settings.
> 
> Right now I have it at 4.3ghz @ 1.275 and its rock solid..


Aida uses AVX load yes? Are you using the AVX plugin for Davinci Resolve? I have just put up a summary of my OC here http://www.overclock.net/t/1606212/gigabyte-x99-ultra-gaming-owners-thread/110. My last entry indicates that stability obtained with a low AVX voltage does not necessarily mean stability with non-AVX loads. Since your current voltage seems optimistic in comparison to mine I would look here.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> So what's the deal with Cache on Broadwell-E? Am I the only one who finds it impossible to get anything more than a 34 multi stable on cache?


What voltage range are you using/trying?


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> What voltage range are you using/trying?


I have used up to 1.25v on the cache. vCore is at 1.32v, VCCIN is at 1.92v, LLC at Level 5.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I have used up to 1.25v on the cache. vCore is at 1.32v, VCCIN is at 1.92v, LLC at Level 5.


Every CPU is different. Have you fully tested memory stability? Increase in uncore can occasionally require a bump in vccsa io and memory voltages due to the faster cache interaction time.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I have used up to 1.25v on the cache. vCore is at 1.32v, VCCIN is at 1.92v, LLC at Level 5.


I've been running 3700 24/7 @ 1.29 vcache for months.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bondibro*
> 
> Just following up. I am looking for some assistance with my OC
> 
> I am running a 6950x at 4.4ghz 1.295v and its stable in all tests I throw at it, including aida, UNTIL I open my video editing software (Davinci Resolve) and render a video to H.264.. The computer freezes and then BSOD with no specific error message.
> 
> I am wondering if there is something else I can do to get it to be stable? Not keen to really put the voltage above 1.3v. I haven't touched any other settings.
> 
> Right now I have it at 4.3ghz @ 1.275 and its rock solid..


1.295V for 4.4 is just not stable. If you do a lot of x264 encoding use ASUS Realbench stress test, or the x264 stability test here. Figure 10mV per 100MHz per core... so for a 10 core increasing the multiplier 1 notch (on strap 100) is likely to require 100mV for the same level of stability as the lower multi, assuming the operating temperature does not increase (and that is the trick







)


----------



## Aenra

Been at this for too long, may all be in my head.. but am starting to feel like the cpu was faster with stock uncore than it is now. Can this be? Like, say, can a lack in voltage do that?

Still running on Prime, may well end up unstable, but has yet to fail it and i really -do- think it took longer to boot, open software up, etc..


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 1.295V for 4.4 is just not stable. If you do a lot of x264 encoding use ASUS Realbench stress test, or the x264 stability test here. Figure 10mV per 100MHz per core... so for a 10 core increasing the multiplier 1 notch (on strap 100) is likely to require 100mV for the same level of stability as the lower multi, assuming the operating temperature does not increase (and that is the trick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


For me it's stable at 4.4 and 1.26v (Vcore) and 16GB ram or 1.274v with 32GB and 1h of Realbench (Aida64, HCI Memtest)
I will test may be Realbench with 2h









PS: Why call it Asus Realbench ? It is not Asus who develops it ?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> For me it's stable at 4.4 and 1.26v (Vcore) and 16GB ram or 1.274v with 32GB and 1h of Realbench (Aida64, HCI Memtest)
> I will test may be Realbench with 2h
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Why call it Asus Realbench ? It is not Asus who develops it ?


I was referring to the posters result. not yours. congratulations on having a cpu that can do 4.4 at 1.26.








I call it that 'cause that is what it is... right?


----------



## Silent Scone

"Pics or it never happened"


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> "Pics or it never happened"


What, you want proof??!!! Oh, puleeze!


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I was referring to the posters result. not yours. congratulations on having a cpu that can do 4.4 at 1.26.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call it that 'cause that is what it is... right?


Okay, I thought you were talking "in general"

For Realbench, this is being developed by 1 person (Nodens) for Asus








I do not think it legitimate to name it Asus Realbench (for the developer, after me, I do not care







)

I just found the screen of Aida64, those of Realbench must be on another disk (just for info)

4400 / 3700 / 32GB


4400 / 3800 / 16GB


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Okay, I thought you were talking "in general"
> 
> For Realbench, this is being developed by 1 person (Nodens) for Asus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think it legitimate to name it Asus Realbench (for the developer, after me, I do not care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I just found the screen of Aida64 (just for info)
> 
> 4400 / 3700 / 32GB
> 
> 
> 4400 / 3800 / 16GB


WEll then you know... once you sell the code/design, or get paid under agreement, it's usually no longer yours. But I don;t know what the Agreement is.


----------



## Iceman2733

Ok I wanna go over my overclock with you guys and get opinions

Intel i7 6850k
Asus Rampage V Edition 10
Corsair Dominator Platinum 32gig 3200mhz CMD32GX4M4B3200C16
EVGA 1000P2

CPU 4.4
Cache 34
AVX Offset 3

CPU Core Adaptive 1.350v
CPU Cache Manual 1.150 getting 1.178
VCCSA Offset +0.250 getting 1.232v in BIOS -> O/S software seeing 1.224v
VCCIN 1.830 getting 1.824 idle load is dipping down to 1.778v (thinking to change LLC up one more notch)
LLC6
VCCIO CPU 1.100v getting 1.056v. (weird stock voltage shows it should be 1.05v but when left to AUTO i was getting 1.008v only)
Memory at 1.350v

Let me know what you guys so far so good not sure what I should tweak more on. I started the CPU core higher just to help stabilize I think I can come down further but I hate to be on the edge of stable would rather have a little more.

Temp wise well NO issues, with OCCT for 1hr hottest core got 56c. Realbench for 1hr got to 61c highest Average I think was high 50ish.
Thanks everyone


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Ok I wanna go over my overclock with you guys and get onions
> 
> Intel i7 6850k
> Asus Rampage V Edition 10
> Corsair Dominator Platinum 32gig 3200mhz CMD32GX4M4B3200C16
> EVGA 1000P2
> 
> CPU 4.4
> Cache 34
> AVX Offset 3
> 
> CPU Core Adaptive 1.350v
> CPU Cache Manual 1.150 getting 1.178
> VCCSA Offset +0.250 getting 1.232v in BIOS -> O/S software seeing 1.224v
> VCCIN 1.830 getting 1.824 idle load is dipping down to 1.778v (thinking to change LLC up one more notch)
> LLC6
> VCCIO CPU 1.100v getting 1.056v. (weird stock voltage shows it should be 1.05v but when left to AUTO i was getting 1.008v only)
> Memory at 1.350v
> 
> Let me know what you guys so far so good not sure what I should tweak more on. I started the CPU core higher just to help stabilize I think I can come down further but I hate to be on the edge of stable would rather have a little more.
> 
> Temp wise well NO issues, with OCCT for 1hr hottest core got 56c. Realbench for 1hr got to 61c highest Average I think was high 50ish.
> Thanks everyone


no onions







... but IMO, why such a strong AVX offset?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no onions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but IMO, why such a strong AVX offset?


Hello

Might be the individual CPU or could be related to the board also. SA voltage is also quite high for the memory configuration and speed.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Ok I wanna go over my overclock with you guys and get onions
> 
> Intel i7 6850k
> Asus Rampage V Edition 10
> Corsair Dominator Platinum 32gig 3200mhz CMD32GX4M4B3200C16
> EVGA 1000P2
> 
> CPU 4.4
> Cache 34
> AVX Offset 3
> 
> CPU Core Adaptive 1.350v
> CPU Cache Manual 1.150 getting 1.178
> VCCSA Offset +0.250 getting 1.232v in BIOS -> O/S software seeing 1.224v
> VCCIN 1.830 getting 1.824 idle load is dipping down to 1.778v (thinking to change LLC up one more notch)
> LLC6
> VCCIO CPU 1.100v getting 1.056v. (weird stock voltage shows it should be 1.05v but when left to AUTO i was getting 1.008v only)
> Memory at 1.350v


Better than average core overclock. I will agree that the 3 offset is probably overkill, but probably not going to hurt anything.


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no onions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but IMO, why such a strong AVX offset?


LMAO!!! thank goodness i hate those things... Stupid auto-correct lol when I type what I type just leave it hahaha

Buddy about the AVX offset most of the guides I had looked at everyone was recommending 3 just followed the trend on that one.

Is anything that stands out that is too much or too little?? These X99 are more headache to O/C than the Z170 was thats for dang sure.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> LMAO!!! thank goodness i hate those things... Stupid auto-correct lol when I type what I type just leave it hahaha
> 
> Buddy about the AVX offset most of the guides I had looked at everyone was recommending 3 just followed the trend on that one.
> 
> Is anything that stands out that is too much or too little?? These X99 are more headache to O/C than the Z170 was thats for dang sure.


Can confirm, Broadwell-E has been more finnicky than any other platform I had so far.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> LMAO!!! thank goodness i hate those things... Stupid auto-correct lol when I type what I type just leave it hahaha
> 
> Buddy about the AVX offset most of the guides I had looked at everyone was recommending 3 just followed the trend on that one.
> 
> Is anything that stands out that is too much or too little?? These X99 are more headache to O/C than the Z170 was thats for dang sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Can confirm, Broadwell-E has been more finnicky than any other platform I had so far.
Click to expand...

BW-E has such a wall, and the memory controller is more robust than HW-E, so over clocking is a bit more straight forward. HW-E and BW-E are both however more finicky than anything else I have run across. BW-E comes in a pretty close 2nd, but HW-E was a bit more finicky _for me_.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> BW-E has such a wall, and the memory controller is more robust than HW-E, so over clocking is a bit more straight forward. HW-E and BW-E are both however more finicky than anything else I have run across. BW-E comes in a pretty close 2nd, but HW-E was a bit more finicky _for me_.


Can you explain finicky? The answer is to work to a regiment that suits the platform. Once you do, dialing in stability is very easy. Have had no problem with any of the CPU I've used.


----------



## Jquala

Guys I'm not home right now but you have to take my word for it. My 6900k is solid at 4.3 on 1.25v. With Jpmboy's aforementioned logic adding 10mv should put me at 4.4 and 1.35v of course it could be more or less. When I run most tests like occt, Aida, Ibt 4.4 at 1.355 seem to suffice. Realbench and cinnebench will literally send my cpu to the bench with bsod watchdog x124 vcore I believe. Sometimes it will pass cinnebench at 1.355v sometimes it won't at 1.375-1.4. Uncore has been stable at 37 1.25v SA is 1.150 VCIN is 1.95(1.91) and ram 2 quad kits of 3200ghz cl14 128gb. I've increased vcore while I decreases SA. I've increased both. I tried everything. From a logical stand point wouldn't a [/B]B][email protected] be capable of 4.4mhz consistently >1.375v[/B][/B] is my 6900k walled? Or is it possible I'm real close and might actually need more than 0.15mv to consistently be inconsistent at 4.4. Is my ludacris amount of ram a factor?
Also I RMA my RVE10 due to led issues my new board is dropping channels B and D and can't handle xmp. All sticks work in C and D. Is it safe to say it's a board issue? No bent pins and nothing to indicate damage to CPU


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jquala*
> 
> Guys I'm not home right now but you have to take my word for it. My 6900k is solid at 4.3 on 1.25v. With Jpmboy's aforementioned logic adding 10mv should put me at 4.4 and 1.35v of course it could be more or less. When I run most tests like occt, Aida, Ibt 4.4 at 1.355 seem to suffice. Realbench and cinnebench will literally send my cpu to the bench with bsod watchdog x124 vcore I believe. Sometimes it will pass cinnebench at 1.355v sometimes it won't at 1.375-1.4. Uncore has been stable at 37 1.25v SA is 1.150 VCIN is 1.95(1.91) and ram 2 quad kits of 3200ghz cl14 128gb. I've increased vcore while I decreases SA. I've increased both. I tried everything. From a logical stand point wouldn't a [/B]B][email protected] be capable of 4.4mhz consistently >1.375v[/B][/B] is my 6900k walled? Or is it possible I'm real close and might actually need more than 0.15mv to consistently be inconsistent at 4.4. Is my ludacris amount of ram a factor?
> Also I RMA my RVE10 due to led issues my new board is dropping channels B and D and can't handle xmp. All sticks work in C and D. Is it safe to say it's a board issue? No bent pins and nothing to indicate damage to CPU


Stop mixing memory kits


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jquala*
> 
> Guys I'm not home right now but you have to take my word for it. My 6900k is solid at 4.3 on 1.25v. With Jpmboy's aforementioned logic adding 10mv should put me at 4.4 and 1.35v of course it could be more or less. When I run most tests like occt, Aida, Ibt 4.4 at 1.355 seem to suffice. Realbench and cinnebench will literally send my cpu to the bench with bsod watchdog x124 vcore I believe. Sometimes it will pass cinnebench at 1.355v sometimes it won't at 1.375-1.4. Uncore has been stable at 37 1.25v SA is 1.150 VCIN is 1.95(1.91) and ram 2 quad kits of 3200ghz cl14 128gb. I've increased vcore while I decreases SA. I've increased both. I tried everything. From a logical stand point wouldn't a [email protected] be capable of 4.4mhz consistently >1.375v is my 6900k walled? Or is it possible I'm real close and might actually need more than 0.15mv to consistently be inconsistent at 4.4. Is my ludacris amount of ram a factor?
> Also I RMA my RVE10 due to led issues my new board is dropping channels B and D and can't handle xmp. All sticks work in C and D. Is it safe to say it's a board issue? No bent pins and nothing to indicate damage to CPU


With my old one, I had 1.25v for 4.3ghz, but it was not stable at 4.4ghz and + 1.375v

Have you tested each DIMM and DIMM slots "separately" (all DIMMs on slot B1, and B2 (if used), etc ... on slots that are problematic)?
Maybe a DIMM, motherboard or voltage problem


----------



## Jquala

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Stop mixing memory kits


I didn't do proper research before moving from the z170 platform to the x99 platform. I only became aware of the ramifications of doing so after I started to OC BW-E and it was already too late to get it exchanged with amazon. As most people who lucked out I had it working perfectly on my last rve10. My present one is giving me much more grief.


----------



## Jquala

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> With my old one, I had 1.25v for 4.3ghz, but it was not stable at 4.4ghz and + 1.375v
> 
> 6900k as well? I feel like we bought the neglected middle child of broadwell-e. Already conceded to community college and a life of mediocre cinnebench scores. Initially, I figured i definitelty won the lottery at 4.3 1.25v it's 4.5 worthy with enough tweaking I arrogantly thought.
> First time I encountered a CPU that literally decided it just wants to sit at 4.3 no matter how you tweak Voltages
> 
> Have you tested each DIMM and DIMM slots "separately" (all DIMMs on slot B1, and B2 (if used), etc ... on slots that are problematic)?
> Maybe a DIMM, motherboard or voltage problem


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jquala*
> 
> 6900k as well? I feel like we bought the neglected middle child of broadwell-e. Already conceded to community college and a life of mediocre cinnebench scores. Initially, I figured i definitelty won the lottery at 4.3 1.25v it's 4.5 worthy with enough tweaking I arrogantly thought.
> First time I encountered a CPU that literally decided it just wants to sit at 4.3 no matter how you tweak Voltages


Yes, with 6900K
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jquala*
> 
> I didn't do proper research before moving from the z170 platform to the x99 platform. I only became aware of the ramifications of doing so after I started to OC BW-E and it was already too late to get it exchanged with amazon. As most people who lucked out I had it working perfectly on my last rve10. My present one is giving me much more grief.


Same, I did not have problems with kits Z170 and R5E, R5E10 (for "3 kits")
After that, do not mix a kit 3200 C14 and a kit 3200 C16, for sure


----------



## Jquala

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> With my old one, I had 1.25v for 4.3ghz, but it was not stable at 4.4ghz and 1.375
> 
> Have you tested each DIMM and DIMM slots "separately" (all DIMMs on slot B1, and B2 (if used), etc ... on slots that are problematic)?
> Maybe a DIMM, motherboard or voltage problem


6900k? If so our cpus probably knew each other in the proverbreial silicon womb. It's so odd to see a cpu just decide 4.3 is where it belongs even though it can take so much more voltage before temps become an issue. I mean 4.4 is mostly stable in fact I thought I had a winner [email protected] passes 5 hours of occt, IBT, firestrike as soon as I use cinnebench I crash. The next day id pass. Then I'd fail a few times at 1.355 I'd eventually made my way up to 1.4 still inconsistent. Oddly enough the closer it moved away from 1.355 and to 1.4 the more unstable it felt.


----------



## Jquala

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Yes, with 6900K
> Same, I did not have problems with kits Z170 and R5E, R5E10 (for "3 kits")
> 
> After that, do not mix a kit 3200 C14 and a kit 3200 C16, for sure


Hahaha! I had a kit of 3200 c14 64gb and 3600 c16 64gb for my z170. I knew enough not to mix drastically different speeds and timings so when I went over to BWE i almost bought another stack of 3600 c16. I'm glad I didn't get ahead of myself. It's rather confusing cause technically my sticks are QVL but I never read up on mixing kits within the same size, frequency and latency. I thought people meant not to mix different speeds or tridents and platinums.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jquala*
> 
> Hahaha! I had a kit of 3200 c14 64gb and 3600 c16 64gb for my z170. I knew enough not to mix drastically different speeds and timings so when I went over to BWE i almost bought another stack of 3600 c16. I'm glad I didn't get ahead of myself. It's rather confusing cause technically my sticks are QVL but I never read up on mixing kits within the same size, frequency and latency. I thought people meant not to mix different speeds or tridents and platinums.


Asus Forums:
DON'T COMBINE MEMORY KITS! THE MEAT AND POTATOES OVERVIEW

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?57038-Don%92t-combine-memory-kits!-The-meat-and-potatoes-overview


----------



## Aenra

Posting for an update 

Frequency as was, stable at 36x125 (4,500), vcore at 1.355.

Uncore stable at 26x125 (3,250), currently lowering my vring to find the lowest possible value.

Got two questions, assuming anyone bothers that is ^^

- If, with an llc at 100%, a vccin at 1.95, a vccio at 1.150, a vccsa at +0.300 and a vring at 1.280 i couldn't get uncore stable one more notch up (to x27 = 3,375), am i correct in assuming that said x26 is all i can get? Not sure how much vring voltage is safe voltage..

( edit: also keeping in mind that uncore affects RAM as well, which i've yet to OC and that if my controller is as bad as it looks, more could potentially cripple me in the RAM department.. right? :S )

- Is there really any difference? IRL-wise, i haven't done a single benchmark in my life, nor am i planning on doing one.

And as always, thanks for reading, thanks to all of you for this thread. I'd be stuck with XMP if it weren't for you crazies, lol


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jquala*
> 
> Hahaha! I had a kit of 3200 c14 64gb and 3600 c16 64gb for my z170. I knew enough not to mix drastically different speeds and timings so when I went over to BWE i almost bought another stack of 3600 c16. I'm glad I didn't get ahead of myself. It's rather confusing cause technically my sticks are QVL but I never read up on mixing kits within the same size, frequency and latency. I thought people meant not to mix different speeds or tridents and platinums.


If your 2 kits are exactly the same (same manufacturer, series, frequencies and timings) then there should be no worries
I never have a problem with

2 kits 3200 C15 2x4GB
2 kits 3733 C17 2x4GB
2 kits 3200 C14 2x8GB


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Might be the individual CPU or could be related to the board also. SA voltage is also quite high for the memory configuration and speed.


yeah, vsa is very high! And with an AVX offset that high, seems like a great candidate for the ATCT.


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Might be the individual CPU or could be related to the board also. SA voltage is also quite high for the memory configuration and speed.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, vsa is very high! And with an AVX offset that high, seems like a great candidate for the ATCT.


What is very high about it? I have seen very few people running 3200mhz memory at less than 1.2 VSA? I have lowered it and Cache a little more running test now to see what it would do. AVX offset like I said heck I set it 0 and still ran everything just fine, like I stated before i used the number 3 because several guides set it to that. This is a gaming PC so it will never see the AVX offset used other than stress testing so it doesn't matter much.

EDIT: Sorry not trying to be rude, re-read it all and and came off as such. Trying to type quickly and feed the children lol..... Just trying to find out why you guys feel it is high going off ASUS guide it seems like it is around where it should be for 3200mhz memory


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> What is very high about it? I have seen very few people running 3200mhz memory at less than 1.2 VSA? I have lowered it and Cache a little more running test now to see what it would do. AVX offset like I said heck I set it 0 and still ran everything just fine, like I stated before i used the number 3 because several guides set it to that. This is a gaming PC so it will never see the AVX offset used other than stress testing so it doesn't matter much.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry not trying to be rude, re-read it all and and came off as such. Trying to type quickly and feed the children lol..... Just trying to find out why you guys feel it is high going off ASUS guide it seems like it is around where it should be for 3200mhz memory


are you reading x99 guides or z270? anyway, if the OC benefits from a an AVX offset like you have it - enjoy!
It is actually unusual to need vsa that high for 3200, and I've not needed to jack it that much for any ram speed, including athe 24/7 3400c13 I've been running for a very long time.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






just try setting it to 1.000V without changing cache multi or voltage. If it is okay, run a robust ram stability test such as described here.


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> are you reading x99 guides or z270? anyway, if the OC benefits from a an AVX offset like you have it - enjoy!
> It is actually unusual to need vsa that high for 3200, and I've not needed to jack it that much for any ram speed, including athe 24/7 3400c13 I've been running for a very long time.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just try setting it to 1.000V without changing cache multi or voltage. If it is okay, run a robust ram stability test such as described here.


Thank you good sir for the response I did lower it down a bit more like stated above to

VSA +200 to give me 1.176v
Cache 1.125 giving me 1.159v

I will try a flat 1.000v, now when doing that good sir are you saying to keep my Cache Multi left at 34 or take it back to stock? If I set Cache to AUTO the silly motherboard sets the voltage stupidly high on cache at alike 1.280 i think which is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY to high.

I am wondering if some of my issues with AUTO are me using XMP profile with my memory (memory is not supposedly x99 according to Corsair but lots of members on here are running it.

OMG me and editing today... Here is the link to the ASUS Broadwell-E guide I was refering too earlier.

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/


----------



## TK421

Does anyone know how to find the FPO and ATPO number without taking off heatsink?

My CPU has 10c+ degree difference between cores under load, I heard that it qualifies for Intel RMA within the warranty period.


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> Does anyone know how to find the FPO and ATPO number without taking off heatsink?
> 
> My CPU has 10c+ degree difference between cores under load, I heard that it qualifies for Intel RMA within the warranty period.


Do you have the box? Most of that should be listed on the label.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> Does anyone know how to find the FPO and ATPO number without taking off heatsink?
> 
> My CPU has 10c+ degree difference between cores under load, I heard that it qualifies for Intel RMA within the warranty period.


If it's 10c between min and max that looks reasonable AFAIK.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> Do you have the box? Most of that should be listed on the label.


\

Ok, I'll get the box and see the numbers there.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> If it's 10c between min and max that looks reasonable AFAIK.


Coldest core is around 62 something and hottest is 74 from what I see. Someone else told me that he had a few CPUs like this and Intel replaced under RMA with ones that don't have as much difference.

I know it should be alright since it's a 6-core, but still bugs me :|

What do you guys think, RMA or not? Chip does 4.3GHz at 1.295v so it's not that good of a silicon.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> \
> Coldest core is around 62 something and hottest is 74 from what I see. Someone else told me that he had a few CPUs like this and Intel replaced under RMA with ones that don't have as much difference.
> 
> I know it should be alright since it's a 6-core, but still bugs me :|
> 
> What do you guys think, RMA or not? Chip does 4.3GHz at 1.295v so it's not that good of a silicon.


I had 58 -> 74 after 3 hours of Realbench, and my CPU overclocks rather nicely. I wouldn't want to risk better temp difference but worse OC. But if you don't OC well then that's a different matter.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Thank you good sir for the response I did lower it down a bit more like stated above to
> 
> VSA +200 to give me 1.176v
> Cache 1.125 giving me 1.159v
> 
> I will try a flat 1.000v, now when doing that good sir are you saying to keep my Cache Multi left at 34 or take it back to stock? If I set Cache to AUTO the silly motherboard sets the voltage stupidly high on cache at alike 1.280 i think which is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY to high.
> 
> I am wondering if some of my issues with AUTO are me using XMP profile with my memory (memory is not supposedly x99 according to Corsair but lots of members on here are running it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG me and editing today... Here is the link to the ASUS Broadwell-E guide I was refering too earlier.
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/


that's the right guide.








Regarding cache, leave it set where it was stable before changing VSA to 1.000V.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> Does anyone know how to find the FPO and ATPO number without taking off heatsink?
> 
> My CPU has 10c+ degree difference between cores under load, I heard that it qualifies for Intel RMA within the warranty period.


on the box... never heard of this warranty. And as you know, you may or may not get a cpu back that is any better.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's the right guide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding cache, leave it set where it was stable before changing VSA to 1.000V.
> on the box... never heard of this warranty. And as you know, you may or may not get a cpu back that is any better.


True, with CPU always playing the silicon lottery. It's like gambling...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> True, with CPU always playing the silicon lottery. It's like gambling...


have you remounted the cooling block and used a top TIM?


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> have you remounted the cooling block and used a top TIM?


Yes I have done so with rice grain method and x-method, not really much difference.

Grizzly Kryonaut.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> Yes I have done so with rice grain method and x-method, not really much difference.
> 
> Grizzly Kryonaut.


try setting CPU PLL and VCCU PLL manually and up one notch from "standard". It may simply be an undervolted or weak DTS channel.


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Thank you good sir for the response I did lower it down a bit more like stated above to
> 
> VSA +200 to give me 1.176v
> Cache 1.125 giving me 1.159v
> 
> I will try a flat 1.000v, now when doing that good sir are you saying to keep my Cache Multi left at 34 or take it back to stock? If I set Cache to AUTO the silly motherboard sets the voltage stupidly high on cache at alike 1.280 i think which is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY to high.
> 
> I am wondering if some of my issues with AUTO are me using XMP profile with my memory (memory is not supposedly x99 according to Corsair but lots of members on here are running it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG me and editing today... Here is the link to the ASUS Broadwell-E guide I was refering too earlier.
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/5/
> 
> 
> 
> that's the right guide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding cache, leave it set where it was stable before changing VSA to 1.000V.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> Does anyone know how to find the FPO and ATPO number without taking off heatsink?
> 
> My CPU has 10c+ degree difference between cores under load, I heard that it qualifies for Intel RMA within the warranty period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> on the box... never heard of this warranty. And as you know, you may or may not get a cpu back that is any better.
Click to expand...

Buddy what is a range for cache voltage? I have been lowering it down slowly but not sure where it should be. I am running OCCT right now with

Vcore 1.340
VSA +0.050 1.000v
Cache 1.025v getting 1.065v

Is that too low man? Other than OCCT, Real bench and Intel software what else would u push with? Thanks big time man you have been a huge help

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> try setting CPU PLL and VCCU PLL manually and up one notch from "standard". It may simply be an undervolted or weak DTS channel.


I'll get this setting dialed in.

What's a DTS channel? Does increasing CPU PLL/VCCU PLL "strengthen" the DTS and may affect the temperature between cores and the general overclocking ability?


----------



## Nicklas0912

Hello.

My CPU can do 4.4Ghz @1.33 Volt.

What is that worth?

Want to sell it, and get 6950x.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> Hello.
> 
> My CPU can do 4.4Ghz @1.33 Volt.
> 
> What is that worth?
> 
> Want to sell it, and get 6950x.


It's worth like an used cpu. 95% Broadwell-e can OC to 4.4 ghz or so








1.28v or 1.37 vcore is "whatever" if it can't OC higher than 4.4ghz.

My opinion


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> I'll get this setting dialed in.
> What's a DTS channel? Does increasing CPU PLL/VCCU PLL "strengthen" the DTS and may affect the temperature between cores and the general overclocking ability?


Digital temp sensor. Worth a try... There's been a few instances where these two PLLs (phase lock loops) "normalize OOS (out of spec) sensor reports, but only a few. Sometimes it's just a raising slope issue.


----------



## Nicklas0912

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> It's worth like an used cpu. 95% Broadwell-e can OC to 4.4 ghz or so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.28v or 1.37 vcore is "whatever" if it can't OC higher than 4.4ghz.
> 
> My opinion


It Can Do 4.5ghz stabile and boot 4.6, but my cooling cant handle it  so really fast bsod.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicklas0912*
> 
> Hello.
> 
> My CPU can do 4.4Ghz @1.33 Volt.
> 
> What is that worth?
> 
> Want to sell it, and get 6950x.


~ 75% of retail.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ~ 75% of retail.


I tried to search for CPU PLL and VCCU PLL in the bios, I don't think I've found it.

Maybe ASUS words the setting differently on ROG boards.

I also made sure to read all the overclocking guide and try to dial in what's optimal for daily overclocking use.

https://imgur.com/a/ugF0p


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> It's worth like an used cpu. 95% Broadwell-e can OC to 4.4 ghz or so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.28v or 1.37 vcore is "whatever" if it can't OC higher than 4.4ghz.
> 
> My opinion


You're very optimistic at 95%









A majority of the chips peter out at about 4.3, some unlucky ones even at 4.2. I know my 6800K can't do 4.4 100% rock-stable no matter the voltage.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> You're very optimistic at 95%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A majority of the chips peter out at about 4.3, some unlucky ones even at 4.2. I know my 6800K can't do 4.4 100% rock-stable no matter the voltage.


4.4 is the unconditional ceiling, and you're right not all chips will be able to hit this frequency. You may have better luck selling one that can, but not at a premium. Anything above 4.4 requires in excess of 1.4v in majority of cases on chips that are capable of doing so, and even then stability may be conditional.

My 6850K can do 4.5Ghz at 1.4v and is stable in non AVX workloads (in contrast have a 6900K that won't do 4.4 under 1.4v). I would not try to sell it at a premium, though. Good temps can really help here, too.


----------



## Vellinious

Interesting....mine must be pretty decent I guess. I thought it was a dud. My 6950X runs 4.5 @ 1.425v. I can bring half the cores up to 4.6, but have to run 1.455v to do it.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Interesting....mine must be pretty decent I guess. I thought it was a dud. My 6950X runs 4.5 @ 1.425v. I can bring half the cores up to 4.6, but have to run 1.455v to do it.


I can run 4.6 too, but much like your post, doing what exactly is up in the air...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Interesting....mine must be pretty decent I guess. I t*hought it was a dud. My 6950X runs 4.5 @ 1.425v.* I can bring half the cores up to 4.6, but have to run 1.455v to do it.


if you think that's a dud.. you need ot get out more often.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you think that's a dud.. you need ot get out more often.


That's with ambient temps down around 2c and coolant temps at about 5c....I wouldn't do that under normal conditions.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you think that's a dud.. you need ot get out more often.


This... 4.5 (and actually stable) AT ALL is outstanding.


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Interesting....mine must be pretty decent I guess. I thought it was a dud. My 6950X runs 4.5 @ 1.425v. I can bring half the cores up to 4.6, but have to run 1.455v to do it.


Repeat after me. BW-E peaks at about 4.2 GHz.
Even water cooling allows typically 4.4 GHz when user is lucky.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Repeat after me. BW-E peaks at about 4.2 GHz.
> Even water cooling allows typically 4.4 GHz when user is lucky.


Odd....I was basing my judgement on this

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/

4.2 seems like an epic fail


----------



## Iceman2733

With the cache does everyone leave the cache min and max the same or is there a way for the cache to drop with the core on idle?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Martin778

Leave the min. cache ratio on auto







It will downlock when idling same as the cores do.

I was wondering what your core voltages are when using adaptive mode on ASUS boards? Mine looks completely broken, some cores get 1.24, some 1.28 and some 1.32V so I decided to stick with fixed voltage for now.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Leave the min. cache ratio on auto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will downlock when idling same as the cores do.
> 
> I was wondering what your core voltages are when using adaptive mode on ASUS boards? Mine looks completely broken, some cores get 1.24, some 1.28 and some 1.32V so I decided to stick with fixed voltage for now.


I'm not using the same board, but I've been running adaptive on this R5E10 constantly... all cores are getting the same voltage according to AID64.


----------



## Martin778

I'm using HWInfo64 and getting this, unless I set the voltage to fixed:



Don't mind the temps, it's running Linx Linpack atm
Even at 1.27V it gets up to 85*C, it hits the CPU like Thor's hammer.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I'm using HWInfo64 and getting this, unless I set the voltage to fixed:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mind the temps, it's running Linx Linpack atm
> Even at 1.27V it gets up to 85*C, it hits the CPU like Thor's hammer.


Those are VIDs - right? NOt allpied voltage.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> 4.2 seems like an epic fail


Yes, very sad. Seems like Broadwell was a step backwards.

From http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=158237
Quote:


> Don't expect any of the broadwell e chips besides 10 core to beat the old ones on LN2.. they clock like crap...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I was wondering what your core voltages are when using adaptive mode on ASUS boards? Mine looks completely broken, some cores get 1.24, some 1.28 and some 1.32V so I decided to stick with fixed voltage for now.


It's normal to see different VIDs for different cores, some need more voltage than others. There is an Asus tool that reportedly adjusts individual core voltages, never tried it so don't know how it performs.
http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=157577


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> Repeat after me. BW-E peaks at about 4.2 GHz.
> Even water cooling allows typically 4.4 GHz when user is lucky.


I am very lucky for once


----------



## mrpurplehawk

I may need some help here. I built my loop with a 6850k on Monday and oc'd to 4.4 @ 1.4v and it was fine in Aida64 running for about an hour and played squad for several hours with no issue. Get home from work and find an OC failed screen which is weird since my PC has been idling the entire time. Now i can't even get it to stay stable at 4.2 @ 1.4v without crashing ingame. Any ideas? Is it safe to go higher on Voltage for a 24/7 machine?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrpurplehawk*
> 
> I may need some help here. I built my loop with a 6850k on Monday and oc'd to 4.4 @ 1.4v and it was fine in Aida64 running for about an hour and played squad for several hours with no issue. Get home from work and find an OC failed screen which is weird since my PC has been idling the entire time. Now i can't even get it to stay stable at 4.2 @ 1.4v without crashing ingame. Any ideas? Is it safe to go higher on Voltage for a 24/7 machine?


Use Real Bench for 2 to 4 hours. Revert everything including memory to default settings, test 4.4 between 1.35v - 1.4v. If still not stable reduce multiplier to 4.3 and repeat


----------



## mrpurplehawk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Use Real Bench for 2 to 4 hours. Revert everything including memory to default settings, test 4.4 between 1.35v - 1.4v. If still not stable reduce multiplier to 4.3 and repeat


I will try this, is it normal with x99 after crashing, It won't post until I unplug my usb headset and ethernet. If I don't, it will sit there and try to post forever


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrpurplehawk*
> 
> I will try this, is it normal with x99 after crashing, It won't post until I unplug my usb headset and ethernet. If I don't, it will sit there and try to post forever


Will likely all be down to instability


----------



## garikfox

Hello everyone, After studying for a week about X99 and Broadwell-E I built my first X99 system with a ASRock board and a i7-6800K and it's been running great for the past two weeks. I've been running it stock 3.4GHz with Turbo's and C-states all disabled, also XMP has been enabled.

After reading hundreds of posts about X99 and Broadwell-E i have a few opinions and would like to share them with you and see what you guys think.

1. SA Voltage: I see a lot of people saying to not use AUTO for the System Agent Voltage. I feel that AUTO is the correct choice since according to Intel spec sheet the System Agent Voltage is set as a VID and each CPU has a different SA VID. (there is no mention in the spec sheet of broadwell-e min-max SA voltage)

2. XMP SA Voltage: I looked at the layout of the XMP structure programmed into the memory and there doesn't seem to be anything related to SA voltage. So it seems by enabling XMP doesn't actually add SA Voltage but the BIOS, RAM compatibility plus CPU SA VID is whats adding an extra offset voltage.

3. Best X99 motherboard brand: Before buying I studied for a week on which brand to get and was very surprised at what i read about the different brands.

- ASRock: Probably the best brand for the X99 platform.
- MSI: Second best brand with some lower end models failing but overall still pretty good.
- Gigabyte: Unlike there other board platforms there X99 boards are simply not up to par with the quality and stability of there other platforms, Very disappointing since this is my favorite brand. Over half there X99 boards are failing after 4-6 months.
- ASUS: Om my ! what a disaster for there X99 boards, I wouldn't go near a ASUS X99 board. Everywhere i've read there's failures left and right and killing CPU's ? Wow !


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> Hello everyone, After studying for a week about X99 and Broadwell-E I built my first X99 system with a ASRock board and a i7-6800K and it's been running great for the past two weeks. I've been running it stock 3.4GHz with Turbo's and C-states all disabled, also XMP has been enabled.
> 
> After reading hundreds of posts about X99 and Broadwell-E i have a few opinions and would like to share them with you and see what you guys think.
> 
> 1. SA Voltage: I see a lot of people saying to not use AUTO for the System Agent Voltage. I feel that AUTO is the correct choice since according to Intel spec sheet the System Agent Voltage is set as a VID and each CPU has a different SA VID. (there is no mention in the spec sheet of broadwell-e min-max SA voltage)
> 
> 2. XMP SA Voltage: I looked at the layout of the XMP structure programmed into the memory and there doesn't seem to be anything related to SA voltage. So it seems by enabling XMP doesn't actually add SA Voltage but the BIOS, RAM compatibility plus CPU SA VID is whats adding an extra offset voltage.
> 
> 3. Best X99 motherboard brand: Before buying I studied for a week on which brand to get and was very surprised at what i read about the different brands.
> 
> - ASRock: Probably the best brand for the X99 platform.
> - MSI: Second best brand with some lower end models failing but overall still pretty good.
> - Gigabyte: Unlike there other board platforms there X99 boards are simply not up to par with the quality and stability of there other platforms, Very disappointing since this is my favorite brand. Over half there X99 boards are failing after 4-6 months.
> - ASUS: Om my ! what a disaster for there X99 boards, I wouldn't go near a ASUS X99 board. Everywhere i read failures left and right and killing CPU's ? Wow !


lol - don't always believe what you read. 2 ASUS x99 running here, not a single problem and frankly, I abuse them.








Enjoy your new rig.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - don't always believe what you read. 2 ASUS x99 running here, not a single problem and frankly, I abuse them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy your new rig.


Maybe he owns ASRock stock


----------



## Silent Scone

The tallest trees always take the most wind


----------



## garikfox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - don't always believe what you read. 2 ASUS x99 running here, not a single problem and frankly, I abuse them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy your new rig.


Thanks !, I actually had to take note on how many ASUS X99 boards have failed and it's not pretty. So from my research I didn't go with ASUS.


----------



## garikfox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Maybe he owns ASRock stock


Just my opinions from the research i have conducted.


----------



## garikfox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The tallest trees always take the most wind


So many tall trees falling though, lol


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> So many tall trees falling though, lol


You are talking to a bunch of Asus fanboy's.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> You are talking to a bunch of Asus fanboy's.


Or maybe people who have had good Asus experiences, being hassled by Asus hateboys ...


----------



## Sh3perd

Currently I have a stable OC of 4.3 @ 1.25, and VCCIN is at 1.9v

Those are the only two settings I have tweaked. are there any other setting I can attempt to dial in? I have noticed people manually set Max Cache Ratio, but from what I have read, a lot of results state to set it equal to the OC multiplier, but many people have problems dialing that in.

Aside from that, anything else? Curious to hear from JPM.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Or maybe people who have had good Asus experiences, being hassled by Asus hateboys ...


I always had Asus motherboards, I can not compare with others.
But lately, it's really a disaster the bugs that there may be in the bios

I regret the time when Shamino "developed" the bios


----------



## djgar

Thankfully I've had no real problems with several boards. Luck of the Irish I guess


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Thankfully I've had no real problems with several boards. Luck of the Irish I guess


The bugs are not very annoying (some options in bios, USB, boot times, etc ...)
Just a pity that Asus does not want to correct the bugs, only manufacturer to do it.
After I stay with Asus (for Hardware and not for "software"....)


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Or maybe people who have had good Asus experiences, being hassled by Asus hateboys ...


Not sure how sharing an experience is hassling anyone...

If anything thing you all were hassling him.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Not sure how sharing an experience is hassling anyone...
> 
> If anything thing you all were hassling him.


Simple: saying you selected ASRock based on your internet research is good. Saying a manufacturer is a disaster on other people's remarks with no experience of your own is hassling and insulting.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Not sure how sharing an experience is hassling anyone...
> 
> If anything thing you all were hassling him.


Hello

No need for anyone to be hassled. It was already stated that the post was based on personal opinion. Everyone needs to remember that an opinion does not need to be based on truth, knowledge or facts. It is just what one feels regardless of how grounded in reality it may be and everyone is entitled to their options.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> Just my opinions from the research i have conducted.


cool, post back with how it all goes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> You are talking to a bunch of Asus fanboy's.


c'mon man.










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> I always had Asus motherboards, I can not compare with others.
> But lately, it's really a disaster the bugs that there may be in the bios
> 
> *I regret the time when Shamino "developed" the bios*


okay... we excuse your English.


----------



## lilchronic

Asus owns it in the motherboard department and they own on OCN as well, of course the forums are filled em.

All i hear though is Oh, it works fine on my end. Then when a cpu dies they blow it off as the user did something wrong.









I had a asus motherboard Maximus vii gene kill a 4770k. I booted it up installed window's and drivers with complete bios defaults then left the pc alone and it went to sleep as did the computer and the next morning i tried to wake it but the cpu was dead.

What would you consider the cause of death to be in that situation?

By the way that was my very first experience with asus.


----------



## Jpmboy

unfortunately, first impressions are hard to overcome.


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Asus owns it in the motherboard department and they own on OCN as well, of course the forums are filled em.
> 
> All i hear though is Oh, it works fine on my end. Then when a cpu dies they blow it off as the user did something wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a asus motherboard Maximus vii gene kill a 4770k. I booted it up installed window's and drivers with complete bios defaults then left the pc alone and it went to sleep as did the computer and the next morning i tried to wake it but the cpu was dead.
> 
> What would you consider the cause of death to be in that situation?
> 
> By the way that was my very first experience with asus.


I've had decent experience was asus in the past. They certainly make some good looking motherboards today. However, after it took asus 7 MONTHS to complete an RMA on faulty X99 WS I had (part of their "advanced rma" program mind you), I'll never purchase another product from them again. Their support is all overseas based and is very difficult to work with.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> BW-E has such a wall, and the memory controller is more robust than HW-E, so over clocking is a bit more straight forward. HW-E and BW-E are both however more finicky than anything else I have run across. BW-E comes in a pretty close 2nd, but HW-E was a bit more finicky _for me_.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain finicky? The answer is to work to a regiment that suits the platform. Once you do, dialing in stability is very easy. Have had no problem with any of the CPU I've used.
Click to expand...

Specific subject may already be dead, but I just saw that you asked.

Maybe BW-E was less finicky for me because I had already learned the platform with HW-E. HW-E also had limitations on memory overclocking that made no sense. For example how 3200 was easier to stabilize than 2600 or 2888. Not that the later two were impossible, but 2666 and 3200 were much quicker to find boot-able settings and eventually full stable settings. The voltage wall on core is also much more distinct with HW-E. My 5820k was kind of a bum overclocker, the voltage wall between 45 to 46 was sizable, but not impossible to overcome. Where with BW-E, my 6800k hits a wall at 4.3 that makes 4.4 simply out of the question for a daily overclock. I reached my stable overclock much quicker because the chip made it obvious what it was willing to do, and also what it wasn't. This was just my experience with it, maybe yours is different.


----------



## mrpurplehawk

I have nothing against Asus boards as I have used this for year, but I had 3 Asus Z170 boards die on me in under a year so I decided to swap to MSI. No complaints so far here, but my luck was probably just bad tbh


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> What would you consider the cause of death to be in that situation?
> 
> By the way that was my very first experience with asus.


Inexperience?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> So many tall trees falling though, lol


I'd suggest taking a less tinfoil approach unless you have any stats to back it up, I think you'd be surprised.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrpurplehawk*
> 
> I have nothing against Asus boards as I have used this for year, but I had 3 Asus Z170 boards die on me in under a year so I decided to swap to MSI. No complaints so far here, but my luck was probably just bad tbh


I think you were likely plugging 'good' boards into bad eggs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> I've had decent experience was asus in the past. They certainly make some good looking motherboards today. However, after it took asus 7 MONTHS to complete an RMA on faulty X99 WS I had (part of their "advanced rma" program mind you), I'll never purchase another product from them again. Their support is all overseas based and is very difficult to work with.


Strange, looking at the post below it looks like the issue was resolved 5 weeks in. You posted an update to the OP stating ASUS reached out and resolved it for you?

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?85931-Asus-warranty-nightmare-x99-WS-3-1-Board&p=596606#post596606

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?90692-Z270G-not-compatible-with-the-Oculus-RIft

Looks like here you've purchased a 270G, too.

So something in that timeline doesn't quite add up!


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> okay... we excuse your English.


Thanks for your indulgence
Even with my rotten English, I think it's "understandable"


----------



## dbLIVEdb

I am on my second Asus X99-AII. The reason I;m on two, was while testing out different thermal pastes, the last time The watercooling heatsink slid off the side of the case and fell on my pins in the mobo and bent some up unrepairably. I called Asus and told them what happened and I'd pay for a new socket. They got me RMA'd in less than a week, and I had to mail my mobo cross country. I Got a call back within a week saying they are sending me back a new board at no cost!!! I was very happy as the board is $300 and a socket replacement could be $60-$75. I'd say that was my best RMA for electronic.computer equipment ever! Better than the EVGA thermal pad replacement for FTW GTX1080s anyways...


----------



## xTesla1856

So far, I'm 5 for 5 on Asus boards. Not a single hitch! Great boards, I love the Edition 10.


----------



## Aenra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> - Gigabyte: Unlike there other board platforms there X99 boards are simply not up to par with the quality and stability of there other platforms, Very disappointing since this is my favorite brand. Over half there X99 boards are failing after 4-6 months.


In all honesty (as is my usual) and if that annoys, all fine by me.

- I'm not a teenager (flashy red lights, milky green cooling loops, etc do not mean a thing to me, nor do extra gimmicks [eg killer network...] i have no need of).

I therefore do not base my purchases on such 'considerations'.

- I have a sense of measure and the maturity that comes with my age (ego i won't overvolt for an extra 23Mhz of zero impact, i won't "bench" just so i can..what really?..).

I therefore base my assumptions/inclinations on remarks, comments and analysis where available made by other, equally level-headed individuals.

So assuming you belong in said same category 

You've been reading the 'wrong' guides. I do everything i wanted (not needed, actually wanted), on a 319 bucks Gigabyte mobo. Including running my i7 6900k at 4.5.

I do not know what possibly made you think they have a quality below that of other mobos, but i can tell you i have held 600$ ones on my hands and they were noticeably worse than mine. Not surprisingly, it is said same mobos that have come in second and third revisions since and that has something all of its own to say.

Same goes for that "over half their boards are failing". Blanket statements of this magnitude.. need i really finish the sentence?

We all get to read ****. It's spreading it that's problematic. I'm sorry.

(no, i'm not telling you to go and buy a Gigabyte. Go out and buy whatever 'x' random internet poster advises you to. I am only telling you your issues lie elsewhere, way before choosing a motherboard)


----------



## thesandvolcano

Since Asus is in the frame... This build was delayed by one month as I awaited a refund on two Asus products: x99 Strix MB and ROG Swift PG279Q. The monitor was of woefull quality guys... Absolutely woefull IPS backbleed for £700. I was/am convinced that the product recall that occurred in the states resulted in this model being shipped over and sold to us europeans. No tinfoil hat here... Just follow the money. As for the motherboard bios bug I stumbled over, I tried to reach out to Asus and report it with FARCICAL result. Didn't know at the time but I also had a slowly deteriorating DRAM kit which may have played a part, but it doesn't excuse their poor attitude in regard to bug reporting. Worse still, as I raised the CPU carriage on disassembly, two of the pins came up and away from the socket. No I do not overtighten btw. Shocking quality! And while I rant, I would strongly advise steering clear of www.scan.co.uk as they really do seem a bunch of crooks (no joke) nowadays. I'll be an Amazon man for all future purchasing. Gigabyte x99 Ultra Gaming and Dell S2716DG have filled the void nicely so far.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thesandvolcano*
> 
> Since Asus is in the frame... This build was delayed by one month as I awaited a refund on two Asus products: x99 Strix MB and ROG Swift PG279Q. The monitor was of woefull quality guys... Absolutely woefull IPS backbleed for £700. I was/am convinced that the product recall that occurred in the states resulted in this model being shipped over and sold to us europeans. No tinfoil hat here... Just follow the money. *As for the motherboard bios bug I stumbled over, I tried to reach out to Asus and report it with FARCICAL result*. Didn't know at the time but I also had a slowly deteriorating DRAM kit which may have played a part, but it doesn't excuse their poor attitude in regard to bug reporting. Worse still, as I raised the CPU carriage on disassembly, two of the pins came up and away from the socket. No I do not overtighten btw. Shocking quality! And while I rant, I would strongly advise steering clear of www.scan.co.uk as they really do seem a bunch of crooks (no joke) nowadays. I'll be an Amazon man for all future purchasing. Gigabyte x99 Ultra Gaming and Dell S2716DG have filled the void nicely so far.


It is true that the Asus support is very disappointing
I tell them that i found a bug in the bios, they reply "we were able to reproduce the bug but since it is possible to bypass it, it will not be corrected" ...


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thesandvolcano*
> 
> Gigabyte x99 Ultra Gaming and Dell S2716DG have filled the void nicely so far.


Really? The whining from you in the gigabyte thread doesn't paint this same rosy picture.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> So far, I'm 5 for 5 on Asus boards. Not a single hitch! Great boards, I love the Edition 10.


I know right? The R5E is a very tough act to follow... but the (my) R5E-10 is up to the job. I have them running side-by-side and both have put up with some owner abuse and shrugged it off.


----------



## thesandvolcano

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Really? The whining from you in the gigabyte thread doesn't paint this same rosy picture.


HaHa!!! Since i'v a valid question i'll indulge this. Tis true that I was all ready to kick this Gigabyte board a while ago, but upon discovery of the "slowly deteriorating DRAM kit"... Well i'v been nothing but stable since. Tis also true that Gigabyte could have implemented the BIOS much more intuitively.

My current enquiries are thus:

1. What is the expected vdroop disparity (if any) between AVX and non-AVX?

2. Even in low-load scenarios I sometimes get very brief down-clocking across all cores (1081Mhz for example). Could LLC be responsible under such low load?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Inexperience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest taking a less tinfoil approach unless you have any stats to back it up, I think you'd be surprised.
> I think you were likely plugging 'good' boards into bad eggs.
> Strange, looking at the post below it looks like the issue was resolved 5 weeks in. You posted an update to the OP stating ASUS reached out and resolved it for you?
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?85931-Asus-warranty-nightmare-x99-WS-3-1-Board&p=596606#post596606
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?90692-Z270G-not-compatible-with-the-Oculus-RIft
> 
> Looks like here you've purchased a 270G, too.
> 
> So something in that timeline doesn't quite add up!


LMAO Just as i said, they blow it off as user error.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thesandvolcano*
> 
> HaHa!!! Since i'v a valid question i'll indulge this. Tis true that I was all ready to kick this Gigabyte board a while ago, but upon discovery of the "slowly deteriorating DRAM kit"... Well i'v been nothing but stable since. Tis also true that Gigabyte could have implemented the BIOS much more intuitively.
> 
> My current enquiries are thus:
> 
> 1. What is the expected vdroop disparity (if any) between AVX and non-AVX?
> 
> 2. Even in low-load scenarios I sometimes get very brief down-clocking across all cores (1081Mhz for example). Could LLC be responsible under such low load?


1. the actual vdroop will depend on the voltage/current draw in either scenario.
2. no.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thesandvolcano*
> 
> HaHa!!! Since i'v a valid question i'll indulge this. Tis true that I was all ready to kick this Gigabyte board a while ago, but upon discovery of the "slowly deteriorating DRAM kit"... Well i'v been nothing but stable since. Tis also true that Gigabyte could have implemented the BIOS much more intuitively.
> 
> My current enquiries are thus:
> 
> 1. What is the expected vdroop disparity (if any) between AVX and non-AVX?
> 
> 2. Even in low-load scenarios I sometimes get very brief down-clocking across all cores (1081Mhz for example). Could LLC be responsible under such low load?


Hello

1. The voltage difference between AVX and non-AVX loads will be dependent on BIOS implementation, user adjusted settings and type of load. To a lesser extend the method of measurement will also have an influence.

2. I cannot speak to this anomaly. None of mu ASUS boards exhibit this type of behavior.


----------



## Madness11

Hey guys







want buy 6900k , but what batch I need for looking ? Thanks )


----------



## thesandvolcano

First off guys, disregard the vdroop question as I can find that out easily. It's just that Praz's "winging" accusery forced me too summarise my immediate findings after getting a new ram kit just over a week ago. I'm somewhat curious as to whether Praz monitor's the http://www.overclock.net/t/1606212/gigabyte-x99-ultra-gaming-owners-thread, or just sought to discredit me or the MB... 'Directly'? Inherently negative connotation "winging", and I now find myself in the unenviable position of a Gigabyte owner as opposed to an Asus owner, forced to defend summary enquiry No.2.

I'v had a few running theories as to the cause of this 'low-load downclocking' (i.e. below 1200), but since this new ram i'v gotten lazy as to poking around. A stability not known for months guys...







Yeah...







I'v actually enjoyed it. So off I go bumping all but the most obscure voltages the bios has to offer, all the CPU power management features... To no avail, (even tried Win 7 'min proc state'). Just three credible theories remain:

1. I remember reading somewhere that Gigabyte have implemented some fancy-shmancy vCore solution that somehow undercuts the VID (specifically in low-load scenario's), in order to save a few ££'s over the year. (I'm leaning toward this explanation guys.)
2. HWMonitor is a lying sack of scum. It's already telling me I have fans where I don't, and an unbelievable package wattage. Why not? Pffft!
3. My PSU (650W EVGA GQ Gold Hybrid) suffers hiccups under low load.

Whatever the cause and should it ever be determined, I am not here to defend my current MB. Plain and true is all that's of value here.

I will add that all of my last three builds (1 Intel, 2 AMD) have included Asus MB's, and i'v never had a problem. But witnessed facts are just that guys... Everything I said previous about Asus in this build is on the button.


----------



## ucode

Running MFM (below 12x) is a power saving feature and not caused by voltage settings.


----------



## DADDYDC650

1800x looks really good. Might need to part ways with my 6800k...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> 1800x looks really good. Might need to part ways with my 6800k...


on what grounds exactly?


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> on what grounds exactly?


Das 8 corez


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> 1800x looks really good. Might need to part ways with my 6800k...


I'm in the same boat.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> on what grounds exactly?


I cant answer for him but more cores and probably way faster single core performance, plus I smell 5ghz OC.. and it seems like they are dedicating extra PCIe lanes for way more lanes than we have with motherboard enthusiast level boards.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> I cant answer for him but more cores and probably way faster single core performance, plus I smell 5ghz OC.. and it seems like they are dedicating extra PCIe lanes for way more lanes than we have with motherboard enthusiast level boards.


No idea how you've come to any of those conclusions, but it's your money


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No idea how you've come to any of those conclusions, but it's your money


Dem rumors! http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Inexperience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest taking a less tinfoil approach unless you have any stats to back it up, I think you'd be surprised.
> I think you were likely plugging 'good' boards into bad eggs.
> Strange, looking at the post below it looks like the issue was resolved 5 weeks in. You posted an update to the OP stating ASUS reached out and resolved it for you?
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?85931-Asus-warranty-nightmare-x99-WS-3-1-Board&p=596606#post596606
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?90692-Z270G-not-compatible-with-the-Oculus-RIft
> 
> Looks like here you've purchased a 270G, too.
> 
> So something in that timeline doesn't quite add up!


I jumped the gun on that first X99 resolution. I can post the whole email history between asus and myself if you'd like to verify further lol. There's a total of around 167 email, about 20 hours spend on the phone and so on. It took months and about 6 shipping actions from there to actually get a working board. The first board set itself on fire and they tried to refuse rma. They wanted $350 to "repair" the board. The second board sent to me from their RMA center had a faulty PLX chip, pcie slots below #4 would not detect anything installed. That one took a while to resolve. I'd ship the board to them. The tech would test the board with a device in slot #1. Verify that it's working and send it back to me. That was hysterical. Took 4 shipments back and forth for them to actually give me a different board. After I filed a few complaints with different agencies mind you.

Edit - Forgot to mention, the WS is a part of their "advanced RMA" scheme. Meaning that asus will keep boards at their service center and ship a replacement to you before you ship the broken product in. Not once in those months dealing with them have they had the board in stock. I always had to ship first and wait for weeks for any sort of movement.

As far as the Z270G. Yep, picked it up as it was the only matx board available at my microcenter. The board has since been returned. Keeping me asus free.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Dem rumors! http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/


I'd wait.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'd wait.


I'm waiting for official benchmarks on the 1800x.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> 1800x looks really good. Might need to part ways with my 6800k...


Good point, I should try and get my 6800k sold sooner than later, probably going to have to go low on the price anyways being a poor overclocker.









Would be nice to see some Ryzen overclocks to see what can really be done.


----------



## xTesla1856

I would always wait until after the fact. Plus, none of the AM4 motherboard can even touch this Edition 10 in my case


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> I cant answer for him but more cores and probably way faster single core performance, plus I smell 5ghz OC.. and it seems like they are dedicating extra PCIe lanes for way more lanes than we have with motherboard enthusiast level boards.


AMD with faster single core performance than intel? lmao You're joking right?


----------



## ucode

@xTesla1856 If that was aimed at me I've already bought a Xeon to replace the i7-6800k I have so it doesn't make sense for me to wait. I've just run a PCMark for comparison to the Ryzen link posted before.



Retail E5-2683 v3 Xeons are selling for around $300 a piece so performance is not so bad for the price IMO and of course they can be run dual if that MT isn't enough but as mentioned I would still like to see how an overclocked Ryzen can do rather than a held back one.


----------



## Silent Scone

Edit: Ignore


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm waiting for official benchmarks on the 1800x.


nevermind official.. I want to see ours!









the 1800x might be worth a peek...


----------



## Vellinious

Looking for input / suggestions. These are the settings that I settled on for a daily clock. It runs great here, but.....I'm still learning, and would appreciate any input as to if there's anything that jumps out at you as way off. Something too high, too low, wrong preset selected, etc. Half the cores running at 4.3 the other half at 4.4, memory running with stock timings at 3400.

I appreciate it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Looking for input / suggestions. These are the settings that I settled on for a daily clock. It runs great here, but.....I'm still learning, and would appreciate any input as to if there's anything that jumps out at you as way off. Something too high, too low, wrong preset selected, etc. Half the cores running at 4.3 the other half at 4.4, memory running with stock timings at 3400.
> 
> I appreciate it.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


recommendations:

min cache ratio -> Auto
package power time _> 127
Short term power -> auto (it will be 2x long term, you have it limited as set)
VR fault -> disabled
VR efficiency -> High Performance

PLL step and VCCU offset -> 1 and 4 resp. 2 and 5 are a bit high for my liking.


----------



## garikfox

Question: I noticed on my i7-6800K retail box it says Made in Malaysia, but the Batch code for Malaysia starts with a "L", But my Batch number starts with a "J". Does anyone know why this is ?

The only thing I can find about it is a couple sites are saying that its a rare batch number and is also the best batch to get.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> recommendations:
> 
> min cache ratio -> Auto
> package power time _> 127
> Short term power -> auto (it will be 2x long term, you have it limited as set)
> VR fault -> disabled
> VR efficiency -> High Performance
> 
> PLL step and VCCU offset -> 1 and 4 resp. 2 and 5 are a bit high for my liking.


Noted. I'll make the changes and run a stability test, make sure I don't need to retweak anything else.

Thank you!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Noted. I'll make the changes and run a stability test, make sure I don't need to retweak anything else.
> 
> Thank you!


you're welcome!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> Question: I noticed on my i7-6800K retail box it says Made in Malaysia, but the Batch code for Malaysia starts with a "L", But my Batch number starts with a "J". Does anyone know why this is ?
> The only thing I can find about it is a couple sites are saying that its a rare batch number and is also the best batch to get.


only way to know is to se how she runs...


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you're welcome!


Ran a short stability test. Passes, and actually increased performance in Realbench. A tad confused on that, but not going to complain any.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Ran a short stability test. Passes, and actually increased performance in Realbench. A tad confused on that, but not going to complain any.


nice!


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'd wait.


Dunno man, looks very much to me like the writing's on the wall.

https://www.techpowerup.com/230400/intel-readies-the-xeon-gold-series-processors-for-media-workstations
Quote:


> Hot on the heels of AMD Ryzen, Intel is planning to launch the pro-consumer targeted Xeon Gold line of processors. The company is reportedly "freaked out" at the cost/performance of AMD Ryzen R7-1800X in creative productivity applications, and is preparing a new line of processors targeting that niche of the market, which uses MacPro desktops and media production workstations using HEDT processors, but needs a bit of "reliability." The Xeon Gold series will be based on the 14 nm "Skylake-EP" silicon, and will feature up to 18 CPU cores. The first model in the series is the Xeon Gold 6150.


----------



## Martin778

Have you guys tried Linx Linpack on 10 cores? Mine needs like 1.285V to hit stable 4.2GHz in Linpack, temps 88-90*C peak.
My 8h RB stable overclock crashed in 10 seconds in Linx









I'm looking forward to what Ryzen does as BW-E still leaves a bad taste in the mouth but I find AMD boards to often be quite lackluster compared to high end offerings for Intel sockets.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Have you guys tried Linx Linpack on 10 cores? Mine needs like 1.285V to hit stable 4.2GHz in Linpack, temps 88-90*C peak.
> My 8h RB stable overclock crashed in 10 seconds in Linx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to what Ryzen does as BW-E still leaves a bad taste in the mouth but I find AMD boards to often be quite lackluster compared to high end offerings for Intel sockets.


I usually use OCCT to test stability. I use realbench and IBT to get things close, then use the longer stability tests to fine tune things. I'm starting to question the wisdom of long stability tests under such heavy workloads. I've never, never, never ever, under normal circumstances have such a heavy load on my CPU. Just not really sure it makes sense to do anymore. The only reason I still do it, is....habit. It's been so beat into us that you MUST LONG TERM STABILITY TEST, OR>>>>OH MAH GAWD<<<< /shrug


----------



## Martin778

I never had luck with OCCT, it seems to get triggered by almost anything. I had Linx run but OCCT crash


----------



## Vellinious

It is pretty picky...that's for sure.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> Dunno man, looks very much to me like the writing's on the wall.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/230400/intel-readies-the-xeon-gold-series-processors-for-media-workstations


"Dunno man", I'd wait till you've seen the writing for yourself


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Have you guys tried Linx Linpack on 10 cores? Mine needs like 1.285V to hit stable 4.2GHz in Linpack, temps 88-90*C peak.
> My 8h RB stable overclock crashed in 10 seconds in Linx


What sort of GFLOPS do you get?

I see a lot of people running IBT with FLOPS that are way low indicating perhaps a much older library is being used and because of that possibly not running the newer optimized FMA / AVX2 instructions. Don't really get why people would not run the instructions that would probably cause the most stress.

FWIW with problem size of 25000 or more the 6 core I have benched about 300GFLOPS and that took 1.28V @ 4GHz so your doing a lot better than me.

It's not the sort of thing I'd run for long periods of time at full bore unless the type of stuff I would be running would use the same type of load. A few checks on load at operational temperature extremes with a range of clocks / threads is good enough for me.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Think I'm going to post my 6800k on craigslist for $350 in a week or so. That Ryzen 1700x for $389 is a steal!


----------



## perrovaca

Hi all from Spain.

Here a 6800K with a Gigabyte X99 UD4P.

I have just finished an stable mid OC until 4.0GHz with an static VCore of 1.161v and 3200 on memos.

I have not found any comparation table to see if it´s a good, normal or bad result.,....


----------



## cekim

Hmm, well, some new software says my stable machine is only stable "until...". Under multi-hour 10-core 100% load with a large-single-application memory foot-print, I would occasionally get a memory corruption that I am quite sure is NOT software.

6950x 4.4Ghz/3.6GHz cache/128G [email protected] memory.

1. Had to set Vccin for the first time. I've left it on auto since launch, but putting it at 1.90 seems to make all the difference in the world (and it runs a little cooler, which makes me wonder if auto is doing some bad things I've not seen before?)

2. Had to set SA as well. It too had been reliable on "auto" and hovered at 1.2. I've since had to set the bios at +0.350 (shows 1.208 in Aida). Seems to be an issue of stability rather than absolute value (see above, this seems to be some transient condition that destabilized the chip under extreme and sustained load).

Stable again, I think... been running some tests over the weekend. Tantalizing stability at [email protected], but though it will run for 30-60 minutes, it eventually fails as above. I keep thinking I will eventually find the magic set of settings that makes 4.5 work...

I will say that this chip, compared to HW/E seems to have a much large set of "basically stable until you do crazy things" values.

I can run RB, BF1, aid64, etc... windows 300mV lower on core, Vccin @ 1.8x (literally anything from 1.82 to 1.89 will do).


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Hmm, well, some new software says my stable machine is only stable "until...". Under multi-hour 10-core 100% load with a large-single-application memory foot-print, I would occasionally get a memory corruption that I am quite sure is NOT software.
> 
> 6950x 4.4Ghz/3.6GHz cache/128G [email protected] memory.
> 
> 1. Had to set Vccin for the first time. I've left it on auto since launch, but putting it at 1.90 seems to make all the difference in the world (and it runs a little cooler, which makes me wonder if auto is doing some bad things I've not seen before?)
> 
> 2. Had to set SA as well. It too had been reliable on "auto" and hovered at 1.2. I've since had to set the bios at +0.350 (shows 1.208 in Aida). Seems to be an issue of stability rather than absolute value (see above, this seems to be some transient condition that destabilized the chip under extreme and sustained load).
> 
> Stable again, I think... been running some tests over the weekend. Tantalizing stability at [email protected], but though it will run for 30-60 minutes, it eventually fails as above. I keep thinking I will eventually find the magic set of settings that makes 4.5 work...
> 
> *I will say that this chip, compared to HW/E seems to have a much large set of "basically stable until you do crazy things" values.*
> 
> I can run RB, BF1, aid64, etc... windows 300mV lower on core, Vccin @ 1.8x (literally anything from 1.82 to 1.89 will do).


\
I agree...this 6950X seems a bit less "fussy" than my 5960X (both running side by side). I have found that both chips handle long, multiday calculations when I set them on full manual mode vs any other mode (some QM and MM stuff - tho the ram load is not that high, most in-process stuff is stored to disk and I keep a separate 10K drive for that temp file) Unfortunately, in my case no synthetic stress test mimicked this specific work load well.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Hmm, well, some new software says my stable machine is only stable "until...". Under multi-hour 10-core 100% load with a large-single-application memory foot-print, I would occasionally get a memory corruption that I am quite sure is NOT software.
> 
> 6950x 4.4Ghz/3.6GHz cache/128G [email protected] memory.
> 
> 1. Had to set Vccin for the first time. I've left it on auto since launch, but putting it at 1.90 seems to make all the difference in the world (and it runs a little cooler, which makes me wonder if auto is doing some bad things I've not seen before?)
> 
> 2. Had to set SA as well. It too had been reliable on "auto" and hovered at 1.2. I've since had to set the bios at +0.350 (shows 1.208 in Aida). Seems to be an issue of stability rather than absolute value (see above, this seems to be some transient condition that destabilized the chip under extreme and sustained load).
> 
> Stable again, I think... been running some tests over the weekend. Tantalizing stability at [email protected], but though it will run for 30-60 minutes, it eventually fails as above. I keep thinking I will eventually find the magic set of settings that makes 4.5 work...
> 
> I will say that this chip, compared to HW/E seems to have a much large set of "basically stable until you do crazy things" values.
> 
> I can run RB, BF1, aid64, etc... windows 300mV lower on core, Vccin @ 1.8x (literally anything from 1.82 to 1.89 will do).


Your VCCSA (+0.350 offset) seems quite high. Perhaps, it's required for 128GB of memory?
Have you gone through HCI MemTest ?
I only have my VCCSA at 1.032V (+0.05 offset) and VCCIO at 1.05V but I'm only running 32GB.


----------



## sena

I have to use 1.256V on IMC for stability, i am also running 128GB of ram at 3200 MHz.


----------



## xTesla1856

What LLC setting is recommended for a 6800K and Edition 10 board? I was experimenting with LLC 5 last night and the system was stable. Load voltage according to CPU-Z is about 1.336. That's for 4.3GHz and stock cache.


----------



## sena

I am using level 7, so far good.

EDIT: havent seen that you are asking for 6800K, i am on 6950X.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> What LLC setting is recommended for a 6800K and Edition 10 board? I was experimenting with LLC 5 last night and the system was stable. Load voltage according to CPU-Z is about 1.336. That's for 4.3GHz and stock cache.


FYI, LLC on X99 platform is for VCCIN, not vcore.
Also, CPU-Z shows CPU VID, not vcore on X99 platform.

As for LLC level, I use level 5.


----------



## sena

So which software shows correct vcore?
Intel xtu?


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> FYI, LLC on X99 platform is for VCCIN, not vcore.
> Also, CPU-Z shows CPU VID, not vcore on X99 platform.
> 
> As for LLC level, I use level 5.


The CPU-Z load voltage is the same as the BIOS value for "Additional Turbo voltage" in the OC section of my board. I use adaptive voltage mode.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> So which software shows correct vcore?
> Intel xtu?


I've been using AIDA64.


----------



## sena

In my case, intel xtu, aida64 and cpuid, they all show same numbers.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> What LLC setting is recommended for a 6800K and Edition 10 board? I was experimenting with LLC 5 last night and the system was stable. Load voltage according to CPU-Z is about 1.336. That's for 4.3GHz and stock cache.


I use LLC 5 also. LLC acts on the VCCIN voltage rail on this architecture, not vcore, so it is normal to see a slight increase in vcore under certain loads, the PCU just does this, it's nortrmal and cannot be affected by vdroop on vccin.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> FYI, LLC on X99 platform is for VCCIN, not vcore.
> Also, CPU-Z shows CPU VID, not vcore on X99 platform.
> As for LLC level, I use level 5.


^^ This

you can see both vcore and VID with AID64...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Your VCCSA (+0.350 offset) seems quite high. Perhaps, it's required for 128GB of memory?
> Have you gone through HCI MemTest ?
> I only have my VCCSA at 1.032V (+0.05 offset) and VCCIO at 1.05V but I'm only running 32GB.


Yes, it is the 8x16 128G causing that.


----------



## Vellinious

I have what may be a really silly question. Here's the deal. I've got a couple of cores that run super cool compared to the others. Both of them will clock to 4.7 @ 1.46v with the other 8 @ 4.2. WIth this config, temps are peaking out at about 65c during stress testing on the highest cores and 58c on the ones running 4.2.

The question is this: is it feeding all of the cores the 1.46v, or are they only pulling what they actually need to run 4.2?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I have what may be a really silly question. Here's the deal. I've got a couple of cores that run super cool compared to the others. Both of them will clock to 4.7 @ 1.46v with the other 8 @ 4.2. WIth this config, temps are peaking out at about 65c during stress testing on the highest cores and 58c on the ones running 4.2.
> 
> The question is this: is it feeding all of the cores the 1.46v, or are they only pulling what they actually need to run 4.2?


AFAIK, if you are doing this in full manual mode, all cores receive the same voltage. I may have this wrong, but I think I heard that per core voltage (maybe only with kaby lake "speed shift"?) is something we should see... eventually. I think it's a windows update to put all SpeedShift aspects in play.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sena*
> 
> So which software shows correct vcore?
> Intel xtu?


For Asrock X99 Taichi it reads just one vcore analogue signal through the SIO and converts to digital with a resolution of 8mV. This vcore appears to be tied to core 0. For processors that are supplied VCore from the mainboard VRM having one VCore reading is fine however the FIVR supplies the VCore in the case of Haswell and Broadwell.

In the picture below I have set core 5 to a ratio of 30 and the rest to 12. C-States have been momentarily disabled from the OS to keep all cores running even if there is no work for them. This ensures they are operating in C0 with VCore supplied to them.



Core with APIC ID 5 shows a VID of 0.968V while the other cores show VID's below 0.7V which is nowhere enough to run 3.15GHz on this CPU BTW.

Core 5 has been selected in CPUZ and although it shows the correct clock for that core it is not showing the correct VID or VCore for it.

HWiNFO shows all VID's and VCore belonging to core 0, not much we can do here as that is how the hardware is.

AIDA64 VCore actually appears as to be a VID of a random core and not an analogue signal from the SIO. For VID's it only appears to show one which might be any core.

If we go into the BIOS and disable the first 4 cores we get this.



Cores with APIC ID 0,1,8 and 9 are no longer enabled. The analogue signal to the SIO stays at 0V and interestingly HWiNFO actually removes the VCore reading from the sensors page, nice one Martin.

CPUZ still reports 'something'.

AIDA64 still reports VCore but as explained earlier it really looks like a VID instead so that's expected.

I also tried HWMonitor but it seems to have confused VCCIN / 2 as VCore.

Shouldn't be too hard on these softwares as there's a lot of different hardware out there and it's quite amazing they get as much right as they do without actually having the hardware to work with.

So if your looking to read VCore be aware of the above, if your measuring from a board test point with a digital multi-meter I hope there are as many VCore test points as cores otherwise with FIVR you could be only seeing a fraction of what's there. Unfortunately that leaves just the VID's which are more likely requested voltage than actual voltage. No idea how close they would be, a question for Intel maybe.

@sena Bet you wished you never asked.


----------



## sena

My god, how much info, it will take a while for my brain to process it









Now for real, its pretty confusing.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> AFAIK, if you are doing this in full manual mode, all cores receive the same voltage. I may have this wrong, but I think I heard that per core voltage (maybe only with kaby lake "speed shift"?) is something we should see... eventually. I think it's a windows update to put all SpeedShift aspects in play.


I'm using the per core overclocking, and using the intel boost max software for favored cores. Seems to work pretty well.

If it's feeding them all the same voltage, that would explain the slightly higher temps on the cores running at 4.2, than what they'd normally run. Hmm..... I was kinda hoping that the voltage would step down for the cores that don't need that much, but, figured that wasn't actually the case.

Meh


----------



## Jpmboy

NOt sure whether AID is reading VID as vcore, since it reports both and they are not necessarily the same... tho they could be reading vid from two different cores.
R5E10/6950X. this is a snip I just grabbed, but I have seen these be very different values.

(edit - added pic that actually shows a difference







)
Bottom line... use a DMM.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I'm using the per core overclocking, and using the intel boost max software for favored cores. Seems to work pretty well.
> 
> If it's feeding them all the same voltage, that would explain the slightly higher temps on the cores running at 4.2, than what they'd normally run. Hmm..... I was kinda hoping that the voltage would step down for the cores that don't need that much, but, figured that wasn't actually the case.
> 
> Meh


Ah, sorry... I didn;t realize you were using the Intel boost app. I have not played with that yet.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> NOt sure whether AID is reading VID as vcore, since it reportdx both and they are not necessarily the same... tho they could be reading vid from two different cores.
> R5E10/6950X. this is a snip I just grabbed, but I have seen these be very different values.
> 
> 
> Bottom line... use a DMM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, sorry... I didn;t realize you were using the Intel boost app. I have not played with that yet.


I like it.....it locks onto those higher clocked cores pretty quick.


----------



## inedenimadam

When I use XMP (32GB 16-18-18 kit) and leave everything on AUTO, my board defaults to 1.350 VCCSA....

scary.

And on the topic of incorrect VCore

Nothing reads my VCore correctly...nothing.


----------



## StullenAndi

Something new to play with.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Something new to play with.


Is that one of those binned 4.6 chips that were on sale at SL?


----------



## StullenAndi

No, was pure Luck to get this chip. Bought 5 and the last one was the golden one.


----------



## Silent Scone

Realbench?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Realbench?


I have no idea why folks use SPi for a CPU OC, I can run 200-300 MHz higher on the core with Pi than even ADI64. SPi usually fails in a rounding error - always memory OC based.
Even R15 is a waaay better quick test.


----------



## StullenAndi

And I don´t have any Idea why people like you talk without using they brain before







Who talks about CPU OC? The CPU is running fine since June 2016, I got new ram to play with.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I have no idea why folks use SPi for a CPU OC,


Hello

I have no idea why SPi would be used for memory either outside of of benchmarking. Pretend stability I guess.


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> No, was *pure Luck* to get this chip.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> *Bought 5* and the last one was the golden one.


You made your own luck.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> And I don´t have any Idea why people like you talk without using they brain before
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who talks about CPU OC? The CPU is running fine since June 2016, I got new ram to play with.


So your previous two posts referred to the "amazing" chip you fished out of 5 purchased but the SPi screenine was about the ram kit? No better. C'mon man.

FO


----------



## StullenAndi

As I said, use your brain before posting. But seems very hard for a person with "boy" in his nickname







If you would read the thread carefully then you would know that I posted some LinX pics from this chip long long before and the only difference now is the memory.

And if someone asks how I got this chip, is it a problem to answear?


----------



## xTesla1856

Great chip, how big would you say is the difference between a 4.3/4.4 6800K and yours at 4.6? Silicon Lottery has 6850K's binned at 4.6GHz for $599









EDIT: Aaaand they're gone.. But they do list RyZen now


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> As I said, use your brain before posting. But seems very hard for a person with "boy" in his nickname
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you would read the thread carefully then you would know that I posted some LinX pics from this chip long long before and the only difference now is the memory.
> 
> And if someone asks how I got this chip, is it a problem to answear?


yeah... I think a user name says it all. You must be a very smart person with brains? LOl, either way. .that's a very slow superPi result.


----------



## cekim

Oh, oh, oh! Fake Stability! I have those...

FWIW, I ran super-pi with speedstep/c-states enabled and the processor was so "meh" about the load, that it never reached max frequency in cpuz for me to screen-shot. I had to disable those for this joke to show ~4.6







(so, super-pi shows nothing about stability - memory or otherwise)


----------



## StullenAndi

Difference in what? If you mean gaming and something like this then there is no reason for 4.5 or 4.6g chips even if it´s nice to know to own one. You only see a difference in benching and not in your daily usage.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah... I think a user name says it all. You must be a very smart person with brains? LOl, either way. .that's a very slow superPi result.


I´ll give a **** about how fast this result is, I know how to get the time lot more down but for what?







It shows what the IMC can handle, nothing more. But I know, here in this forum everyone has a broadwell capable of 3466mhz ram and more


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> I´ll give a **** about how fast this result is, I know how to get the time lot more down but for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows what the IMC can handle, nothing more. But I know, here in this forum everyone has a broadwell capable of 3466mhz ram and more


Understand though, that super-pi isn't telling you "what the IMC can handle". You need more cores/load to answer that question.


----------



## StullenAndi

The realbench guys are talking about stability


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> The realbench guys are talking about stability


So, not stability ... not performance .... In search of pi? ;-) (I like pie...)


----------



## Praz

Hello

Seems like this thread can't go more than a week or so without another round of nonsense being posted.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> The realbench guys are talking about stability


So that's a no then.

These so called wonder chips may very well exist. This does not include nonsense screen grabs that show very little that get posted on a weekly basis with zero context


----------



## Silent Scone

6850K @ 4.5 (1.39v)

3.6 Uncore (1.2v)

20c water

1 Hour Realbench


----------



## djgar

Nice!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 6850K @ 4.5 (1.39v)
> 3.6 Uncore (1.2v)
> 20c water
> 1 Hour Realbench


nothing like the real deal.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Difference in what? If you mean gaming and something like this then there is no reason for 4.5 or 4.6g chips even if it´s nice to know to own one. You only see a difference in benching and not in your daily usage.
> I´ll give a **** about how fast this result is, I know how to get the time lot more down but for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows what the IMC can handle, nothing more. But I know, here in this forum everyone has a *broadwell capable of 3466mhz ram and more*


erm - I posted this BWE at 3466c13 and c12 some months ago (yes in this thread), but found that 3400c13 with very tight secondaries performed better in several performance measures (all with 64GB, 32GB was running 3200c12). The 3466 divider on strap 100 just did not seem as strong at 3400. But, Digar has a different result with his BWE at this high(er) frequency via a BCLK overclock.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Difference in what? If you mean gaming and something like this then there is no reason for 4.5 or 4.6g chips even if it´s nice to know to own one. You only see a difference in benching and not in your daily usage.
> I´ll give a **** about how fast this result is, I know how to get the time lot more down but for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows what the IMC can handle, nothing more. But I know, here in this forum everyone has a broadwell capable of 3466mhz ram and more


Did you ever hear of something called a hobby? It's not necessarily practical, it's something you do for fun, or education or entertainment. No different than souping up a car - who cares if I can do 0-60 in 5 seconds? Nobody. How practical is it? Hardly at all, but I sure have fun modifying it and running it! Since when has overclocking to the edge been considered practical?

Lighten up!


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StullenAndi*
> 
> Difference in what? If you mean gaming and something like this then there is no reason for 4.5 or 4.6g chips even if it´s nice to know to own one. You only see a difference in benching and not in your daily usage.
> I´ll give a **** about how fast this result is, I know how to get the time lot more down but for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows what the IMC can handle, nothing more. But I know, here in this forum everyone has a broadwell capable of 3466mhz ram and more


Actually, there are a lot of games out there that still rely on a single core to do the work. In those cases, core clock can make all the difference in the world.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Actually, there are a lot of games out there that still rely on a single core to do the work. In those cases, core clock can make all the difference in the world.


^^ unfortunately this is still true!!!


----------



## Vellinious

Ok. Silly questions round 2: A little confused as to what this is telling me. Adaptive voltage, set to 1.445v, one core at 4.6, one at 4.5 and the other 8 at 4.2. Voltage under load is reading 1.309v? Shouldn't it read 1.445v?



Ok...just as a little experiment, I went back into the bios, set the two good cores at 4.6 and the rest at 4.3 same voltage as before (adaptive 1.445v), and now the voltage reads 1.341. Note: I haven't tried setting the voltage at 1.35v, but....I can't imagine it'll even boot there.

So......Where's that reading coming from?



EDIT: I'm gonna try to set the voltage at 1.35v, but I don't think it'll even boot.


----------



## Vellinious

Yeah...it didn't like that at all. Booted fine, but crashed about 20 seconds into the Realbench stress test. Upon reboot, motherboard gave me a 00 code....that's new. The last time I saw that, I had to RMA a motherboard. Came back out of it fine after I pulled the battery. 

I'll mess with it more this weekend when I have more time.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Yeah...it didn't like that at all. Booted fine, but crashed about 20 seconds into the Realbench stress test. Upon reboot, motherboard gave me a 00 code....that's new. The last time I saw that, I had to RMA a motherboard. Came back out of it fine after I pulled the battery.
> 
> I'll mess with it more this weekend when I have more time.


you mean the VID readings? (which HWM and CPUZ report on this platform.









tryit with this free software: http://rh-software.com/


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you mean the VID readings? (which HWM and CPUZ report on this platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tryit with this free software: http://rh-software.com/


I pulled up HWInfo. CPUz and HW Monitor are reading it from the 1st core only.

The first 3 cores are absolutely awful.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I pulled up HWInfo. CPUz and HW Monitor are reading it from the 1st core only.
> 
> The first 3 cores are absolutely awful.




I'm running fixed vcore at 1.250V in bios.


----------



## Vellinious

So, is this VID on each core telling me what it's pulling then?



Because using that logic, I took the next 3 cores (after the preferred core @ 4.6) that were pulling the lowest voltage and bumped those to 4.5 and left the rest at 4.2 and running tests again. Stable so far.

Or am I looking at this all wrong?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> So, is this VID on each core telling me what it's pulling then?
> 
> 
> 
> Because using that logic, I took the next 3 cores (after the preferred core @ 4.6) that were pulling the lowest voltage and bumped those to 4.5 and left the rest at 4.2 and running tests again. Stable so far.
> 
> Or am I looking at this all wrong?


yes, it's each core... but the VID value is the voltage _request_, not necessarily the voltage the core _receives_. So in this instance, if you have SVID disabled the voltage received is not the requested voltage since this disables the vid-vcore link.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, it's each core... but the VID value is the voltage _request_, not necessarily the voltage the core _receives_. So in this instance, if you have SVID disabled the voltage received is not the requested voltage since this disables the vid-vcore link.


Hmm....but still ends up ultimately useful in that, I was able to find the cores that were at least requesting the lowest voltages, and was able to increase the core clocks on those, without creating much more heat. As set, I've got 1 @ 4.6, 3 @ 4.5 and the rest @ 4.2. Been going strong on realbench stability test for an hour, without touching the original voltage setting. I've got one more core I think I can bump to 4.5....I may try that soonish.


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, it's each core... but the VID value is the voltage _request_, not necessarily the voltage the core _receives_. So in this instance, if you have SVID disabled the voltage received is not the requested voltage since this disables the vid-vcore link.


Not really. SVID is the VID communication between the mainboard VRM supplying VCCIN and the CPU. And just to make things more confusing for you guys what is generally known as the core VID is actually described as core voltage by Intel when it comes to FIVR.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> Not really. SVID is the VID communication between the mainboard VRM supplying VCCIN and the CPU. And just to make things more confusing for you guys what is generally known as the core VID is actually described as core voltage by Intel when it comes to FIVR.


He's talking about VID, not SVID ...


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes, it's each core... but the VID value is the voltage _request_, not necessarily the voltage the core _receives_. So in this instance, *if you have SVID disabled* the voltage received is not the requested voltage since this disables the vid-vcore link.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> He's talking about VID, not SVID ...


Let me highlight it for you so you can see where he is talking about SVID


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> Let me highlight it for you so you can see where he is talking about SVID


So you're saying disabling SVID doesn't break the VID request, but rather the management of VCCIN? And how would the LLC influence be affected?

But still, VID is the requested voltage that is then delivered as VCORE which may not exactly match the VID, no?


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> So you're saying disabling SVID doesn't break the VID request, but rather the management of VCCIN?


Yes. 'VID' (Core Voltage) request is done via internal MSR and not by the serial VID line.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> And how would the LLC influence be affected?


Don't know, the only time I've personally found a good reason to disable SVID is to exploit an FIVR energy reporting bug so that set power limits can be bypassed. While it's not something a desktop is usually held back on there were some Haswell laptop users who asked for this and so "Powercut" was born although it's better if one modifies the EC firmware as well as the BIOS firmware (possible battery issues) but that takes a lot more work to do .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> But still, VID is the requested voltage that is then delivered as VCORE which may not exactly match the VID, no?


The core 'VID' technically by Intel definition is a voltage, not a request. But how can one physically test if this is the case or how accurate it might be since it's deep within the CPU.

The analogue VCore reading looks to be possibly a test point off one core, just guessing from the limited testing I can do. This actual voltage without steady state or fixed voltage may be fluctuating thousands of times a second. It can also change with temperature and AVX2. The VCore external signal is integrated to provide averaging and if the core is power gated off in C-State C6 it may even drop to 0V.


----------



## djgar

OK, VID indeed is a voltage since it can be measured, but isn't it the representation of what the CPU is requesting for its vcore?


----------



## ucode

Here's a quote from Intel, probably some better info out there but I don't remember where.
Quote:


> The core operating voltage can be determined by dividing MSR_PERF_STATUS MSR (198H) bits [47:32] by 2^13.


^^That is usually the value you see when software is reporting 'VID' with FIVR.

Perhaps it's wrongly called VID as a result of following the way things were with previous processors but I guess the name is here to stay. If it's actually the real voltage or the expected voltage I don't know. I wouldn't think there would be fast ADC's for each core to actually measure it and possibly it's an expected / requested voltage that may be close to the real voltage but you'd have to ask an Intel Engineer.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ucode*
> 
> Not really. SVID is the VID communication between the mainboard VRM supplying VCCIN and the CPU. And just to make things more confusing for you guys what is generally known as the core VID is actually described as core voltage by Intel when it comes to FIVR.


yeah, it's a unique aspect of x99... and unlike other recent architectures. Hopefully 2066 has this all back on die.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> OK, VID indeed is a voltage since it can be measured, but isn't it the representation of what the CPU is requesting for its vcore?


AFAIK, a VID is retrieved from a look-up table or stack (vccin for x99, vcore for skl, kbl) and sent to the PCU. On x99 the true vcore is stepped down on-die to the VID value. The end result is hopefully close.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, it's a unique aspect of x99... and unlike other recent architectures. Hopefully *2066* has this all back on die.


Man, every time I read 2066 somewhere, I get very excited


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Man, every time I read 2066 somewhere, I get very excited


lol, me too!


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, it's a unique aspect of x99... and unlike other recent architectures. Hopefully 2066 has this all back on die.
> AFAIK, a VID is retrieved from a look-up table or stack (vccin for x99, vcore for skl, kbl) and sent to the PCU. On x99 the true vcore is stepped down on-die to the VID value. The end result is hopefully close.


Ok....so the core is requesting said voltage, but what it receives is most likely the adaptive 1.445v that the highest clocked core is requesting... ??


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Ok....so the core is requesting said voltage, but what it receives is most likely the adaptive 1.445v that the highest clocked core is requesting... ??


I really do not know if per-core voltage is even fully implemented on kaby lake, never mind BWE. Clearly, per core VID is.








maybe uCode ?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> 1. SA Voltage: I see a lot of people saying to not use AUTO for the System Agent Voltage. I feel that AUTO is the correct choice since according to Intel spec sheet the System Agent Voltage is set as a VID and each CPU has a different SA VID. (there is no mention in the spec sheet of broadwell-e min-max SA voltage)
> 
> 2. XMP SA Voltage: I looked at the layout of the XMP structure programmed into the memory and there doesn't seem to be anything related to SA voltage. So it seems by enabling XMP doesn't actually add SA Voltage but the BIOS, RAM compatibility plus CPU SA VID is whats adding an extra offset voltage.


This post makes sense. I just tried see what AUTO puts my VCCSA and VCCIO at.
VCCSA Auto = 1.136V
VCCIO Auto = 1.024V
Almost every chip seems to behave differently. Reading this thread, Auto seems to put in the north of 1.2V for many people. (Even over 1.3V for some people).


----------



## cekim

Funny, I had "hot core #2" syndrome before, but this last time I re-did the monoblock to clean out the die, I
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> This post makes sense. I just tried see what AUTO puts my VCCSA and VCCIO at.
> VCCSA Auto = 1.136V
> VCCIO Auto = 1.024V
> Almost every chip seems to behave differently. Reading this thread, Auto seems to put in the north of 1.2V for many people. (Even over 1.3V for some people).


I try to keep SA at Auto for HW and BW, but what I can say is that at the end of the day, to achieve the highest, truly stable OC, I had to set SA. I did set it to where Auto put it _most_ of the time. The issue seems to be changes that it made. In my case, the system would be stable for days or weeks, but particularly stressful loads could on random occasions cause it to fail. A manual SA was a big part of this fix.

Same with Vccin BTW. My manual voltage is not far off what the Auto set under load, but see above.


----------



## Coopiklaani

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> This post makes sense. I just tried see what AUTO puts my VCCSA and VCCIO at.
> VCCSA Auto = 1.136V
> VCCIO Auto = 1.024V
> Almost every chip seems to behave differently. Reading this thread, Auto seems to put in the north of 1.2V for many people. (Even over 1.3V for some people).


My MB is on the crazy side, with XMP 3200, here's what it gives
VCCSA auto = +0.57offset, = 1.45v (yes, you are right, 1.45v on VCCSA).
VCCIO auto = 1.025v this stays default regardless of memory clock

MB: ASROCK X99 ITX


----------



## garikfox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> This post makes sense. I just tried see what AUTO puts my VCCSA and VCCIO at.
> VCCSA Auto = 1.136V
> VCCIO Auto = 1.024V
> Almost every chip seems to behave differently. Reading this thread, Auto seems to put in the north of 1.2V for many people. (Even over 1.3V for some people).


With my 4x4GB DDR4 2400 (XMP Enabled) using AUTO sets my SA voltage to 1.192


----------



## Coopiklaani

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> With my 4x4GB DDR4 2400 (XMP Enabled) using AUTO sets my SA voltage to 1.192


Mine is a set of 16GBx2 DDR4 3200 Memory. 16GB memories are pain in the ass...


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coopiklaani*
> 
> My MB is on the crazy side, with XMP 3200, here's what it gives
> VCCSA auto = +0.57offset, = 1.45v (yes, you are right, 1.45v on VCCSA).
> VCCIO auto = 1.025v this stays default regardless of memory clock
> 
> MB: ASROCK X99 ITX


Wow, 1.45V
I don't think it's entirely your motherboard.
Both CPU SA VID table + M\B BIOS seem to be reponsible for SA Auto voltage.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Wow, 1.45V
> I don't think it's entirely your motherboard.
> Both CPU SA VID table + M\B BIOS seem to be reponsible for SA Auto voltage.


Auto and Volt... 2 four letter words.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Auto and Volt... 2 four letter words.


Luddite... ;-)

I don't mind Autos or Volts (better if they are full-autos and not Chevy Volts). The future is going to require more auto (though likely not more volts). The question is how well those selections are made by the BIOS and what trade-offs they have to make for mass-distribution.

We are coming from an era of over-volting always and cranking the clock to an era where we have very, very crude knobs to adjust both voltage and clocks dynamically.

In truth, we already have too many dimensions and too few points (and accuracy) of measurement to come any where near covering the permutations of stability. Hence, OCers understand that a random lock-up, corruption, reboot, etc... is part of reality. It's only going to get worse as the physics gets more marginal.

I think Intel and AMD are headed in the right direction trying to automate this, the question is whether they will lock us out of the game by not letting us going beyond their "tuned for yield and warranty margin" tables. Intel's performance tuning plan should be the economic answer to them in how to account for the cost/risk of allowing us access to, control over, override of their tuning tables, but to say they don't have a history of bending over very far enthusiasts is not just putting it lightly - more like backwards as they have a history of bending over enthusiasts...

Future still looks cooler than the past and cooler if AMD keeps headed in the right direction or another competitor(s) steps up.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coopiklaani*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> This post makes sense. I just tried see what AUTO puts my VCCSA and VCCIO at.
> VCCSA Auto = 1.136V
> VCCIO Auto = 1.024V
> Almost every chip seems to behave differently. Reading this thread, Auto seems to put in the north of 1.2V for many people. (Even over 1.3V for some people).
> 
> 
> 
> My MB is on the crazy side, with XMP 3200, here's what it gives
> VCCSA auto = +0.57offset, = 1.45v (yes, you are right, 1.45v on VCCSA).
> VCCIO auto = 1.025v this stays default regardless of memory clock
> 
> MB: ASROCK X99 ITX
Click to expand...

32GB 3200C16 XMP auto volts to 1.35 here, however is perfectly stable at 1.0. I wonder how many are running high voltages on SA, and what type of long term affect it will have? I hear the IMC on BW-E is robust compared to HW-E, but how that plays out in relation to SA voltage I haven't a clue.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> 32GB 3200C16 XMP auto volts to 1.35 here, however is perfectly stable at 1.0. I wonder how many are running high voltages on SA, and what type of long term affect it will have? I hear the IMC on BW-E is robust compared to HW-E, but how that plays out in relation to SA voltage I haven't a clue.


1.35 for 32G is pretty absurd...

I need 1.2 manual or otherwise for 128G (and did for HWE as well - same 3000c14 sticks). Anything less and eventually (might be days of load), I'll get a flipped bit somewhere.

That's what the R5E chose for Auto though. So, it chose wisely. Not that it always does for every setting and it seems not that it always keeps 1.2 there, but at the very least Auto provided a very good starting point for setting it manually.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> *1.35 for 32G is pretty absurd..*.
> 
> I need 1.2 manual or otherwise for 128G (and did for HWE as well - same 3000c14 sticks). Anything less and eventually (might be days of load), I'll get a flipped bit somewhere.
> 
> That's what the R5E chose for Auto though. So, it chose wisely. Not that it always does for every setting and it seems not that it always keeps 1.2 there, but at the very least Auto provided a very good starting point for setting it manually.


lol - may have something in common with luddite machine breaking, but for a different cause.








For sure. 32 or 64GB and 1.000V has been enough for the configurations i have in use.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

hello everyone

i need you advice please.

i have 6800K stable at 4.1 Ghz 1.259V, max temp in games : 43 degree C, and under full load (intel burn test 10 run): 58 Degree on any core

i can go to 4.2 Ghz 1.291V stable, temp will increase approx 3 degree on any core.

it is safe to go to 4.2 ghz with 1.291V ? can this voltage damage the CPU ?

from you experience in overclocking, how much a CPU will live in overclocking with such voltage.

i am using adaptive voltage in bios, the CPU drop voltage to 0.778V on idle.

thank u


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> hello everyone
> 
> i need you advice please.
> 
> i have 6800K stable at 4.1 Ghz 1.259V, max temp in games : 43 degree C, and under full load (intel burn test 10 run): 58 Degree on any core
> 
> i can go to 4.2 Ghz 1.291V stable, temp will increase approx 3 degree on any core.
> 
> it is safe to go to 4.2 ghz with 1.291V ? can this voltage damage the CPU ?
> 
> from you experience in overclocking, how much a CPU will live in overclocking with such voltage.
> 
> i am using adaptive voltage in bios, the CPU drop voltage to 0.778V on idle.
> 
> thank u


Voltage and temps look good to me. But I have a hard time believing it is only a +.032 voltage step from 41 to 42. I am going to poke a guess that either your 41x was overvolted, or you are not stable at 42.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

You are completly right, i tried now watch dogs 2 on 4.2 1.291v and get a freeze after 10min.
I like people in this forum with such good experience.
I prefer stay in 4.1 at 1.259v instead of 4.2 at above 1.3v, do you agree with me?
Thank u


----------



## huckincharlie

happy with my new toy









I will try to go lower with voltage


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> hello everyone
> i need you advice please.
> i have 6800K stable at 4.1 Ghz 1.259V, max temp in games : 43 degree C, and under full load (intel burn test 10 run): 58 Degree on any core
> i can go to 4.2 Ghz 1.291V stable, temp will increase approx 3 degree on any core.
> it is safe to go to 4.2 ghz with 1.291V ? can this voltage damage the CPU ?
> from you experience in overclocking, how much a CPU will live in overclocking with such voltage.
> i am using adaptive voltage in bios, the CPU drop voltage to 0.778V on idle.
> thank u


should be fine at 1.291V. I run this 6950X at 1.281V 50% of the time, and 1.35V the rest of the time. both adaptive. It's been running this way since launch.


----------



## thesandvolcano

So guys... I seem to have found the cause of my low-load downclocking. Periodic but brief (half-sec) drops under 1200Mhz. The same cause as to the high-load downclocking i'v been witnessing with 4.2 @ 1.310v (Prime95 non-avx). Again, periodic half-sec drops of '4117Mhz' and the like. (See para.4 in my last entry here http://www.overclock.net/t/1606212/gigabyte-x99-ultra-gaming-owners-thread/110) To summarise my finding from the other thread: Bumping the vCore to 1.330v solves the high-load downclocking, but not the low-load downclocking I have been seeing since.

Bumping the VCCIO a full 0.050v from a default of 0.950 to 1.000v, seems to have solved both issues. I have been able to lop 0.030v off the vCore so far and am 20min stable in both Prime95 and OCCT as I try to find the 5-10min low stability bound.

So what's going on guys? A quick read around suggests VCCIO = RAM related, but this downclocking behaviour occurs over stock RAM freq too.

EDIT:
Spoke to soon on the low-load downclocking as HWMonitor has recorded lowest clocks of 1188Mhz







. Only 12Mhz this time though. I'v seen it drop much lower.


----------



## djgar

OK, which have you found OCs better: 3200/14 or 3400/16 when you're out at the 3400s for X99?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thesandvolcano*
> 
> So guys... I seem to have found the cause of my low-load downclocking. Periodic but brief (half-sec) drops under 1200Mhz. The same cause as to the high-load downclocking i'v been witnessing with 4.2 @ 1.310v (Prime95 non-avx). Again, periodic half-sec drops of into '4117Mhz' and the like. (See para.4 in my last entry here http://www.overclock.net/t/1606212/gigabyte-x99-ultra-gaming-owners-thread/110) To summarise my finding from the other thread: Bumping the vCore to 1.330v solves the high-load downclocking, but not the low-load downclocking I have been seeing since.
> 
> Bumping the VCCIO a full 0.050v from a default of 0.950 to 1.000v, seems to have solved both issues. I have been able to lop 0.030v off the vCore so far and am 20min stable in both Prime95 and OCCT as I try to find the 5-10min low stability bound.
> 
> So what's going on guys? A quick read around suggests VCCIO = RAM related, but this downclocking behaviour occurs over stock RAM freq too.
> 
> EDIT:
> Spoke to soon on the low-load downclocking as HWMonitor has recorded lowest clocks of 1188Mhz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Only 12Mhz this time though. I'v seen it much lower.


With speed step enabled this doesn't seem unusual to me. It is actually not trivial to load up a CPU and keep it there for long periods. The tighter and simpler your loop the more likely it is to be in cache and branch predicted to infinity. As such you are periodically going to need to do something that gets caught waiting for memory and/or the OS is going to interrupt you and slow things down for a moment.

Is it staying there for more than a few seconds at a time?

There are fudge factors at work here too. The CPU registers reporting this require some math to produce human readable numbers so the reporting software can be deceiving at time. I have a 100mhz bclk and a 44x multiplier so why should I see 4399.991 and such numbers? Because see above - fudge factors.


----------



## thesandvolcano

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Is it staying there for more than a few seconds at a time?


Nope. half a second always and across all cores simultaniously. I hear ya on the rest though. I dont trust HWMonitor for all the false readings (ex. since bumping VCCIO, my Package wattage has doubled apparently... Pfft! Fans I dont have etc.). When these drops were occuring more frequently (before the VCCIO bump) I was also able to witness with CPU-Z clock monitor, but CPUID turn out both so... They would I guess.

Taken as a whole though, the rig is actually behaving differently with +0.050v on the VCCIO while using the same clock monitor tools. This boot is about 2-3 hrs in now while I wait for further clock drops under low-load, but nothing further yet. As it stands then the downclocking is much less frequent and much less severe than before the VCCIO change.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thesandvolcano*
> 
> Nope. half a second always and across all cores simultaniously. I hear ya on the rest though. I dont trust HWMonitor for all the false readings (ex. since bumping VCCIO, my Package wattage has doubled apparently... Pfft! Fans I dont have etc.). When these drops were occuring more frequently (before the VCCIO bump) I was also able to witness with CPU-Z clock monitor, but CPUID turn out both so... They would I guess.
> 
> Taken as a whole though, the rig is actually behaving differently with +0.050v on the VCCIO while using the same clock monitor tools. This boot is about 2-3 hrs in now while I wait for further clock drops under low-load, but nothing further yet. As it stands then the downclocking is much less frequent and much less severe than before the VCCIO change.


I find it exceedingly tough to believe behavior at idle states (1200) is "suffering" from lack of voltage. These chips can idle at some ludicrously low volts without issue, so the idea that that a chip would NEED 1.x anything to avoid "downclocking" from 1200 doesn't add up.

Changing the voltages changes behavior, but I think you are chasing red-herrings... Everything you describe is normal behavior that I see every day on HW/BW/Xeon v3 and v4 chips.

As a point of reference for how these values are "computed" and so to be taken with a grain of salt when least-significant digits are concerned, Linux does not detect BCLK changes, so it gives you the wrong answer for clock speed based on register settings assuming 100MHz BCLK.

Further, I don't believe HW or BW do anything on 12MHz boundaries. They divide up the frequency range into N steps depending on # of processors active (2.0 may have made this more dynamic, don't quote me on that, I don't recall specifics). So, honestly, I think you are seeing rounding errors and SW reporting floating point numbers as a result of integer math with least significant digits that aren't "real" but rather artifacts of imprecise math.


----------



## thesandvolcano

While I had to wait a while, HWMonitor finally recorded a more substancial drop to 1107Mhz which is more representative of the drops i'v witnessed even before the VCCIO bump. The fact that I had to wait so long though was the immediate difference between VCCIO changes. Seems to take alot longer to record a clock drop with +0.050v on VCCIO. I'v now reverted bios settings and sure enough, first low-load downclock occurs within 10min of loggon.

I wasn't 20min Prime stable either guys, as I found out when mixing up the load with browser youtubes and such. My bad...







So yeah Cekim... I'm gonna have to agree with everything you'v said across both replies matey... Cheers!


----------



## HeyThereGuy

Just got my new build up and running (6850k & GTX 1080's in SLI. Full loop with two 360mm rads) I have read a few overclocking guides along with doing some reading here. I would like to think I have an okay idea on settings now but am not a pro by any means. With these settings it is realbench stable for a hour. I was wondering if anyone had some pointers for me so I can get a better handle or things that I may be doing wrong? Thanks.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeyThereGuy*
> 
> Just got my new build up and running (6850k & GTX 1080's in SLI. Full loop with two 360mm rads) I have read a few overclocking guides along with doing some reading here. I would like to think I have an okay idea on settings now but am not a pro by any means. With these settings it is realbench stable for a hour. I was wondering if anyone had some pointers for me so I can get a better handle or things that I may be doing wrong? Thanks.


4.6 is stable for you? Consider yourself lucky, that's a good chip


----------



## SauronTheGreat

guys i am so upset, i bought my processor for almost 700$ in my country when it came, now it will be out performed by cheap amd processors ,,, please someone tell me this all being overhyped


----------



## garikfox

It's all probably true but even if it is I will always stay with Intel, I think you're fine.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> It's all probably true but even if it is I will always stay with Intel, I think you're fine.


its sad simply sad, i am so heart broken


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> guys i am so upset, i bought my processor for almost 700$ in my country when it came, now it will be out performed by cheap amd processors ,,, please someone tell me this all being overhyped


intel was the best and will always be the best, i don't trust all those benchmark, we will see in gaming performance. but anyway i will always be with intel and nvidia.


----------



## Radox-0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> guys i am so upset, i bought my processor for almost 700$ in my country when it came, now it will be out performed by cheap amd processors ,,, please someone tell me this all being overhyped


I hope its true, newer and better CPU's is only a good thing for the industry







Either way your CPU will still be a powerhouse and it won't be diminished either way. Always be something new of the Horizon in this industry.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> intel was the best and will always be the best, i don't trust all those benchmark, we will see in gaming performance. but anyway i will always be with intel and nvidia.


It's people like you that slow the progress in the hardware industry and enable these price-gouge-monopolies.


----------



## djgar

Competition is always good - it promotes progress







.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Competition is always good - it promotes progress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Clearly you haven't been to a US school lately...


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Competition is always good - it promotes progress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Too true, plus we still don't know what Skylake-X is going to perform like, it certainly giving Intel a lot to think about, might get them motivated to make a worthy CPU upgrade with better performance gains.









In saying that any cpu would be good right now, I'm still waiting on my 6900k/Strix 3rd RMA, just over a month now a 3 dead Strix's..


----------



## cekim

The reality of tech for the last 20 years is that the "new hotness" is a fleeting thing... You just have to accept it and take its benefits of new and faster stuff at your finger tips. Enjoy what you have until you are ready to buy something better.

The competition is what ensures it will actually be better... HW to BW was a big snooze. In fact, Ivy-to-BW was a pretty yawn worthy evolution...

It's a good thing. Don't hate your rig, it is just as fast as it was yesterday. All AMD did right now is catch up. The excitement is in the response and then the response to the response... but that's 12-18 months you get out of your current chip before it matters.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Clearly you haven't been to a US school lately...


Competition is good - socially-induced blind neurotic obsessive paranoid compulsion to win at all costs is not


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Competition is good - socially-induced blind neurotic obsessive paranoid compulsion to win at all costs is not


Oh, it is the opposite... They've convinced everyone that they are inches from suicidal mania due to academic stress so they need to take it easy, take a break, here is a trophy, etc...

Anyway enough about politics... We are making CPU competition great again.

It is interesting how many articles have compared a theoretical 4.0 - 4.7GHz in some instances, Ryzen against a 3.0-3.5 stock 6900/5960/6950, etc....

Given that 5960x and 6900 can reach 4.4-4.7 as well, the "typical overclocked" Ryzen vs "typical overclocked" Intel is the real comparison.

Of course if Ryzen ramps up to 4.7 doing nothing more than dropping a water block and a big rad on it, then that is pretty compelling. I do sorely wished they had not gimped the memory controller to 2 channels. I know it doesn't matter to games, but it does matter to computes... (that's me).


----------



## cekim

And boo hiss... that's dirty... (speaking of dual channel memory, I'd expect Cinebench to show what I see in computes - memory BW/channels matters...)

"EDIT: AMD did not send the final test configurations until moments before launch, but it is worth calling out that the company tested the Broadwell-E comparison systems with a dual-channel memory configuration, though they support quad-channel memory. This could penalize Broadwell-E's Cinebench performance slightly."

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-1700-1700x-1800x,33702.html


----------



## djgar

Indeed on all counts - there's both the induced requirement to win and its use as an excuse to slack off









But yeah. I'm looking forward for some real CPU combat. Hopefully we'll get some real sparring soon


----------



## Vellinious

Does everyone have this problem? Like 3 or 4 cores that run so much hotter than the others? I've had cores that run hotter, but......this is by a LOT.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

I bought 6800k about 5 months ago, and I was waiting for 1080 TI all this time. I didn't buy 1080, I was waiting. Now AMD releases a chip that outperforms OC 4.3Ghz 6800k by 200 to 300 points in Cinebench. My 6800k 4.3Ghz gets a score of 1315 in Cinebench whereas 1700X gets like 1600! Not to mention, AMD chip costs less... There is no way that I can sell my Asus Rampage V extreme and 6800k for decent money now.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Does everyone have this problem? Like 3 or 4 cores that run so much hotter than the others? I've had cores that run hotter, but......this is by a LOT.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Mine are worse, they still work fine.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Does everyone have this problem? Like 3 or 4 cores that run so much hotter than the others? I've had cores that run hotter, but......this is by a LOT.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Mine are the same as well.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeyThereGuy*
> 
> Just got my new build up and running (6850k & GTX 1080's in SLI. Full loop with two 360mm rads) I have read a few overclocking guides along with doing some reading here. I would like to think I have an okay idea on settings now but am not a pro by any means. With these settings it is realbench stable for a hour. I was wondering if anyone had some pointers for me so I can get a better handle or things that I may be doing wrong? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Lookin' real good! Only thing I would do is run a high VCCIN test like HWBOT x265 benchmark set as 4K, 2x overkill, normal mode. This will see if that VCCIN setting is too low. other than that... enjoy!!


----------



## TK421

for 6950x user on daily oc, what's your maximum power draw (watt) using avx stress test like occt?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> for 6950x user on daily oc, what's your maximum power draw (watt) using avx stress test like occt?


Measuring power is pretty dubious save a measurement at the wall plug.

What's your objective in asking? Power supply sizing? Something else?


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Measuring power is pretty dubious save a measurement at the wall plug.
> 
> What's your objective in asking? Power supply sizing? Something else?


to see if I need a new cpu cooler or not

5820K 4.3ghz 1.29v around 190w
72c max core / 87c package

I'm concerned about package temp


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> to see if I need a new cpu cooler or not
> 
> 5820K 4.3ghz 1.29v around 190w
> 72c max core / 87c package
> 
> I'm concerned about package temp


Ah, I see.

Well, see above, I really can't answer your question directly as software doesn't tell me and I don't have a watt-meter on the plug right now or easily accessible.

However, I think I can answer it indirectly to say that of you are seeing 87C with your 5820 @ 1.29 (which is pretty tame voltage-wise), then I'd expect you will want to upgrade your cooling for the 6950x.

I say this because:
1. my 6950x @ 4.4 seems to require about the same if not slightly less cooling capacity as my 5960x at [email protected] and another at [email protected] (that's all that 2nd one will do and yes the 4.7 is a bit of a freak to be daily-driver @ 4.7)
2. that 5960x [email protected] has an H110gtx (280mm)
- under heavy load it averages a package temp of 62-65C with cores in the 55-65C range tapping 70C briefly now and then
3. my 5930k will run at 4.8/1.35v with an H110i in the 70-75C range package temp

So, if you are seeing 87C on the package for a 5820, you are at the edge (actually beyond where I personally set my BIOS cut-off for temps (85C), you should plan on upgrading your cooling.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Ah, I see.
> 
> Well, see above, I really can't answer your question directly as software doesn't tell me and I don't have a watt-meter on the plug right now or easily accessible.
> 
> However, I think I can answer it indirectly to say that of you are seeing 87C with your 5820 @ 1.29 (which is pretty tame voltage-wise), then I'd expect you will want to upgrade your cooling for the 6950x.
> 
> I say this because:
> 1. my 6950x @ 4.4 seems to require about the same if not slightly less cooling capacity as my 5960x at [email protected] and another at [email protected] (that's all that 2nd one will do and yes the 4.7 is a bit of a freak to be daily-driver @ 4.7)
> 2. that 5960x [email protected] has an H110gtx (280mm)
> - under heavy load it averages a package temp of 62-65C with cores in the 55-65C range tapping 70C briefly now and then
> 3. my 5930k will run at 4.8/1.35v with an H110i in the 70-75C range package temp
> 
> So, if you are seeing 87C on the package, you are at the edge (actually beyond where I personally set my BIOS cut-off for temps (85C), you should plan on upgrading your cooling.


eyeiing the predator 360 for now

nvm there's an mlc kit upcoming from EK


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> eyeiing the predator 360 for now


I have a full dual loop on the 6950x (EK 280). A full shared loop on the faster 5960x (280 + 420).

The rad on the CPU in the dual loop 6950x barely gets luke-warm, even as the processor is steady at 65C for hours at a time, so the 360 should be plenty. I also keep my fans quiet.

The dual loop system has 2x1080GTX on the same 280 EK setup and that rad gets very warm. Not surprisingly, since the power of the 2 OC'd 1080's is quite a bit higher than the 6950x based on paper spec.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I have a full dual loop on the 6950x (EK 280). A full shared loop on the faster 5960x (280 + 420).
> 
> The rad on the CPU in the dual loop 6950x barely gets luke-warm, even as the processor is steady at 65C for hours at a time, so the 360 should be plenty. I also keep my fans quiet.
> 
> The dual loop system has 2x1080GTX on the same 280 EK setup and that rad gets very warm. Not surprisingly, since the power of the 2 OC'd 1080's is quite a bit higher than the 6950x based on paper spec.


Ok then 240 can do it?

I really hope ek mlc has a smaller footprint than the predator series, I think with my current case it will not fit.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> Ok then 240 can do it?
> 
> I really hope ek mlc has a smaller footprint than the predator series, I think with my current case it will not fit.


That I don't know... (the 240).

On paper, the answer should be yes, but I have not tried their 240 systems. I've used their 280, 360 and 420 in various custom loops and the rads have never been the limiting factor (fan noise and cpu/gpu sharing the loop has).


----------



## garikfox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Does everyone have this problem? Like 3 or 4 cores that run so much hotter than the others? I've had cores that run hotter, but......this is by a LOT.


Those cores are probably by the IMC, I have two cores like that too..


----------



## Vlada011

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheNaitsyrk*
> 
> I bought 6800k about 5 months ago, and I was waiting for 1080 TI all this time. I didn't buy 1080, I was waiting. Now AMD releases a chip that outperforms OC 4.3Ghz 6800k by 200 to 300 points in Cinebench. My 6800k 4.3Ghz gets a score of 1315 in Cinebench whereas 1700X gets like 1600! This is ****ed. Not to mention, AMD chip costs less... There is no way that I can sell my Asus Rampage V extreme and 6800k for decent money now.


It was only matter of time.
How much customers could expect someone lead and only to give 5% improvement every generation 5 years.
Now is end, Intel need something new, domination of i7 and i5 is finished after almost 10 years and it's good because Intel will not be able to catch AMD before serious performance improvement and completely new architecture same as AMD done with Ryzen.
It was obvious that one good product will beat all of them together.
Performance improvements for single generation should be similar as Sandy Bridge-E to Broadwell-E or more.
Between them with had 3 models with miserable improvements.

Now look more reasonable why Intel launched 10 cores CPU, because he could only match with 1800X. Only Intel decide to ask 1700$ in mean time and tomorrow for such price people will be able to buy RVE10, 64GB of memory and i7-6950X.
Problem will have and Cannon Lake. Only chance for Intel is to to drop price on more than half and delay Skylake Extreme from 2018.
Some people say Intel will launch new versions of Kaby Lake with higher clock, but they will change nothing. More than 10% is not possible to get and only sacrificing OC.

You should not sell RVE and i7-6800K because you will lost money.
Best will be to use them until Intel launch better product. You say your i7-6800K on 4.3GHz is 1315 score, and mine i7-5820K on 4.2GHz is 1255... That's only more evidence how small performance was between Intel's premium generations. They shouldn't launch at all processors with such improvements. They should wait from 2014 until 2017 as AMD before they show up with real Processor, but they would die without launching circus of completely same products under different name, with different frequency.
ASUS and other sell processor to Intel with their premium motherboards and force people on upgrade.
90% of them didn't need more performance and didn't get more performance after upgrade.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> It was only matter of time.
> How much customers could expect someone lead and only to give 5% improvement every generation 5 years.
> Now is end, Intel need something new, domination of i7 and i5 is finished after almost 10 years and it's good because Intel will not be able to catch AMD before serious performance improvement and completely new architecture same as AMD done with Ryzen.
> It was obvious that one good product will beat all of them together.
> Performance improvements for single generation should be similar as Sandy Bridge-E to Broadwell-E or more.
> Between them with had 3 models with miserable improvements.
> 
> Now look more reasonable why Intel launched 10 cores CPU, because he could only match with 1800X. Only Intel decide to ask 1700$ in mean time and tomorrow for such price people will be able to buy RVE10, 64GB of memory and i7-6950X.
> Problem will have and Cannon Lake. Only chance for Intel is to to drop price on more than half and delay Skylake Extreme from 2018.
> Some people say Intel will launch new versions of Kaby Lake with higher clock, but they will change nothing. More than 10% is not possible to get and only sacrificing OC.
> 
> You should not sell RVE and i7-6800K because you will lost money.
> Best will be to use them until Intel launch better product. You say your i7-6800K on 4.3GHz is 1315 score, and mine i7-5820K on 4.2GHz is 1255... That's only more evidence how small performance was between Intel's premium generations. They shouldn't launch at all processors with such improvements. They should wait from 2014 until 2017 as AMD before they show up with real Processor, but they would die without launching circus of completely same products under different name, with different frequency.
> ASUS and other sell processor to Intel with their premium motherboards and force people on upgrade.
> 90% of them didn't need more performance and didn't get more performance after upgrade.


Yeah dude. You're completely right.

I game at 4k so I'm not sure what kind of impact my 6800k will have on 4K stuff vs Ryzen. I don't think there'll be a huge gap, however I am expecting 5-6 less FPS which can sometimes be significant.
To be honest, I am only mad because of the pricing. 1600X is on PAR with 6800k which is also 6 core 12 thread CPU, BUT it's 200 dollars less.

So you think me, and also you should wait until a better product is released / until our processors can't cope with tasks given anymore? What's your take?

I might compromise by buying water cooled 1080 TI and overclocking it to the brim.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheNaitsyrk*
> 
> I might compromise by buying water cooled 1080 TI and overclocking it to the brim.


I am actually more confused by what to do about the next GPU. Last summer, I had assumed the 1080ti would be along by Dec/Jan, but it appears that it won't be out until March or later.

It will now be a couple of months away from other launches. I suspect we know why this happened (Vega), but the bottom line is that they've set themselves up for a TI that will only be a leader, if it is at all, for a matter of weeks...

In the mean time I've been enjoying the hell out of my 1080s. So, first world problems, but...

Again, I'd rather we have these problems forcing Intel and Nvidia to keep pushing rather than sit back. Even more interested to see if AMD can push Intel in the server market.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I am actually more confused by what to do about the next GPU. Last summer, I had assumed the 1080ti would be along by Dec/Jan, but it appears that it won't be out until March or later.
> 
> It will now be a couple of months away from other launches. I suspect we know why this happened (Vega), but the bottom line is that they've set themselves up for a TI that will only be a leader, if it is at all, for a matter of weeks...
> 
> In the mean time I've been enjoying the hell out of my 1080s. So, first world problems, but...
> 
> Again, I'd rather we have these problems forcing Intel and Nvidia to keep pushing rather than sit back. Even more interested to see if AMD can push Intel in the server market.


What I've seen from some supposedly leaked benchmark from RedTechGaming on YouTube, RX 580 it is? Will be a little bit below 1080 TI when it comes to Ashes of the Singularity (A DX12 title) so I'm betting it all on the TI version. They'll be releasing new stuff every few months and I think this is the GPU to get. Last time I bought 780 TI and it was a killer, I believe that this one will also be a killer as it's the last GPU before the new architecture which will most likely come out next year, or very late this year.

Also, as long as it can handle 4k, then I'm okay with it.

I'm just salty that I can just buy a CPU from AMD which costs 50% of what I currently have (same with the motherboard) and have the same results. It's madness. However, I will wait for benchmarks from guys on YT. Only a week left.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

HELLO EVERYONE

I need your help please

my system is :
i7 6800K 4.1 Ghz (1.259V, Vinput : 1.8V)
32 GB Corsair LPX DDR4 RAM
MSI X99A PRO CARBON

I have 2 XMP profile in the bios

profile 1 : 2400 Mhz at 1.2V
profile 2 : 2666 Mhz at 1.35V

I have no issue with profile 1, but when I select profile 2, my system runs fine for many hours, but when I shutdown it then turn it on, it gives me an error that my OC is not stable and reset to default, this issue don't happen with profile 1.

can you help me to have my DDR4 at profile 2 stable ? what settings should I need to adjust?

thank u


----------



## Vlada011

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheNaitsyrk*
> 
> Yeah dude. You're completely right.
> 
> I game at 4k so I'm not sure what kind of impact my 6800k will have on 4K stuff vs Ryzen. I don't think there'll be a huge gap, however I am expecting 5-6 less FPS which can sometimes be significant.
> To be honest, I am only mad because of the pricing. 1600X is on PAR with 6800k which is also 6 core 12 thread CPU, BUT it's 200 dollars less.
> 
> So you think me, and also you should wait until a better product is released / until our processors can't cope with tasks given anymore? What's your take?
> 
> I might compromise by buying water cooled 1080 TI and overclocking it to the brim.


Yes price of Broadwell-E was even higher than Haswell-E.
I found mine i7-5820K for 280e from some guy and both from him. Because of that I have no reason to complain.
But price of i7-6850K now in some countries in Europe go up to 620 EURO.
For that money people will be able to buy better performance than i7-6900K and memory for platform.

No we can't talk about competition of Intel and AMD because competitors usually try to offer best product and from 2012 we look how Intel wait AMD and ASUS, GIGABYTE, MSI, ... with their attractive motherboards sell his processors with almost same power. Not almost, if someone compare i7-6700K and i7-7700K on 4.5GHz they are same., identical. Improvement is statistic mistake, depend of CPU sample both could say our is better in some situations. Competitors try to beat each other, Intel didn't do that.

I will wait as I planned, in one moment I thought maybe to go on i7-6900K but now not worth. Now only if i7-6950X cost 400-500$ worth of investment. Nothing else, better is waiting Skylake Xtreme.
If price of i7-6900K is arround 400-500$ I doubt someone will upgrade because it's weaker than Ryzen, thanks to Intel's lower clocks he is weaker on fabric frequency. Maybe is little better or same if we compare them on same clock, example 4.2GHz both...


----------



## Vlada011

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> HELLO EVERYONE
> 
> I need your help please
> 
> my system is :
> i7 6800K 4.1 Ghz (1.259V, Vinput : 1.8V)
> 32 GB Corsair LPX DDR4 RAM
> MSI X99A PRO CARBON
> 
> I have 2 XMP profile in the bios
> 
> profile 1 : 2400 Mhz at 1.2V
> profile 2 : 2666 Mhz at 1.35V
> 
> I have no issue with profile 1, but when I select profile 2, my system runs fine for many hours, but when I shutdown it then turn it on, it gives me an error that my OC is not stable and reset to default, this issue don't happen with profile 1.
> 
> can you help me to have my DDR4 at profile 2 stable ? what settings should I need to adjust?
> 
> thank u


Maybe you should try to set 2666 MHz manually, not XMP.
Sometimes is easier like that and better, special if you set lower lattency than XMP and same frequency as XMP.
I done that with my memory because when I bought DDR4 kits had higher latency than now, on beginning.
Higher frequency is not always better, if you need to increase timmings example.
Better to find best from combination of frequency and timmings.
C14 or C15 are OK for Quad Channel DDR4.
Example 14-14-14 1T or 15-15-15 1T.
If your XMP1 is 2400 14-16-16 2T than you can set manual 2666MHz 16-16-16 1T, or 15-15-15 1T and increase voltage to 1.35V.
I would set 14-14-14 1T 2400 1.200V


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> Maybe you should try to set 2666 MHz manually, not XMP.
> Sometimes is easier like that and better, special if you set lower lattency than XMP and same frequency as XMP.
> I done that with my memory because when I bought DDR4 kits had higher latency than now, on beginning.
> Higher frequency is not always better, if you need to increase timmings example.
> Better to find best from combination of frequency and timmings.
> C14 or C15 are OK for Quad Channel DDR4.
> Example 14-14-14 1T or 15-15-15 1T.
> If your XMP1 is 2400 14-16-16 2T than you can set manual 2666MHz 16-16-16 1T, or 15-15-15 1T and increase voltage to 1.35V.
> I would set 14-14-14 1T 2400 1.200V


both have CAS latency C14 (profile 1 and 2), according to the bios and CPU-Z


----------



## Vlada011

Excellent, than go on 13.
Try first this manual
2666MHz, timmings default and voltage 1.350V and test with some test.
If system is not completely stable try with 14-15-15 timmings. Keep Command Rate on default.


----------



## xTesla1856

While Ryzen is definetly an impressive feat, both in performance as well as pricing, I think our (BW-E users) best course of action is to just wait until Intel release the new HEDT chips and platform. I'll admit, my 6800K went up for sale yesterday, albeit briefly. I took down the ad upon further thinking.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> Excellent, than go on 13.
> Try first this manual
> 2666MHz, timmings default and voltage 1.350V and test with some test.
> If system is not completely stable try with 14-15-15 timmings. Keep Command Rate on default.


thanks for your reply, do you mean turn off XMP, back to 2133 MHz speed, than manually set my RAM speed to 2666mhz and voltage to 1.35 V ?


----------



## Vlada011

Yes, that would be best option, I think.
You will need to try few things before find best settings.

If your memory is not stable on 2666MHz and default timmings I would keep default speed.
You didn't say model of your memory kit.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> While Ryzen is definetly an impressive feat, both in performance as well as pricing, I think our (BW-E users) best course of action is to just wait until Intel release the new HEDT chips and platform. I'll admit, my 6800K went up for sale yesterday, albeit briefly. I took down the ad upon further thinking.


Hard when we don't have a backup system eh.


----------



## xTesla1856

I caved and ordered an 1800X


----------



## Shaded War

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> While Ryzen is definetly an impressive feat, both in performance as well as pricing, I think our (BW-E users) best course of action is to just wait until Intel release the new HEDT chips and platform. I'll admit, my 6800K went up for sale yesterday, albeit briefly. I took down the ad upon further thinking.


I plan to wait and see how it is for game benchmarks. If its under 5FPS difference like I think it is, then I won't bother. It's going to take at least 15FPS minimum at 4k for me to bother parting out my rig.

The BF1 benchmark demo that AMD showed 10fps better @1080p on the 1700x compared to the 6800k, but it's also running stock clocks so the AMD is higher frequency with auto overclocking. BF1 is also allot better multi-threaded than 99% of games out there, so they really set themselves for success in that benchmark. It's nice to see a competent AMD CPU again, but something tells me it isn't all that much better overall across other less optimized games if both were running the same frequency.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shaded War*
> 
> I plan to wait and see how it is for game benchmarks. If its under 5FPS difference like I think it is, then I won't bother. It's going to take at least 15FPS minimum at 4k for me to bother parting out my rig.
> 
> The BF1 benchmark demo that AMD showed 10fps better on the 1700x compared to the 6800k, but it's also running stock clocks so the AMD is higher frequency with auto overclocking. BF1 is also allot better multi-threaded than 99% of games out there, so they really set themselves for success in that benchmark. It's nice to see a competent AMD CPU again, but something tells me it isn't all that much better overall across other less optimized games if both were running the same frequency.


There is a huge difference in performance on battlefield 1 between my 6800K at stock and at 4.1 GHz, I think that the 1700X will have approx. similar performance to OC 6800K on BF1 except if 1700X will go so much higher on auto frequency boost.
lets wait and see, and I think our Broadwell-e cup's are plenty enough for now and near future.
AMD makes only one good think from my point of view: puts the pressure on Intel to drop the price of the 8 cores cup's.
I was and I will always be with Intel, I cannot imagine my pc has AMD CPU.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> Yes, that would be best option, I think.
> You will need to try few things before find best settings.
> 
> If your memory is not stable on 2666MHz and default timmings I would keep default speed.
> You didn't say model of your memory kit.


CMK32GX4M4A2400C14


----------



## TK421

Does Broadwell E have a better IMC quality compared to Haswell-E?

Trying to shop around for a new quad channel 4x8GB ram that has a fast frequency and low latency.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I caved and ordered an 1800X


post back with your benchmarks. I give very little credence to "leaked" benchmarks. So far, ryzen is nothing but puppy hype. I trust our member's data much more.


----------



## djgar

^^^ Proof! Proof! We want proof!


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> post back with your benchmarks. I give very little credence to "leaked" benchmarks. So far, ryzen is nothing but puppy hype. I trust our member's data much more.


Well if you buy from amazon there's a 30 day return window if the cpu is not performing as advertised.


----------



## djgar

Never mind all the work replacing the CPU and MB in the case and cooling loop ...


----------



## xTesla1856




----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> Does Broadwell E have a better IMC quality compared to Haswell-E?
> 
> Trying to shop around for a new quad channel 4x8GB ram that has a fast frequency and low latency.


Generally speaking yes. It usually does 3200+ out of the box where 3000 was a struggle for a while with the HW chips, but got better with bios updates and collective wisdom on SA voltage.

The usual offenders (G-skill, Corsair) should be able to get you 3200 cas14

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232348

Generally speaking, [email protected] performs better than [email protected] Not sure how hard you want to work with memory OC?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Never mind all the work replacing the CPU and MB in the case and cooling loop ...


Wait, that's the fun part?!?









I'm pretty bummed about the dual channel memory controllers and PCIE lanes...

I really, really want this chip to succeed on both price AND performance, but it might be too much to ask right now.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Generally speaking yes. It usually does 3200+ out of the box where 3000 was a struggle for a while with the HW chips, but got better with bios updates and collective wisdom on SA voltage.
> 
> The usual offenders (G-skill, Corsair) should be able to get you 3200 cas14
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232348
> 
> Generally speaking, [email protected] performs better than [email protected] Not sure how hard you want to work with memory OC?


How difficult to reach a target of 3200-14 as you said?

Is the G.skill ones you linked the most recommended set of ram to get for 3000+ results?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> How difficult to reach a target of 3200-14 as you said?
> 
> Is the G.skill ones you linked the most recommended set of ram to get for 3000+ results?


I'd go through the memory threads here on OCN to see what other brands are working. I've had good experience with G-Skill on HW/BW and they tend to have tighter secondary timings than Corsair (particularly per dollar).

[email protected] and [email protected] Worked out of the box for me on the 6950x and others here as well, but see above, to get a better answer, go through the table of setups others have tried.

Give them a good once over with stressapp at stock speeds right away before your no-questions return window expires regardless of brand. Finding out you have a dodgy dimm after hours of overclocking testing is infuriating...


----------



## HeyThereGuy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Lookin' real good! Only thing I would do is run a high VCCIN test like HWBOT x265 benchmark set as 4K, 2x overkill, normal mode. This will see if that VCCIN setting is too low. other than that... enjoy!!


Thanks I will give that a shot!


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I'd go through the memory threads here on OCN to see what other brands are working. I've had good experience with G-Skill on HW/BW and they tend to have tighter secondary timings than Corsair (particularly per dollar).
> 
> [email protected] and [email protected] Worked out of the box for me on the 6950x and others here as well, but see above, to get a better answer, go through the table of setups others have tried.
> 
> Give them a good once over with stressapp at stock speeds right away before your no-questions return window expires regardless of brand. Finding out you have a dodgy dimm after hours of overclocking testing is infuriating...


hmm

is there a more affordable kit?


----------



## Dwofzz

Soo.. A little late to the party as usual but I just got a RVE 10th Edition a 6850k and a set of 16GB 3400MHz Dominator sent to me. So out with the old and in with the new and begun overclocking. Aaand... So far I'm sitting at :
Core 4.4 GHz 1.281v set in bios
Mem 3400 MHz 1.35v set in bios
Cach 3.6GHz 1.143v set in bios

Cinebench 11.5 - 15.09

I did a h*ll lot more but I'll post that later on for you guys


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> hmm
> 
> is there a more affordable kit?


um, $300 for 32G at these speeds right now is pretty typical. If you pay less, expect to get less. Secondary timings (and primary CAS rating) will go up, speed will go down and OC headroom along with it.

Flash sorage and ram production lines aren't keeping up with supply, so prices of both are going to be high and up for the next 12 months from what I've read. Is what it is DRAM has always been volatile (no pun intended)...


----------



## Shaded War

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> hmm
> 
> is there a more affordable kit?
> 
> 
> 
> um, $300 for 32G at these speeds right now is pretty typical. If you pay less, expect to get less. Secondary timings (and primary CAS rating) will go up, speed will go down and OC headroom along with it.
> 
> Flash sorage and ram production lines aren't keeping up with supply, so prices of both are going to be high and up for the next 12 months from what I've read. Is what it is DRAM has always been volatile (no pun intended)...
Click to expand...

$300 for 32GB is quite expensive. There is plenty of 3200 / 3000mhz CL15 sets for ~$180 that will work good. I'm not going to argue which is faster, but your not going to notice the difference from CL14 to CL15 outside of benchmarks so why waste $120 if price is a concern.


----------



## Keromyaou

According to this thread (https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/amd-ryzen-7-aka-zen-now-available-to-pre-order.18770170/page-3#post-30533398), Ryzen 1700 overclocked to 4.0GHz (the limit is probably 4.1GHz) while Ryzen 1800X overclocked to 4.2-4.3 with a high-end motherboard. This statement matches the statement in this forum by Benchzowner (one of our forumers), stating that the Ryzen is a bit slower than Intel high end CPUs about per core performance (Benchzowner seems to have some insider knowledge about Ryzen, as far as I understand). According to Benchzowner, Ryzen runs hot and doesn't overclock well and the maximum overclockable frequency for most of Ryzen chips is 4.1GHz. I think that I can believe what they are saying. Since most of Broadwell-e can do 4.3-4.4GHz, the overclocking could give Broadwell-e some advantages over Ryzen.

IMHO, the improvement of performance per core is physically reaching to the limit under the current computer architecture. AMD merely started to catch up with Intel. That is the current situation. I also think that the performance per core won't be improved so much in the future regardless of AMD or Intel. I think that new gaming software need to rigorously utilize more than 4 cores to keep up with 4K or higher displays in the future. I think that, if you already own a Broadwell-e, there is not much point to get a Ryzen. If you own a 4 core cpu (such as Core i5 cpus), Ryzen will be the cheaper way to get 6 or 8 core cpus than Broadwell-e.


----------



## Shaded War

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Keromyaou*
> 
> According to this thread (https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/amd-ryzen-7-aka-zen-now-available-to-pre-order.18770170/page-3#post-30533398), Ryzen 1700 overclocked to 4.0GHz (the limit is probably 4.1GHz) while Ryzen 1800X overclocked to 4.2-4.3 with a high-end motherboard. This statement matches the statement in this forum by Benchzowner (one of our forumers), stating that the Ryzen is a bit slower than Intel high end CPUs about per core performance (Benchzowner seems to have some insider knowledge about Ryzen, as far as I understand). According to Benchzowner, Ryzen runs hot and doesn't overclock well and the maximum overclockable frequency for most of Ryzen chips is 4.1GHz. I think that I can believe what they are saying. Since most of Broadwell-e can do 4.3-4.4GHz, the overclocking could give Broadwell-e some advantages over Ryzen.
> 
> IMHO, the improvement of performance per core is physically reaching to the limit under the current computer architecture. AMD merely started to catch up with Intel. That is the current situation. I also think that the performance per core won't be improved so much in the future regardless of AMD or Intel. I think that new gaming software need to rigorously utilize more than 4 cores to keep up with 4K or higher displays in the future. I think that, if you already own a Broadwell-e, there is not much point to get a Ryzen. If you own a 4 core cpu (such as Core i5 cpus), Ryzen will be the cheaper way to get 6 or 8 core cpus than Broadwell-e.


I saw some leaked LN2 runs of the 1800x and they were able to achieve 5.2Ghz, so it was pretty obvious that it won't OC like current Intel chips. Core for core, the the leaked 1600x benches was about the same single core and multi core performance as my 6800k if I clocked it to the same frequency.

Even AMD's presentation slides of the 1800x listed them being 4% faster than a 6900k at stock clocks. So overclocked that lead will probably shift toward Intel.

I don't think there is anything groundbreaking about Ryzen, other than the price point killing Intel on high end CPUs. If AMD can muscle Intel into selling their next 8 core CPU at $499, I would buy that over Ryzen.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shaded War*
> 
> $300 for 32GB is quite expensive. There is plenty of 3200 / 3000mhz CL15 sets for ~$180 that will work good. I'm not going to argue which is faster, but your not going to notice the difference from CL14 to CL15 outside of benchmarks so why waste $120 if price is a concern.


Whether or not you will notice outside of benchmarking or heavy computes is a fair question and point, but I was answering and commenting on a pretty specific question.

$180 is going to get you 3000CL15 specifically, not 3200CL15 (that's going to get you much closer to $250-300 again), but see above, _most_ applications will not care. So, budget accordingly.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Whether or not you will notice outside of benchmarking or heavy computes is a fair question and point, but I was answering and commenting on a pretty specific question.
> 
> $180 is going to get you 3000CL15 specifically, not 3200CL15 (that's going to get you much closer to $250-300 again), but see above, _most_ applications will not care. So, budget accordingly.


and add to that, 3000c15 kits will require 125 strap to run XMP or a fair amount of tuning to run 3200c16. I had a 3000c15 kit, IMO on x99, better off getting a 3200 G.Skill kit of any CAS bin.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shaded War*
> 
> I saw some leaked LN2 runs of the 1800x and they were able to achieve 5.2Ghz, so it was pretty obvious that it won't OC like current Intel chips. Core for core, the the leaked 1600x benches was about the same single core and multi core performance as my 6800k if I clocked it to the same frequency.
> 
> Even AMD's presentation slides of the 1800x listed them being 4% faster than a 6900k at stock clocks. So overclocked that lead will probably shift toward Intel.
> 
> I don't think there is anything groundbreaking about Ryzen, other than the price point killing Intel on high end CPUs. If AMD can muscle Intel into selling their next 8 core CPU at $499, I would buy that over Ryzen.


We will see once benchmarks are out. Proper benchmarks like LTT or J2C.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Keromyaou*
> 
> According to this thread (https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/amd-ryzen-7-aka-zen-now-available-to-pre-order.18770170/page-3#post-30533398), Ryzen 1700 overclocked to 4.0GHz (the limit is probably 4.1GHz) while Ryzen 1800X overclocked to 4.2-4.3 with a high-end motherboard. This statement matches the statement in this forum by Benchzowner (one of our forumers), stating that the Ryzen is a bit slower than Intel high end CPUs about per core performance (Benchzowner seems to have some insider knowledge about Ryzen, as far as I understand). According to Benchzowner, Ryzen runs hot and doesn't overclock well and the maximum overclockable frequency for most of Ryzen chips is 4.1GHz. I think that I can believe what they are saying. Since most of Broadwell-e can do 4.3-4.4GHz, the overclocking could give Broadwell-e some advantages over Ryzen.
> 
> IMHO, the improvement of performance per core is physically reaching to the limit under the current computer architecture. AMD merely started to catch up with Intel. That is the current situation. I also think that the performance per core won't be improved so much in the future regardless of AMD or Intel. I think that new gaming software need to rigorously utilize more than 4 cores to keep up with 4K or higher displays in the future. I think that, if you already own a Broadwell-e, there is not much point to get a Ryzen. If you own a 4 core cpu (such as Core i5 cpus), Ryzen will be the cheaper way to get 6 or 8 core cpus than Broadwell-e.


Im sorry but @ 499$ there is no advantage broadwell could have over 1800x to make up for the price gap, let alone for the 399$ 1700x.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Im sorry but @ 499$ there is no advantage broadwell could have over 1800x to make up for the price gap, let alone for the 399$ 1700x.


I agree. It's hugely cheap and even if it doesn't overclock well... Who cares? It gives you the same performance, if not better for half the price. I wish I could replace my 6800k with 1800X.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheNaitsyrk*
> 
> We will see once benchmarks are out. Proper benchmarks like LTT or J2C.


That's a joke right?


----------



## The EX1

What is going to keep the X99 platform alive is the availability of PCIE lanes. I think Ryzen only has 24 IIRC.


----------



## navjack27

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> That's a joke right?


i know right LOL. you srs? J2C and LTT. MAYBE gamers nexus, i respect steve a ton.


----------



## Scotty99

For overclocking benchmarks im gonna be waiting til JJ from asus makes a video on it. He gets the info directly from the engineers who tested thousands of samples, and will know what the chips are actually capable of as well as memory speeds.


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Im sorry but @ 499$ there is no advantage broadwell could have over 1800x to make up for the price gap, let alone for the 399$ 1700x.


yep, an 8 core similar performance cpu for half price of intel, if benches on 3/2 hold I wont be buying intel again unless they create another large performance gap, so my next 1 or 2 cpus at least will be AMD, skylake x definitely is out. And PCIE lanes 24 is plenty for my use, single (fastest) gpu and nvme drive.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> and add to that, 3000c15 kits will require 125 strap to run XMP or a fair amount of tuning to run 3200c16. I had a 3000c15 kit, IMO on x99, better off getting a 3200 G.Skill kit of any CAS bin.


What he said...

Though with a little SA and initial voltage tuning even HWE was able to run a 3000CL15 @100 BCLK.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheNaitsyrk*
> 
> We will see once benchmarks are out. Proper benchmarks like LTT or J2C.


Yeah, the odd review embargo (relative to launch) and gimping the x99 to dual channel for benchmarks is a concern. We generally have a flood of early benchmarks by the time you are placing pre-orders. It is sketchy to say the least to be pushing this pre-order so hard without trusted 3rd party hands-on and mouth open of any form.

I will say without qualification that they've castrated Intel's mid-tier HEDT. They are right to smack intel across the face selling us 4 core 4GHz CPUs and 6 core ~3.5GHz CPUs for what they've been charging. We all know why and how Intel did that (AMD stumbled), so competition is good for everyone.

The questions that remain are at the top-end as absolute memory and PCIe throughput have been hamstrung by some of AMDs choices and then OC appears to be much more limited than some early suggestions (cryptic notes on french sites about "5GHz on air" appear to be bogus based on LN2 5.1/5.2 leaks, but again, we'll see...)

All of that said, I think its clear Intel will have to make some course adjustments in price and features that will be of benefit to us even if Ryzen never breaches the highest tier of HEDT. Same goes for server chips and Naples (where curiously, they've gone completely the other way and added 8 memory channels to Intel's upcoming 6).

Some excitement ahead I'm not gonna pick sides because I win if there is a tie...


----------



## xTesla1856

The release of Ryzen is probably the best thing that could happen to Intel's HEDT stuff (from the consumer perspective). It will force them to actually either release some monster chips to justify the current pricing (if they stick to that pricing that is) or to basically slash prices in half. I'm very curious to see what X299 will bring to the table.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> The release of Ryzen is probably the best thing that could happen to Intel's HEDT stuff (from the consumer perspective). It will force them to actually either release some monster chips to justify the current pricing (if they stick to that pricing that is) or to basically slash prices in half. I'm very curious to see what X299 will bring to the table.


I think we might be in for a hiccup on features, but might see some relief on price.

It takes time to turn the design/fab boat.

There are some easy choices Intel can make on price and yield tolerance (so 32 vs 24/28 cores a the E5 level vs the E7 level xeon for example is likely a yield trade-off and thus just a fuse-blow at production time). Same with clocks and cores in the consumer parts to varying degrees.

Big changes are going to require more time.

It's possible that the reason we just got 4 phases of the supposed new 3 phase roll-out (tick/tock/process/architecture/optimization, blah, blah, blah) is that they held off some stuff they can release later this year based on a course correction to Ryzen once they see it. However, this smacks of wishful thinking to me.

I suspect, they'll put a shiny sticker on whatever was in the pipe and outside price, the big changes will be 12-18+ months out.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The EX1*
> 
> What is going to keep the X99 platform alive is the availability of PCIE lanes. I think Ryzen only has 24 IIRC.


Lanes, quad channel ram, fast PCH, .. the list is long. Besides, I still have not seen any benchmark (yeah leaked advertising and all) where the 1800x is any better than a 5960X considering the overclocking headroom. All speculation at this point. AMD's pre-order has me worried. That's usually a tactic to get some buyers before the road tests are run. I do hope I'm wrong.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> The release of Ryzen is probably the best thing that could happen to Intel's HEDT stuff (from the consumer perspective). It will force them to actually either release some monster chips to justify the current pricing (if they stick to that pricing that is) or to basically slash prices in half. I'm very curious to see what X299 will bring to the table.


I agree, competition is good for consumers!


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shaded War*
> 
> $300 for 32GB is quite expensive. There is plenty of 3200 / 3000mhz CL15 sets for ~$180 that will work good. I'm not going to argue which is faster, but your not going to notice the difference from CL14 to CL15 outside of benchmarks so why waste $120 if price is a concern.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Whether or not you will notice outside of benchmarking or heavy computes is a fair question and point, but I was answering and commenting on a pretty specific question.
> 
> $180 is going to get you 3000CL15 specifically, not 3200CL15 (that's going to get you much closer to $250-300 again), but see above, _most_ applications will not care. So, budget accordingly.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> and add to that, 3000c15 kits will require 125 strap to run XMP or a fair amount of tuning to run 3200c16. I had a 3000c15 kit, IMO on x99, better off getting a 3200 G.Skill kit of any CAS bin.


how about this one to use on x99 deluxe/5820K?

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232317

there's even 4000mhz+ listed, will that even work on x99?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> how about this one to use on x99 deluxe/5820K?
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232317
> 
> there's even 4000mhz+ listed, will that even work on x99?


Doubt it (32G @4000)... Not with any voltages one should use unless they are prepared to release the magic blue smoke.

Note the timings though... [email protected]

It will work just fine and likely perform very similar to a 3000 CL15 kit.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Doubt it (32G @4000)... Not with any voltages one should use unless they are prepared to release the magic blue smoke.
> 
> Note the timings though... [email protected]
> 
> It will work just fine and likely perform very similar to a 3000 CL15 kit.


is there something better in the 3200 range?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> is there something better in the 3200 range?


Gskill trident Z. 32GB (4x8GB) 3200MHz CL14-14-14-34. 1.35V.

I received my kit this week and posted a nice result today on official DDR4 stability memory thread


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> how about this one to use on x99 deluxe/5820K?
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232317
> there's even 4000mhz+ listed, will that even work on x99?


no, 4000 will not work on x99.

just so you are not disappointed, 3200c16 is a very low bin kit. go with 3200c14-14-14 if your budget can. IMO, these are the best quad channel kits for x99.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Gskill trident Z. 32GB (4x8GB) 3200MHz CL14-14-14-34. 1.35V.
> 
> I received my kit this week and posted a nice result today on official DDR4 stability memory thread


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no, 4000 will not work on x99.
> 
> just so you are not disappointed, 3200c16 is a very low bin kit. go with 3200c14-14-14 if your budget can. IMO, these are the best quad channel kits for x99.


C14 kit

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232219&ignorebbr=1

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232348&ignorebbr=1

spec seems to be the same...

the ripjaws v seems to be a bit lower profile than the trident series? any difference?


----------



## GRABibus

What is your mobo ?
Are both kits in your mobo QVL ?


----------



## TK421

X99 deluxe 1 with latest bios

I'll check qvl


----------



## TK421

welp qvl only list the trident series

F4-3200C14Q-32GT(different suffixes after this one)

not sure what the other suffixes mean



https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232207


----------



## Dwofzz

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11809003


----------



## Gunslinger.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> there's even 4000mhz+ listed, will that even work on x99?


Yes they will work, but you won't be able to run them anywhere near spec. Instead you'll be limited by your CPU's IMC, likely 3200-3400Mhz

I'm using 4266MHz G.Skills in my RV10

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232497


----------



## Keromyaou

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Im sorry but @ 499$ there is no advantage broadwell could have over 1800x to make up for the price gap, let alone for the 399$ 1700x.


Sure. That is why I said that Ryzen was a cheaper alternative to Broadwell-e if you wanted a 6/8 core cpu now. There is no question about it. But if you already own a Broadwell-e cpu, why do you need to be in a hurry to get a Ryzen? That is my question. If you think that right now it is the last chance to sell your Broadwell-e at a decent price and to replace it with a Ryzen, maybe that could be the reason. But how much do you get for your Broadwell-e now? 60% of the original price? Or 70, 80%? At this moment we still don't have a 100% clear idea about Ryzen. Some people speculate that there might be something not that great about Ryzen hidden from the hype trains. The overclockability is one of them. Maybe the heat issue (this could be related to dual channel rather than quad channel memory of Ryzen)? Then it might be safer to keep a Broadwell-e since it works essentially the same or a bit better with 28/40 PCI-E lanes than going for a Ryzen? There seem to be many people who are jumping to Ryzens while lamenting about their Broadwell-e when we don't know the whole picture of Ryzens. I wonder if this is a right choice or not. That is my question.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Yes they will work, but you won't be able to run them anywhere near spec. Instead you'll be limited by your CPU's IMC, likely 3200-3400Mhz
> 
> I'm using 4266MHz G.Skills in my RV10
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232497


I think I'll go for the 3200mhz to be safe.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11809003


You are not in the right thread


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> I think I'll go for the 3200mhz to be safe.


Yes.
And play with timings and voltages.
Take your time, RAM overclock really requires method and patience to find the optimum combination : speed - Timings - Voltages


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Yes they will work, but you won't be able to run them anywhere near spec. Instead you'll be limited by your CPU's IMC, likely 3200-3400Mhz
> 
> I'm using 4266MHz G.Skills in my RV10
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232497


I tried the same with 19-19-19 4266 kits, and even 3600c15 kits (really their best)... was able to run tighter timings with 320014 than with 4266 sticks.
24/7:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> I think I'll go for the 3200mhz to be safe.


Smart move.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I tried the same with 19-19-19 4266 kits, and even 3600c15 kits (really their best)... was able to run tighter timings with 320014 than with 4266 sticks.
> 24/7:
> 
> Smart move.


What voltage were you running there? 1.4? Are you cooling them with water?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> What voltage were you running there? 1.4? Are you cooling them with water?


no.. just air w/ fans. Voltage is 1.45V.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no.. just air w/ fans. Voltage is 1.45V.


Ah, so you're very actively cooling them, though. I decided to limit myself to 1.4v for a daily, so I'm running stock timings at 3467.


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Keromyaou*
> 
> Sure. That is why I said that Ryzen was a cheaper alternative to Broadwell-e if you wanted a 6/8 core cpu now. There is no question about it. But if you already own a Broadwell-e cpu, why do you need to be in a hurry to get a Ryzen? That is my question. If you think that right now it is the last chance to sell your Broadwell-e at a decent price and to replace it with a Ryzen, maybe that could be the reason. But how much do you get for your Broadwell-e now? 60% of the original price? Or 70, 80%? At this moment we still don't have a 100% clear idea about Ryzen. Some people speculate that there might be something not that great about Ryzen hidden from the hype trains. The overclockability is one of them. Maybe the heat issue (this could be related to dual channel rather than quad channel memory of Ryzen)? Then it might be safer to keep a Broadwell-e since it works essentially the same or a bit better with 28/40 PCI-E lanes than going for a Ryzen? There seem to be many people who are jumping to Ryzens while lamenting about their Broadwell-e when we don't know the whole picture of Ryzens. I wonder if this is a right choice or not. That is my question.


new toy to play with, and want to try AMD. But agree, from broadwell e maybe a sideways move in performance, and im waiting to see reviews for Ocing first. This video looks like at least in some programs ryzen multicore performance (since turbo fixed) was faster than broadwell e. One thing for sure, wont be buying anymore intel $1K cpus, Ill be buying 8 core amds for half price, unless a corresponding increase in perf.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsVNQYwlSAo


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Yes.
> And play with timings and voltages.
> Take your time, RAM overclock really requires method and patience to find the optimum combination : speed - Timings - Voltages


Ok Thanks.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I tried the same with 19-19-19 4266 kits, and even 3600c15 kits (really their best)... was able to run tighter timings with 320014 than with 4266 sticks.
> 24/7:
> 
> Smart move.


With 1.4v need active cooling?

I'm currently 1.4v on my original pair of bargain crucial ddr4.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

hello everyone
there are some info talking about 1800X OC beat the 6950X.
if this is true, for the first time i regret that i bought the 6800K

What do you think? it is worth it to change our system to AMD RYZEN? but no one will buy our system now if we want to sell them.

i know the 6800K is enough now, but i am surprise of the result, i didn't expect that.

what a bad feeling that the price of the 6800K with X99 board is the same as 1800X with AM4 board.

from my point of view, i will keep my intel system now and see what's will happen in the future and how intel will response to amd.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> hello everyone
> there are some info talking about 1800X OC beat the 6950X.
> if this is true, for the first time i regret that i bought the 6800K
> 
> What do you think? it is worth it to change our system to AMD RYZEN? but no one will buy our system now if we want to sell them.
> 
> i know the 6800K is enough now, but i am surprise of the result, i didn't expect that.
> 
> what a bad feeling that the price of the 6800K with X99 board is the same as 1800X with AM4 board.
> 
> from my point of view, i will keep my intel system now and see what's will happen in the future and how intel will response to amd.


If you need quad channel and more pcie lanes than you should not regret it.
Well 1600X 4GHz will probably be as fast as your 6800K at 4.5GHz, but that CPU supports some cool features. If you do not need them then ye, but anyway maybe in is 3-4 years you will buy AMD configuration. So just be happy, someone is pushing performance and probably in 5 years quad core will be as fast as hexacore in MT.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> hello everyone
> there are some info talking about 1800X OC beat the 6950X.
> if this is true, for the first time i regret that i bought the 6800K
> 
> What do you think? it is worth it to change our system to AMD RYZEN? but no one will buy our system now if we want to sell them.
> 
> i know the 6800K is enough now, but i am surprise of the result, i didn't expect that.
> 
> what a bad feeling that the price of the 6800K with X99 board is the same as 1800X with AM4 board.
> 
> from my point of view, i will keep my intel system now and see what's will happen in the future and how intel will response to amd.


Think about the ones like myself that bought a 6900k


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Think about the ones like myself that bought a 6900k


hehe you are right







the 6900K was in my mind and if it was at 700$, i bought it.

i hope the quad channel memory supported by the X99 gives us some advantages.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> hehe you are right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 6900K was in my mind and if it was at 700$, i bought it.
> 
> i hope the quad channel memory supported by the X99 gives us some advantages.


Yeah well no one is really sure what clocks AMD were using on the 6900k, I'm sure it was locked to it's based clock like the AMD chip was, but like everyone else I'm waiting with baited breath for real benchmarks.

It's certainly going to be a cheaper road to get my wife off a 4 core 4790k for her Photoshop and video encoding, around $1100AU for a 1800x build...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> Ok Thanks.
> With 1.4v need active cooling?
> 
> I'm currently 1.4v on my original pair of bargain crucial ddr4.


Active airflow is more than sufficient at those voltages


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Ah, so you're very actively cooling them, though. I decided to limit myself to 1.4v for a daily, so I'm running stock timings at 3467.


well, the fans just rest on top and are set to the lowest possible speed that will start. Basically any breeze makes a big difference and with 8 sticks packed in, the fan helps. With 4 sticks on an 8 slot board, you don;t need a fan.
3467 is plenty quick. I did find that 3400c13 was quicker than 3467c14 tho... it may be related ot having 64GB
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Active airflow is more than sufficient at those voltages


^^ this, and really of any kind. Don't need a leaf blower to cool ram sticks.


----------



## Vlada011

Previous months I searched for some ES cheaper Broadwell-E, i7-6900K, but now I'm glad because I didn't bought.
Overclocked 1700X beat i7-6950X on stock speed.
1400$ in toilet, we can't say Quad Channel is something really important because all comparison show small improvements compare to Dual Channel.
Special if AMDs IMC is capable to work with 3600MHz modules.
We were aware what Intel do, whole the time, but now when rumors become reality we are faced what they done to us with 5% improvements whole the time.
Soon will be more clear, what happen, is it Intel really played with AMD, or we expect more than he can.



Only is unknown what Kaby Lake revision could change, nothing.
AMD have two models 230 and 250$ with 6C/12T and 16MB Cache.
Comparison single core performance are not important so much and Intel should pack their models and develope new generation from scratch, and dust.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

LOL.

WCCFTECH


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> Previous months I searched for some ES cheaper Broadwell-E, i7-6900K, but now I'm glad because I didn't bought.
> Overclocked 1700X beat i7-6950X on stock speed.
> 1400$ in toilet, we can't say Quad Channel is something really important because all comparison show small improvements compare to Dual Channel.
> Special if AMDs IMC is capable to work with 3600MHz modules.
> We were aware what Intel do, whole the time, but now when rumors become reality we are faced what they done to us with 5% improvements whole the time.
> Soon will be more clear, what happen, is it Intel really played with AMD, or we expect more than he can.
> 
> 
> 
> Only is unknown what Kaby Lake revision could change, nothing.
> AMD have two models 230 and 250$ with 6C/12T and 16MB Cache.
> Comparison single core performance are not important so much and Intel should pack their models and develope new generation from scratch, and dust.


I kinda see it like this.....it took 1.875v to get the 1800X to run 5.2, which means to me that overclocking headroom is going to be at a premium for most above ambient enthusiasts. So, if this 1700X is only pulling 20k physics scores at 4.0, while that's a decent score, it's certainly not what I'd expect. One can reasonably assume that the 1800X will run a little bit better, but......a 6950X with a really easy daily overclock can hit 27k without breathing hard. A 6900k should be able to hit that 20k mark without adding much at all.

TLDR: Don't throw the towel in just yet. If you already own Broadwell E, it's pretty foolish to assume from the story you linked, that AMD is going to be able to pull that much magic out of the hat all at the same time. Give them credit.....they're finally competing, but from my vantage point? They're not there yet.


----------



## cekim

You know what has me wondering is whether a successful launch of AMD will put a stick in the spokes of Intel's plan to tie things like Netflix to specific CPUs?

That should never have happened. I'm surprised Netflix and others would go for it as it effectively delays, narrows and may kill their luanch (maybe they weren't really ready for 4K data rates, so they are ok with that, but they will take a hit).

Sure, if you want offer acceleration, power, battery-life benefits to your processor, great, but locking a fundamentally soft encryption scheme to hardware because "you can" is nonsense.

As some have pointed out, it even leaves the HEDT high and dry right now, you have a $1700 processor that can't use 4K streaming? Seriously?

Time for the slappening...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> Previous months I searched for some ES cheaper Broadwell-E, i7-6900K, but now I'm glad because I didn't bought.
> Overclocked 1700X beat i7-6950X on stock speed.
> 1400$ in toilet, we can't say Quad Channel is something really important because all comparison show small improvements compare to Dual Channel.
> Special if AMDs IMC is capable to work with 3600MHz modules.
> We were aware what Intel do, whole the time, but now when rumors become reality we are faced what they done to us with 5% improvements whole the time.
> Soon will be more clear, what happen, is it Intel really played with AMD, or we expect more than he can.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only is unknown what Kaby Lake revision could change, nothing.
> AMD have two models 230 and 250$ with 6C/12T and 16MB Cache.
> Comparison single core performance are not important so much and Intel should pack their models and develope new generation from scratch, and dust.


lol - old fake news.








nonsense. "OC 17OOx beats 6950X" ... WITH NO OC ON THE 6950X. Face it fanboi, it's a fantasy. now put your little jones away and troll elsewhere.
an average 5960X does 23,000 http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/3dmark+11+physics+score/version+1.0.132
almost as stupid as this comparison


----------



## mrkambo

So it seems my 6850K is no longer stable at 4.3GHz, been running at 1.37v since day one, so been getting 4.2GHz stable down to 1.26v. Still testing, but it seems good so far it survived 4 hours of RB, just need to confirm Cache and Memory are stable and should be good for a while.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> So it seems my 6850K is no longer stable at 4.3GHz, been running at 1.37v since day one, so been getting 4.2GHz stable down to 1.26v. Still testing, but it seems good so far it survived 4 hours of RB, just need to confirm Cache and Memory are stable and should be good for a while.


"no longer stable" or you are now running different apps that create more load than before?


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> "no longer stable" or you are now running different apps that create more load than before?


Nah it started having issues while i was gaming.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Nah it started having issues while i was gaming.


Games can creep - they add fixes and features that might take a marginally stable system over the edge with a patch.

I ask because I have had adaptive setups that ran fine for a year and then suddenly I had to add 200mV for stability, but it wasn't bit-rot, but rather new software pushing it over the edge.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> So it seems my 6850K is no longer stable at 4.3GHz, been running at 1.37v since day one, so been getting 4.2GHz stable down to 1.26v. Still testing, but it seems good so far it survived 4 hours of RB, just need to confirm Cache and Memory are stable and should be good for a while.


don't go above 1.3V, i talked to intel live chat and they told me to not go above 1.3V at water cooler.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

news:

Intel Core i7-6900K ($999 US) - $200 Price Cut









Intel needs to drop the price of the 6900K to 500$ to be competitive now.


----------



## Jbravo33

Been $999 at microcenter in Boston for months now.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> Been $999 at microcenter in Boston for months now.


uCenter has long sold CPUs well under MSRP as a "door buster".


----------



## xTesla1856

My order status was changed to "Mid-March"...


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> don't go above 1.3V, i talked to intel live chat and they told me to not go above 1.3V at water cooler.


That's quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard......


----------



## Jpmboy

well then I'm sure Intel wouldn't like to see _what nearly all_ enthusiasts are doing with voltages. (buy the Intel tuning plan!







)


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well then I'm sure Intel wouldn't like to see _what nearly all_ enthusiasts are doing with voltages. (buy the Intel tuning plan!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


"smells like victory!"

Or blue smoke, but whatever it is, it's awesome...


----------



## Vlada011

I only say what I saw, overclocked 1700X could catch i7-6950X on 3.0GHz... that' 1400$ cheaper CPU only 8 months later.
But it's not fair to compare AMDs 8 cores with Intel's 10 cores. Only with i7-6900K but both are pulled from throne and AMDs 8 core keep World Record in CINEBENCH with 2 cores less than Intel. That's excellent indicator how we get nothing last 3 generations.



This is so good and interesting for market. It was bored on market looking in 1700$ CPU and GTX1080 worth 400-500 cost 700$.
Now customers could get whole platform with same performance as i7-6950X for 1000$

AMD R7 1800X + ASUS Crosshair 6 Hero + 3600 DDR4 16GB perfectly match.

or they could play games immediately with

AMD R7 1700 + ASUS Crosshair 6 Hero + 3600 DDR4 + RX 480 reference

I don't say that Intel owners as me could change on AMD immediately, smart people will wait X299 and than to decide.
I think in Intel is silence. I don't know for you but somehow for me Intel's socket no matter on sensitive pins are more attractive somehow with famous locker.
Special 2011 and 2011-3.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> I only say what I saw, overclocked 1700X could catch i7-6950X on 3.0GHz... that' 1400$ cheaper CPU only 8 months later.
> But it's not fair to compare AMDs 8 cores with Intel's 10 cores. Only with i7-6900K but both are pulled from throne and AMDs 8 core keep World Record in CINEBENCH with 2 cores less than Intel. That's excellent indicator how we get nothing last 3 generations.
> 
> This is so good and interesting for market. It was bored on market looking in 1700$ CPU and GTX1080 worth 400-500 cost 700$.
> Now customers could get whole platform with same performance as i7-6950X for 1000$
> 
> AMD R7 1800X + ASUS Crosshair 6 Hero + 3600 DDR4 16GB perfectly match.
> 
> or they could play games immediately with
> 
> AMD R7 1700 + ASUS Crosshair 6 Hero + 3600 DDR4 + RX 480 reference
> 
> I don't say that Intel owners as me could change on AMD immediately, smart people will wait X299 and than to decide.
> I think in Intel is silence. I don't know for you but somehow for me Intel's socket no matter on sensitive pins are more attractive somehow with famous locker.
> Special 2011 and 2011-3.


Couple things to note; Currently as the platform stands most users will struggle to manage to get 3000mhz memory stable on lower end boards and in some cases on the Hero. Secondly, yes the physics score is higher than a 6950x, at clocks the CPU scoffs at (not refuting the incredible value)


----------



## cirov

Lel!! Intel hedt will be 2 generations behind mainstream by the end of this year. Does not look good.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cirov*
> 
> Lel!! Intel hedt will be 2 generations behind mainstream by the end of this year. Does not look good.


I think they'll cope just fine.


----------



## Vlada011

I wait Skylake Xtreme and I expect real performance improvement, 20-30% compare to 1800X for Intel 8 cores and good prices.
Intel with all models available on market, with Kaby Lake, Z170, Z270 can't do nothing any more to improve situation.
NOTHING.

This processor are so stronger than i7-5930K and i7-6850K and i7-5960X and i7-6900K.
And far cheaper.
I can't complain, my platform is almost 3 years old, Haswell-E and I get for very good price.
But only could say thanks god because I didn't bought i7-6850K or i7-6900K.
In one moment I had huge desire to upgrade on some of that two models and would be very bad to compare 1800X with i7-6850X and 1800X is even cheaper.
Intel can't compete with mainstream any more. Only with much lower price with 1600X models.
AMD offer for 230 and 250$ two models with 6C/12T and 16MB of Cache. They will beat any mainsteam Intel in multi applications and that's only important.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> I only say what I saw, overclocked 1700X could catch i7-6950X on 3.0GHz... that' 1400$ cheaper CPU only 8 months later.
> But it's not fair to compare AMDs 8 cores with Intel's 10 cores. Only with i7-6900K but both are pulled from throne and AMDs 8 core keep World Record in CINEBENCH with 2 cores less than Intel. That's excellent indicator how we get nothing last 3 generations.


Not exactly. It's a world record in 8-core series only. I get 2364 in CB with my [email protected] on water while [email protected] on LN2 got 2363. The 6950X is still in its own class when overclocked beyond.


----------



## Jpmboy

Anyone wonder why these AMD trolls post such bollocks?

here's the HWBOT 8-core WRs for R15: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_-_r15/rankings?cores=8#start=0#interval=20


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Anyone wonder why these AMD trolls post such bollocks?


Honestly can't blame anyone for being angry at Intel at this point... They've abused the consumer to limit the market would tolerate.

Like many others, I'm thrilled if the end result of AMD success is more computes, more cores, more MHz and fewer dollars.

I'm less thrilled when Intel, AMD or Nvidia gimp their offerings to offer artificial performance/function tiers and/or tie hardware to software function artificially (as in X won't work even if you are willing to commit the CPU cycles, heat/power to it because "we said so").


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Honestly can't blame anyone for being angry at Intel at this point... They've abused the consumer to limit the market would tolerate.
> 
> Like many others, I'm thrilled if the end result of AMD success is more computes, more cores, more MHz and fewer dollars.
> 
> I'm less thrilled when Intel, AMD or Nvidia gimp their offerings to offer artificial performance/function tiers and/or tie hardware to software function artificially (as in X won't work even if you are willing to commit the CPU cycles, heat/power to it because "we said so").


why is this abuse:



https://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3990&page=2

the 1700x looks great in handbrake... folks just need to cite the "supportive" data.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> why is this abuse:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3990&page=2


absolute $ and $ per increment of performance.

Let's not kid ourselves. Their $1000 top of the line chip became a $1700 chip (and one tier down - 6900 - became a $1200 chip) in one generation and in real terms for all but benchmarks and certain computes, it offered very little improvement at best.

Then Kaby comes out with 0, count'em 0% IPC oh and you'll need it to get 4K content for anyone they can lock-down with market-exclusionary tactic.

Look, I own a lot of their stuff because I can make use of more cores at the same speed with near, if not zero IPC gains, but most consumers cannot.

Again, the market will bear what the market will bear, but goodwill of your customers is in the price as well on the long timeline. Intel has a long history of pretty brutal sales tactics (bundling, dumping, fixing, etc... just check the court dockets).

It is what it is.


----------



## Jpmboy

You'll always price according to what the market will bear. That said, sure the top HEDT was priced ridiculously - we knew that before it launched. Price/performance is critical in mainstream systems, not so much for extreme systems (looks at any car LINE-UP). I'm looking forward to the 1800x and hoping it lives up to the silly pre-launch hype.


----------



## cekim

Here's a concrete example for you...

Large memory foot-print, multi-core application.

Granted, this application, who will remain nameless, refuses to function with 10 cores, so 2 sit dark (partitioning must be on power-of-2 boundary).

Bottom line is:

(short run for the sake of of a point, but it scales linearly)
8 cores 5960x 4.4GHz: 128G @ 3000 CL14 ($899 at uCenter at release)
Elapsed time: 0:02:14

8 cores 6950x 4.4GHz 128G @ 3000 CL14 ($1599 at uCenter at release)
Elapsed time: 0:02:06

Again, there is ~20% speed-up waiting if I could make use of those other 2 cores and frankly, its nice to have VMs, email, web, etc... running in them without impact even when crunching numbers. It also washes out in the noise to me based on what I do with them for work.

However, it is still a 78% price hike!

BTW, I have a 5960x that runs at 4.7GHz that can beat the 6950x in that 8 core test.

I also have a 2x2690v4 system that beats them all when you run the same test with 16 of 28 cores. It doesn't scale well to 28, but anything with non-trivial cross-thread/core communication will have trouble scaling that far.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> You'll always price according to what the market will bear. That said, sure the top HEDT was priced ridiculously - we knew that before it launched. Price/performance is critical in mainstream systems, not so much for extreme systems (looks at any car LINE-UP). I'm looking forward to the 1800x and hoping it lives up to the silly pre-launch hype.


Me too - we all win if it does.

I'm also holding off anything new until I see some data for naples as well. If they can deliver, I will buy the [email protected]#@$ out of it.

multi-socket R7 is interesting too, but I expect that to take a while if ever. Very small market.


----------



## Silent Scone

Why is it a valid example if the chosen case doesn't scale with core count? lol.

I think these types of discussions are best left for rumour threads, but all will be laid on the table come NDA lift. I don't think anyone that has been sporting an X99 build (especially those of us that have been since 2014) are really going to be overly concerned with the performance on AMD's side. From a market perspective, it's great news - but I think people are becoming a little carried away.

From my perspective, jumping to a brand new platform that will inevitably have various teething issues for the same performance isn't a sane choice.

The next logical step for these users is X299.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Why is it a valid example if the chosen case doesn't scale with core count? lol.


You can map my example to the 6900 if it helps - the end result is the same - price increase outsized vs performance increase. Hence people's anger. That said, it is not productive - doesn't change anything.


----------



## Silent Scone

It doesn't matter what walk of life you are talking about, there's always raging bias/penny pinching somewhere. I don't think any rational human beings are angry.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Me too - we all win if it does.
> I'm also holding off anything new until I see some data for naples as well. If they can deliver, I will buy the [email protected]#@$ out of it.
> multi-socket R7 is interesting too, but I expect that to take a while if ever. Very small market.


well, that think about price-to-market... is valid unless you're in a business like I was where political pressure and price controls can interfere.


----------



## Menthol

Does anyone else remember paying $900.00 to $1k for a single core AMD64 FX chip when released, when AMD has the goods they charge for it, I am skeptical of Ryzen because of the lower price, one could say if the goods were there so would be the price of entry, coming close or matching is a good thing, but it's not revolutionary or dominating, also no Win 7 drivers? kind of concerning to me, and as delicate as the socket pins are on Intel boards, have you ever dropped a $1k AMD CPU and used a razor blade to realign the pins on a CPU, that will leave a little brown spot in your shorts

Still glad to see AMD in the mix and going to be interesting to see how this plays out I don't think the sky is falling at Intel just yet


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Does anyone else remember paying $900.00 to $1k for a single core AMD64 FX chip when released, when AMD has the goods they charge for it, I am skeptical of Ryzen because of the lower price, one could say if the goods were there so would be the price of entry, coming close or matching is a good thing, but it's not revolutionary or dominating,...


That and the embargo behavior are a concern, but as Scone says, its speculation for now. (anyone else hearing the BF1 voice actor after operations every time they hear the word "speculation" now?)


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Does anyone else remember paying $900.00 to $1k for a single core AMD64 FX chip when released, when AMD has the goods they charge for it, I am skeptical of Ryzen because of the lower price, one could say if the goods were there so would be the price of entry, coming close or matching is a good thing, but it's not revolutionary or dominating, also no Win 7 drivers? kind of concerning to me, and as delicate as the socket pins are on Intel boards, have you ever dropped a $1k AMD CPU and used a razor blade to realign the pins on a CPU, that will leave a little brown spot in your shorts
> 
> Still glad to see AMD in the mix and going to be interesting to see how this plays out I don't think the sky is falling at Intel just yet


Yep. I had the FX55 and FX57 at one point. By the time the latter was introduced, the architecture was stretched so thin there was zero headroom.

Essentially;


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> *Does anyone else remember paying $900.00 to $1k* for a single core AMD64 FX chip when released, when AMD has the goods they charge for it, I am skeptical of Ryzen because of the lower price, one could say if the goods were there so would be the price of entry, coming close or matching is a good thing, but it's not revolutionary or dominating, also no Win 7 drivers? kind of concerning to me, and as delicate as the socket pins are on Intel boards, have you ever dropped a $1k AMD CPU and used a razor blade to realign the pins on a CPU, that will leave a little brown spot in your shorts
> 
> Still glad to see AMD in the mix and going to be interesting to see how this plays out I don't think the sky is falling at Intel just yet


did you _have to_ remind me of that.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

https://youtu.be/ax3i-K6-VaA

1700x vs 6800k in 10 games, in battlefield 1 same fps, i think the two cpu are not overclocked


----------



## TK421

what's a good price for a used 5960x these days with Ryzen threatening the previous price point?


----------



## ondoy

399$ ...


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ondoy*
> 
> 399$ ...


I really hope so!

They're still going for 800 on ebay


----------



## xTesla1856

So glad I didn't buy one for 750 a couple weeks ago


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> So glad I didn't buy one for 750 a couple weeks ago


Yeah, these are those times when this hobby/profession gets really frustrating.

I've been debating a few things for computes, but until I'm forced to buy something, its in my best interest to wait out this first 1/2 of the year while CPU and GPU nonsense gets sorted.

1080ti, 2080, titan? BW v4 or SL v5 Xeon or naples, etc... Then there is the buying 1 generation back on the cheap once the new stuff comes out dimension.


----------



## Jpmboy

lol - I just can't wait for the raisin threads to open up and read the let down.


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - I just can't wait for the raisin threads to open up and read the let down.


I think even if ryzen is slower than X99, it will still outdo the mainstream platforms.

So it's between the x99 and new mainstream chips, still good to maintain competitive edge over intel.


----------



## garikfox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - I just can't wait for the raisin threads to open up and read the let down.


ROFL, Raisin, i'm laughing so hard over here, lol


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> I think even if ryzen is slower than X99, it will still outdo the mainstream platforms.
> 
> So it's between the x99 and new mainstream chips, still good to maintain competitive edge over intel.


I wouldn't go so far to use the word "edge". But having AMD at least show up on the field is a good thing. It's been a long time since they were.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> I think even if ryzen is slower than X99, it will still outdo the mainstream platforms.
> 
> So it's between the x99 and new mainstream chips, still good to maintain competitive edge over intel.


Outdo in terms of multi-core performance? Sure, they have more cores. In terms of single core performance, and in turn gaming? Nothing I've seen as of yet would indicate they're even close in single core performance. Their pricing will be enough to give them an edge over the average Joe user looking to build a workstation....there's their market segment.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - I just can't wait for the raisin threads to open up and read the let down.


Is that the Intel fanboy coming out JP








Don't worry you're not alone....


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - I just can't wait for the raisin threads to open up and read the let down.


Nah, it will be better than cats, they'll buy it again and again.

Dissent will be silenced faster than a news story about a high-level political scandal in mainland China...

It will be "I'm with AMD" and "Let's make CPU's great again, I'm going to build a new socket on the border..." all over again...









64G ram limit blows... Nothing says you aren't serious about computes like a 64G ram limit... Asus MB Box evidently says 2133 on that 64G too. Seriously bro, do you even pre-fetch?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Is that the Intel fanboy coming out JP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry you're not alone....


I'm a fanboi of innovation and long lasting quality - like the Atom C2000...


----------



## Vlada011

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> So glad I didn't buy one for 750 a couple weeks ago


I search badly for some cheaper i7-6900K without warranty or ES for arround 500$ in previous months and I couldn't find him.
I was very sad. I saw i7-6950X for 820 but I couldn't afford that. Up to 500 OK and someone grab him for 820 very fast. He was god of processors until now.
Now I can buy i7-6950X performance for 500$ with 1800X.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I'm a fanboi of innovation and long lasting quality - like the Atom C2000...


Yeah, I haven't used AMD since my last 939 Athlon x2 4400+ back in 2006....lol.
For the price point it'll be fine for my wife when her 4790k finally dies, well her motherboard is dying, a few extra cores for Photoshop/video encoding.

I'm still hanging out for Skylake-X, all these stories of Intel being worried, how about looking at it like Intel is running out Broadwell-E in preparation to it's launch.
And honestly why not lower prices to compete


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Is that the Intel fanboy coming out JP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry you're not alone....


no... i really think the whining will have entertainment value.
(in all seriousness, it's more likely than not that I will have a ryzen of some sort, just want to see real data first. It's certainly not capable of replacing a 6950X, and looks more like (maybe?) a tie/or slower than with a 4.7 5960X... end result = more sheet around here







)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no... i really think the whining will have entertainment value.
> (in all seriousness, it's more likely than not that I will have a ryzen of some sort, just want to see real data first. It's certainly not capable of replacing a 6950X, and looks more like (maybe?) a tie/or slower than with a 4.7 5960X... end result = more sheet around here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


I was joking man..









Like I've been saying all alone, we really don't know what they had the 6900k clocked at for it to "beat" it, I still think it's lock to the default clock with no boost.
With the current rumor of Intel "paying off reviewers" anything that produces real results beat Ryzen won't be listened too.

I will have a 1700x for my wife so I'll play with that one...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I was joking man..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've been saying all alone, we really don't know what they had the 6900k clocked at for it to "beat" it, I still think it's lock to the default clock with no boost.
> With the current rumor of Intel "paying off reviewers" anything that produces real results beat Ryzen won't be listened too.
> 
> I will have a 1700x for my wife so I'll play with that one...


lol - i didn;t miss that your were. You may want to look at the results here: https://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3990&page=2


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - i didn;t miss that your were. You may want to look at the results here: https://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3990&page=2


It's the 1800x I'm interested in seeing, but isn't that just a clock speed bump?
Whats with the 1700x's win in Handbrake....


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> It's the 1800x I'm interested in seeing, but isn't that just a clock speed bump?
> Whats with the 1700x's win in Handbrake....


Note the result for 2x2690v3 ... Clearly handbrakeisn't scaling well to higher core-counts. 8:8 still says the 1700x has some mojo there, but that result set suggests some handbrake specific issues scaling.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Note the result for 2x2690v3 ... Clearly handbrakeisn't scaling well to higher core-counts. 8:8 still says the 1700x has some mojo there, but that result set suggests some handbrake specific issues scaling.


instruction set implementation.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> instruction set implementation.


Oh, you think that's AVX goodness kicking in?

I only ran RB on my 2690v4's a few times, not much scaled well at all to 2x14 cores... It was basically idle.


----------



## SirWaWa

is 6850k the best balance between stock clock speed and cores for broadwell-e?


----------



## Blameless

Stock clock speed?

What's that?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-gaming-benchamrks/

both CPU at stock speed:

1700X is clocked at 3.8 Ghz and with good cooler can go automatically with XFR to 3.9 Ghz or higher, and the 6800K clocked at 3.6Ghz boost only.
=> the OC 4.2 Ghz 6800K with quad channel memory that the RYZEN do not support, will destroy the 1700X.


----------



## mrkambo

Is using AIDA64 Cache test on its own still relevant for testing cache?


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Is using AIDA64 Cache test on its own still relevant for testing cache?


Yes.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Yes.


I assuming 4 hour run is still decent?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Is using AIDA64 Cache test on its own still relevant for testing cache?


which cpu do you have ?

I have the 6800K

OC to 4.1 Ghz at 1.259V

OC the cache improve performance ? how much did you OC your cache?

thank u


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Oh, you think that's AVX goodness kicking in?
> 
> I only ran RB on my 2690v4's a few times, not much scaled well at all to 2x14 cores... It was basically idle.


yeah, AMD may have got that IS family implemented better... and Don't tell me about how some of your *28 cores and 56 threads* are idle.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Stock clock speed?
> What's that?


.. wait, I have to look in the Wiki archives.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> I assuming 4 hour run is still decent?


a couple of hours is fine for a gaming rig.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> I assuming 4 hour run is still decent?


I do "quick" 2 hours run myself before going on a "real use" scenario like realbench, handbrake and/or some gaming.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> which cpu do you have ?
> 
> I have the 6800K
> 
> OC to 4.1 Ghz at 1.259V
> 
> OC the cache improve performance ? how much did you OC your cache?
> 
> thank u


i've got a 6850K

Core - 4.2, 1.27v
Cache - 3600, 1.225v


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> I do "quick" 2 hours run myself before going on a "real use" scenario like realbench, handbrake and/or some gaming.


It survived 5:30 of the cache test, and 4 hours of RB, just about to SAT it for a couple of hours and make sure that side is ok


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, AMD may have got that IS family implemented better... and Don't tell me about how some of your *28 cores and 56 threads* are idle.


Don't worry, I keep them busy enough:


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, AMD may have got that IS family implemented better... and Don't tell me about how some of your *28 cores and 56 threads* are idle.


I actually programmed for 960 cores. (5 CPUs each with 192 cores.) Yes that was CUDA and my GTX 660. Would you believe 60 cores was max when its RAM bandwidth supported cores at full speed?

Too small RAM, large latencies, and C preprocessor. That was rest of problems.


----------



## Dwofzz

What input, SA, IO and cache volt are you guys running for 4.4 - 4.6 GHz?


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> You are not in the right thread


Ooooh but I am certainly not good sir!









So got to 4.5Ghz 24/7 stable at 1.3 volt with my 6850k and 3400 MHz as ram speed









I'll share some settings :

Blck: 100
Sync all : 45
Cache multi : 35
Dram : 3400
vcore : 1.31v in bios ( 1.3v actual )
SA : Auto
Cache : 1.2v
Dram : 1.35v
Cpu input : 1.92 ( 1.9006 actual )
LLC lvl 6
Ocpb : 130%

and a ton of other things..
The tricky part was the cache, I dunno if 1.2v is what it takes for it to be 100 % stable but 1.15v and 1.1625 is not enough so time will tell


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Ooooh but I am certainly not good sir!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So got to 4.5Ghz 24/7 stable at 1.3 volt with my 6850k and 3400 MHz as ram speed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll share some settings :
> 
> Blck: 100
> Sync all : 45
> Cache multi : 35
> Dram : 3400
> vcore : 1.31v in bios ( 1.3v actual )
> SA : Auto
> Cache : 1.2v
> Dram : 1.35v
> Cpu input : 1.92 ( 1.9006 actual )
> LLC lvl 6
> Ocpb : 130%
> 
> and a ton of other things..
> The tricky part was the cache, I dunno if 1.2v is what it takes for it to be 100 % stable but 1.15v and 1.1625 is not enough so time will tell


Pretty good chip, if true. Realbench?


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Pretty good chip, if true. Realbench?


Nope not yet, but here is a run of Firestrike

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11849971


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Nope not yet, but here is a run of Firestrike
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11849971


Firestrike physics test is fine for benchmarking, but as a stability test it is one of the weakest things one can do. My sample can run the physics test at 1.3v at 4.5, but for Realbench 1.39v is needed.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Firestrike physics test is fine for benchmarking, but as a stability test it is one of the weakest things one can do. My sample can run the physics test at 1.3v at 4.5, but for Realbench 1.39v is needed.


Running realbench atm


----------



## Dwofzz

Done, I was hitting the overcurrent soooo hard.. Had to up it to 140% and up the volt to 1.328v


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> 
> Done, I was hitting the overcurrent soooo hard.. Had to up it to 140% and up the volt to 1.328v


Hitting overcurrent? lol

I meant the stress test.









1 to 2 hours, allocate all memory.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I meant the stress test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 to 2 hours, allocate all memory.


Useless to sit here for 1 - 2 h and do nothing, I'm going to use it as normal and see if it fails








I'll check back in the eve!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

official :

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-1700-official-gaming-benchmarks-leak/

and the Intel CPU's beat the RYZEN CPU's in most games. (and the 6800K at 4.2 ghz will beat AMD in ALL games for sure)

OK AMD you did a great job but I will repeat : Intel was, now and will always be the best










btw be happy with cinebench and CPU-Z benchmark.


----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> official :
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-1700-official-gaming-benchmarks-leak/
> 
> and the Intel CPU's beat the RYZEN CPU's in most games. (and the 6800K at 4.2 ghz will beat AMD in ALL games for sure)
> 
> OK AMD you did a great job but I will repeat : Intel was, now and will always be the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw be happy with cinebench and CPU-Z benchmark.


WCCF is a very reliable souce, especially when it comes to leaks. We can definitely trust everything they say without a question of a doubt.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> official :
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-1700-official-gaming-benchmarks-leak/
> 
> and the Intel CPU's beat the RYZEN CPU's in most games. (and the 6800K at 4.2 ghz will beat AMD in ALL games for sure)
> 
> OK AMD you did a great job but I will repeat : Intel was, now and will always be the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw be happy with cinebench and CPU-Z benchmark.


WCCF is a very reliable source, especially when it comes to leaks.









You should probably wait until there are third party benchmarks released from reliable journalists/owners of the hardware before making the comparison.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alex132*
> 
> WCCF is a very reliable souce, especially when it comes to leaks. We can definitely trust everything they say without a question of a doubt.


the sarcasm is palpable.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the sarcasm is palpable.


To be fair, WCCF throws as much garbage at the wall to get as many people to go on their website as possible and occasionally some of it sticks. Less than 30% of the "leaks" WCCF publishes turns out to be true.

They have a history of copying random forum posts without doing fact checks. Here is a perfect example: http://www.overclock.net/a/a-troubling-trend. In that example, they even said "A CPUZ screenshot was leaked by a reputable source from the semi-conductor industry earlier today." in the article. If they spent less than 1 minute searching this forum, they would have discovered that CPUZ screenshot was made as a joke and is in fact, not from a reputable source from the semi-conductor industry.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

INTEL served us all these years, and now most of you becoming against Intel ?

AMD did one great job is to decrease Intel price, but I cannot accept that my system has any AMD hardware.

I was with Intel and NVidia since 10 years.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> INTEL served us all these years, and now most of you becoming against Intel ?
> 
> AMD did one great job is to decrease Intel price, but I cannot accept that my system has any AMD hardware.
> 
> I was with Intel and NVidia since 10 years.


I seriously hope you're keeping in with the sarcasm.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> To be fair, WCCF throws as much garbage at the wall to get as many people to go on their website as possible and occasionally some of it sticks. Less than 30% of the "leaks" WCCF publishes turns out to be true.
> 
> They have a history of copying random forum posts without doing fact checks. Here is a perfect example: http://www.overclock.net/a/a-troubling-trend. In that example, they even said "A CPUZ screenshot was leaked by a reputable source from the semi-conductor industry earlier today." in the article. If they spent less than 1 minute searching this forum, they would have discovered that CPUZ screenshot was made as a joke and is in fact, not from a reputable source from the semi-conductor industry.


^^ This !!


----------



## Kimir

WCCF shouldn't be allowed to be used as a source even for rumor section here on OCN, imo.


----------



## jarble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> WCCF shouldn't be allowed to be used as a source even for rumor section here on OCN, imo.


where would we get all of our fun then?


----------



## Kimir

Oh there is plenty of other sources with rumor that are not at that level of garbage.


----------



## Jbravo33

I meant the stress test.









1 to 2 hours, allocate all memory.[/quote]

Just ran for an hour 4.6 @ 1.49 highest temps on one of Cores 76. So if I'm primarily gaming for now I'm assuming It won't stress as much as It just did?


----------



## Silent Scone

If you're simply gaming, no you won't put the CPU under such load, but that's still on the high side. You can always use the Thermal Control tool temps permitting.

Personally I would settle at whatever voltage you can dial 4.5 in at.


----------



## Vellinious

Most games still won't use more than one or two cores. I have 8 at 4.2 and 2 at 4.6. Seems to work great, and doesn't require the voltages set as high as it normally would.....plus, even at 4.6 on the two best cores, they're still running cooler than the hot cores at 4.2.

Unless you're playing a game that's heavily threaded....no need to burn down the house.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Most games still won't use more than one or two cores. I have 8 at 4.2 and 2 at 4.6. Seems to work great, and doesn't require the voltages set as high as it normally would.....plus, even at 4.6 on the two best cores, they're still running cooler than the hot cores at 4.2.
> 
> Unless you're playing a game that's heavily threaded....no need to burn down the house.


What games are you playing? Most of the games I play these days use at least 4 cores.

Really, the only non-indie games or games with poor optimization (Batman Arkham Knight and similar) I can think of that doesn't use more than 2 cores and was released in the last 3 years is ARMA 3.


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Most games still won't use more than one or two cores. I have 8 at 4.2 and 2 at 4.6. Seems to work great, and doesn't require the voltages set as high as it normally would.....plus, even at 4.6 on the two best cores, they're still running cooler than the hot cores at 4.2.
> 
> Unless you're playing a game that's heavily threaded....no need to burn down the house.


Lol. I'm doing something similar I was 45 on 5 cores and 46 on best and it was as out 1.46. I then tested a lot and noticed cores 1 and 2 we're always significantly lower in temps and raised them to 46 hence the 1.49 now. How can u tell which cores games utilize? Would like to tone it down a bit


----------



## MR-e

Hi guys, I'm looking for PSU suggestions from users with actual experience. I've browsed the PSU sub-forum and see a lot of recommendations of 650 watt psu's for dual GTX 1080's and 4 to 8 core systems. I'm not sure if those suggestions are for safeclocks.net but I find that hard to take seriously.

I'm proposing a 6950X with SLI GTX 1080ti's for an upcoming build. Presumably, CPU, GPU's, Ram (32GB 3200C13 or 3400C13 - whatever I can stabilize easier) will be overclocked to max hardware potential in a 24x7 daily driver environment. I'm thinking I would need at least a 1000W PSU to give some head room and not have the fan constantly spinning. Does this line up with your guys' hands on experience? I know a few of you guys run said rigs, or very similar.

I'm currently reading up on the following:

Seasonic Prime Platinum 1000W or 1200W
EVGA SuperNova P or T2 1000W ~ 1200W
Any suggestions for something else?

Thanks!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> What games are you playing? Most of the games I play these days use at least 4 cores.
> 
> Really, the only non-indie games or games with poor optimization (Batman Arkham Knight and similar) I can think of that doesn't use more than 2 cores and was released in the last 3 years is ARMA 3.


Yeah, multi threading has come into it's own in the last 12 to 18 months and I don't think people really noticed.


----------



## Jbravo33

Squad
Arma 3
H1z1
Project cars
Ghost recon wildlands
The division
Mass effect andromeda when it drops
Pretty much what I play. Besides ps4 pro


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> Lol. I'm doing something similar I was 45 on 5 cores and 46 on best and it was as out 1.46. I then tested a lot and noticed cores 1 and 2 we're always significantly lower in temps and raised them to 46 hence the 1.49 now. How can u tell which cores games utilize? Would like to tone it down a bit


I use HW Monitor or HW Info to monitor core / thread usage and the Intel boost software (though windows 10 does a pretty decent job anyway) to find the highest clock cores, and push programs to them first. A good many of the games I play, with clocks all set the same across all cores will bounce around quite a bit. Hitting on several cores here and there, but if you get one or two cores clocked higher, and aim the intel program at them, those higher clocked cores will eat up the majority of the work, with the other cores registering much lower usage.

There are obvious exceptions, with some games that are threaded very well, but....for the most part, gaming is still about one or two cores.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> WCCF shouldn't be allowed to be used as a source even for rumor section here on OCN, imo.


WCCF has the very best news....


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> What input, SA, IO and cache volt are you guys running for 4.4 - 4.6 GHz?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> Lol. I'm doing something similar I was 45 on 5 cores and 46 on best and it was as out 1.46. I then tested a lot and noticed cores 1 and 2 we're always significantly lower in temps and raised them to 46 hence the 1.49 now. How can u tell which cores games utilize? Would like to tone it down a bit


Aida64


----------



## TK421

So from hwbot it seems that haswell-e chips overclock better than broadwell-e?

Better get a 5960x compared to 6900K?


----------



## Dwofzz

I found that the best stress test is Rise of the Tombraider..







No seriously!! I ran realbench benchmark, 1h of occt and 4h of bf3 along with some editing ( 5x 40 min 4k videos ) totaly stable untill I fired up Rott.. xD


----------



## TK421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> I found that the best stress test is Rise of the Tombraider..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No seriously!! I ran realbench benchmark, 1h of occt and 4h of bf3 along with some editing ( 5x 40 min 4k videos ) totaly stable untill I fired up Rott.. xD


min 8 h of occt imo


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> So from hwbot it seems that haswell-e chips overclock better than broadwell-e?
> 
> Better get a 5960x compared to 6900K?


Depends.. Do you feel lucky? ;D


----------



## Shaded War

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> So from hwbot it seems that haswell-e chips overclock better than broadwell-e?
> 
> Better get a 5960x compared to 6900K?


I overclocked a friends 5820k to 4.5Ghz and it could have gone higher if temps were lower. I forgot that enabling xmp on DDR4-3200Mhz sets the speed to 125 and it made a couple seconds into the windows 10 splash screen with a 45 multiplier before crashing.

I'v had two 6800k and neither of them are stable above 4.25Ghz.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Depends.. Do you feel lucky? ;D


Yep - HW had a wider range of "normal". BW is less finicky, but has less head-room
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shaded War*
> 
> I overclocked a friends 5820k to 4.5Ghz and it could have gone higher if temps were lower. I forgot that enabling xmp on DDR4-3200Mhz sets the speed to 125 and it made a couple seconds into the windows 10 splash screen with a 45 multiplier before crashing.
> 
> I'v had two 6800k and neither of them are stable above 4.25Ghz.


Another important point is that BW's memory controller generally has more head-room than HW.

Also BW DID have some actual IPC gains over HW, so 4.25 BW will often beat 4.5 HW performance-wise, but it's a noisy comparison as the percentages are small enough that memory configurations on one or the other can tip the scales.

That is, a HW with optimal memory speed/timing even at the same core clock could match a BW with less than ideal memory configuration.

HW's cache also has MUCH more headroom. BW stops at 3.7/3.8 - HW easily goes to 4.2 and sometimes 4.5. That can make a difference depending on what you are doing with it.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Yep - HW had a wider range of "normal". BW is less finicky, but has less head-room
> Another important point is that BW's memory controller generally has more head-room than HW.
> 
> Also BW DID have some actual IPC gains over HW, so 4.25 BW will often beat 4.5 HW performance-wise, but it's a noisy comparison as the percentages are small enough that memory configurations on one or the other can tip the scales.
> 
> That is, a HW with optimal memory speed/timing even at the same core clock could match a BW with less than ideal memory configuration.
> 
> HW's cache also has MUCH more headroom. BW stops at 3.7/3.8 - HW easily goes to 4.2 and sometimes 4.5. That can make a difference depending on what you are doing with it.


Yes exactly. So if you feel lucky go with a 6900k after ryzen lunch otherwise get a 5960x and call it a day


----------



## SpeedyIV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Yep - HW had a wider range of "normal". BW is less finicky, but has less head-room
> Another important point is that BW's memory controller generally has more head-room than HW.
> 
> Also BW DID have some actual IPC gains over HW, so 4.25 BW will often beat 4.5 HW performance-wise, but it's a noisy comparison as the percentages are small enough that memory configurations on one or the other can tip the scales.
> 
> That is, a HW with optimal memory speed/timing even at the same core clock could match a BW with less than ideal memory configuration.
> 
> HW's cache also has MUCH more headroom. BW stops at 3.7/3.8 - HW easily goes to 4.2 and sometimes 4.5. That can make a difference depending on what you are doing with it.


FWIW this has been my experience with an i7-5820K. I can get my CPU to 4.5 GHz and Cache to 4.2 GHz easily at reasonable voltages and temps. It's the DDR4 DRAM that has been a challenge for me. I have a G.Skill F4-3333C16Q-32GTZB which has 1 XMP Profile for 3333 MHz that sets the Strap to 125. They are also Samsung E-Die chips (oops). I have never gotten that XMP profile to boot. I can get the kit stable at 2666 MHz but I have yet to crack 3000 MHz stable, even with expert advice from this forum on VDIMM Initial and Eventual, VCCIO, VCCSA, manually entering the primary and secondary timings etc. I attribute this limitation to some mix of IMC limitations and my lack of expertise in tweaking memory parameters in the BIOS.


----------



## Dwofzz

stable enough?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Useless to sit here for 1 - 2 h and do nothing, I'm going to use it as normal and see if it fails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll check back in the eve!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> 
> stable enough?


Interesting swing in direction. Certainly a good CPU but not sure why you didn't just go with my suggestion. 2 hours of Handbrake is telling enough.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Interesting swing in direction. Certainly a good CPU but not sure why you didn't just go with my suggestion. 2 hours of Handbrake is telling enough.


Got some spare time, so ran som errands and so on.. So I figured what the h*ll


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MR-e*
> 
> Hi guys, I'm looking for PSU suggestions from users with actual experience. I've browsed the PSU sub-forum and see a lot of recommendations of 650 watt psu's for dual GTX 1080's and 4 to 8 core systems. I'm not sure if those suggestions are for safeclocks.net but I find that hard to take seriously.
> 
> I'm proposing a 6950X with SLI GTX 1080ti's for an upcoming build. Presumably, CPU, GPU's, Ram (32GB 3200C13 or 3400C13 - whatever I can stabilize easier) will be overclocked to max hardware potential in a 24x7 daily driver environment. I'm thinking I would need at least a 1000W PSU to give some head room and not have the fan constantly spinning. Does this line up with your guys' hands on experience? I know a few of you guys run said rigs, or very similar.
> 
> I'm currently reading up on the following:
> 
> Seasonic Prime Platinum 1000W or 1200W
> EVGA SuperNova P or T2 1000W ~ 1200W
> Any suggestions for something else?
> 
> Thanks!


The EVGA is using the Superflower Leadex platform, solid choice there.








With locked voltage on those new cards (no 1.4v like 780Ti XD) and lower consumption, 1000w should be more than enough.


----------



## Dwofzz

So next challenge will be 4.75 GHz at 125 black with 3000 ram and 3000 cache if it's even remotely possible









Tbh I used to run extensive runs of occt and prime back in the days but I had one or two times where the pc was bench stable for 6 - 8h but after 50 min of gaming I had a crash so that's why I don't really stress it like that anymore lel


----------



## Silent Scone

Handbrake?

I'm genuinely interested to see if you can pass at 4.6 legitimately.


----------



## Dwofzz

At 1.4 to 1.45v maybe ( being optimistic here







) if it can reach that far, 4.5 GHz might be the wall I dunno yet but I'll keep posting my results.


----------



## Silent Scone

If you need more than 1.45v I wouldn't bother with Handbrake, was merely interested. 6850K I have here is RB stable at 1.39v for 4.5.

4.6 under 1.4v is exceptional.


----------



## Dwofzz

It's fine I got adequate cooling for this sort of things









And hardware degradation is just a myth


----------



## xarot

1.45V daily? Sure. When we had Q6600s.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> 1.45V daily? Sure. When we had Q6600s.


I ran my 4930k pegged at 4.6 GHz 1.425v for about 3 years no problem at alll


----------



## mrkambo

I'd say its pretty stable, but i reckon i could tighten the timings a bit more...might leave it how it is for now.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> I ran my 4930k pegged at 4.6 GHz 1.425v for about 3 years no problem at alll


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> It's fine I got adequate cooling for this sort of things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hardware degradation is just a myth


Whilst the affects are anything but mythical (nonsense statement), 1.45v on a 6850K is on the high side. That said for anything less than Handbrake you likely won't lose any sleep.


----------



## Dwofzz

I'll play some more with it later and see where I end up!


----------



## xTesla1856

After seeing all the reviews and numbers, I feel really good about my 6800K at 4.3









EDIT: Cancelled the 1800X, sorry no reviews from me!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Whilst the affects are anything but mythical (nonsense statement), 1.45v on a 6850K is on the high side. That said for anything less than Handbrake you likely won't lose any sleep.


One of the many bennies of adaptive if you can make it work with your desired OC.

It is only pegged if you peg it rather than cooking the chip 24/7.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> After seeing all the reviews and numbers, I feel really good about my 6800K at 4.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Cancelled the 1800X, sorry no reviews from me!


oof, watching some of those now...

Linus (LTT), in a pre-embargo-release video made a off-hand comment that he wasn't sure why one of the demos had 32G on intel and 16G on amd ("not sure why they knee-capped themselves?")

Guess we are seeing why today. 32G stops at 2666 on multiple kits (which further reinforces Asus's mention on the box of 64G limited to 2133). So, let the fun begin!

Does look like the threat to Intel's pricing is real, though the threat to the throne is not.

double oof watching Bitwit's commentary on OC.... Oooooooowch...


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Look at joker production video
https://youtu.be/Lay7YuqPscQ
6800k beat the 1800x in all games
I will repeat again : intel was , now and will always be the best from now till 101 years.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Look at joker production video
> https://youtu.be/Lay7YuqPscQ
> 6800k beat the 1800x in all games
> I will repeat again : intel was , now and will always be the best from now till 101 years.


Lol, no, Intel can and will fall on their face many times between now and then if (and that's a big if) they still exist by then.

I'm not a fanboi of either, but AMD invented x86-64 and made consumer multi-core a thing. Intel lagged, gave us sad cobbled dual cores and was the kaboose of the still 32bit fail train not so long ago.

Which is why you could not be a fanboi, but reward good products with purchase and bad with ridicule.

Intel has lagged behind many competitors at various times in either performance or power efficiency:
DEC Alpha
PowerPC
Sparc
ARM

Of course, they did catch up, but read that again - "catch up". Good for them, but they don't move forward quickly if at all without getting beaten. That's their very profitable MO.


----------



## MR-e

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> The EVGA is using the Superflower Leadex platform, solid choice there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With locked voltage on those new cards (no 1.4v like 780Ti XD) and lower consumption, 1000w should be more than enough.


Thank you Kimir, I'll look into some Titanium or Platinum 1000W units


----------



## Vellinious

The Ryzen benches are looking pretty impressive today. I'm lovin it.


----------



## gta1989

Ok guys after reading and reading on overclocking my 6850k. I can get 4.6ghz 1.45v realbench stable at 1 hour but with a cache at 2.6ghz 1.30v ring. if I bump it up at all it won't be stable am I missing something to get more cache clock out of it. My temps are at 75c max so temps seem to be in check. Running a msi mpower mobo with all protection turned off other then over temp. For testing. I put sa voltage up to 1.2v also for testing. With xmp of 2400mhz c14 stock specs of my ram. Thanks in advance for the help.


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> The Ryzen benches are looking pretty impressive today. I'm lovin it.


yeah, i should have waited instead of getting broadwell e. Since I game at 1440p cpu differences between two likely minimal, so could have gotten similar 8 core encoding peformance for 1/3 price, plus an upgrade path of cpu only to zen+, and got to play with entirely new toy AMD platform (hadnt since conroe). Just cant bring myself to do another sidegrade.. If Ryzen OCed to 4.5, I would be on AMD now through 2019...now have to wait and see skylake x or zen+.


----------



## Dwofzz

It is on 4.6 GHz here I come!











4.6GH, 1.425v and it pass cinebench.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> 
> 
> 4.6GH, 1.425v and it pass cinebench.


Crashed in RB so I gave up at that speed cus 1.425v is enough anything above isn't worth it imo.. So I tried 125 black and..


4.5 GHz ram 3250 MHz Cache 3500 MHz scoring the same as 4.6 GHz 100 blck ( I have my best core running at 4.625 GHz )



Think this will be my 24/7 settings, tighten up the ram some and then call it a day. Maybe try to lower the vcore a little if possible but otherwise I'm happy with this


----------



## Silent Scone

If you game, once you start pushing things (or even if you don't), if not stable in RealBench you're likely not stable elsewhere. Will become obvious soon enough if that's the case, though.

Again, I'm speaking of the stress test, not the benchmark.


----------



## Dwofzz

Yepp, so I'll do a Aida64 run again 1h or so RB is ridiculous since it includes the gpus which make my pc draw nearly 1300 watt from the wall so that's a no no


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Yepp, so I'll do a Aida64 run again 1h or so RB is ridiculous since it includes the gpus which make my pc draw nearly 1300 watt from the wall so that's a no no


lol, you can disable the lanes or simply disable the cards in device manager.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> lol, you can disable the lanes or simply disable the cards in device manager.


OR just run another stress test


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> OR just run another stress test


Realbench is the most representative one you'll find when it comes to gaming given the load placed on the GPU(S).

You could run the 3DMark stress test which will tell you absolutely nothing about the CPU stability - but then the load placed on the GPUs will be the same as what you are so concerned about now. If you can't see how illogical that is, then carry on


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> OR just run another stress test


if you just want to use an encoding stresstest, this one works very well.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you just want to use an encoding stresstest, this one works very well.


I find I can pass this consistently but still fall over in Real Bench. Still a great tool to have, though


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you just want to use an encoding stresstest, this one works very well.


Thanks!


----------



## Dwofzz

1080p 30 fps to HQ 1080 surround.
Think this is enough let's bump that ram to 3500 MHz!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I find I can pass this consistently but still fall over in Real Bench. Still a great tool to have, though


yeah - it's only a subset of RealBench... only works the cpu, not the graphics or ram.








basically, if the cpou passes this (1.5x number of threads, a couple of hours) and then fails RB... well you know where to look.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> 
> 
> 1080p 30 fps to HQ 1080 surround.
> Think this is enough let's bump that ram to 3500 MHz!


1 loop is not even a warm up lap. use 18 threads and run at least 20 loops if you want ot know if the system is stable to x264 encoding. then do ram.


----------



## spyui

Can anyone tell how much ram should i select in realbench for cpu stress test if i have 32 gb ram in the system ?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyui*
> 
> Can anyone tell how much ram should i select in realbench for cpu stress test if i have 32 gb ram in the system ?


32GB


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - it's only a subset of RealBench... only works the cpu, not the graphics or ram.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basically, if the cpou passes this (1.5x number of threads, a couple of hours) and then fails RB... well you know where to look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 loop is not even a warm up lap. use 18 threads and run at least 20 loops if you want ot know if the system is stable to x264 encoding. then do ram.


Didn't have time for that now.. I'll do a 20 loop when i'm of to the base








So I'll post back in like 8 - 9h.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Didn't have time for that now.. I'll do a 20 loop when i'm of to the base
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll post back in like 8 - 9h.


In reality, there's only one person you should care to prove stability/usefulness to.


----------



## lilchronic

Try the x265 benchmark
Here is my 5820k 4.7Ghz/4.5Ghz


Took too long to take the screen shot but memory usage was up around 22-23GB


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> In reality, there's only one person you should care to prove stability/usefulness to.


The wife / significant other?


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> In reality, there's only one person you should care to prove stability/usefulness to.


Myself







but it might be interesting to someone who struggles with their system.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Myself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but it might be interesting to someone who struggles with *their system*.


Or handbrake


----------



## Kimir

Ahah


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Or handbrake


Well yee x)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> The wife / significant other?


that's not likely the "stability" they (or you) should be interested in....


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's not likely the "stability" they (or you) should be interested in....


I'm cool with Granny ... I'll just stay in my room 'till she's done...


----------



## Dwofzz

How high is it worth taking the cache volt? This is a tricky one and I have no solid information on this point when it comes to BWE..


----------



## ELIAS-EH

hello everyone

*I found that the best stability software is the OCCT
*

my 6800K 4.2 GHz passed 2 hours on P95 blend test and 15 run very high on Intel burn test but failed after 2 min on OCCT large data set (error detected) !

I increased the voltage a bit and it passed 1 hour on OCCT large data set without error.

before I have random freeze in battlefield 1, but now perfectly stable and no more crash or freeze in any game.

6800K 4.2 GHz 1.32V (Temp always under 50 degree C).

I think a CPU that passed 1 hour on OCCT large data set is perfectly stable (generally errors occurs within 3 minutes).

regards


----------



## dVeLoPe

quick question

what will be 2x the performance of a 4.4ghz 5820k?

would that be the 10 core or the 8 core or none?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dVeLoPe*
> 
> quick question
> 
> what will be 2x the performance of a 4.4ghz 5820k?
> 
> would that be the 10 core or the 8 core or none?


Depends on the application workload and the system configuration among other things. It's a how long is a piece of string question.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Anyone got any idea why this might happen.

I've got a modest overclock on my 6900k (4Ghz with 1 core at 4.2Ghz), sometimes when I run x265 Benchmark, my screen with go black for a second then come back on, x265 is still running and finishes fine.

I don't know if it has anything to do with the OC or maybe the 144hz monitor, used to happen on my previous 6900k/Strix setup that died.

Never mind event viewers log "Display driver nvlddmkm stopped responding and has successfully recovered."
Strange it does that though.


----------



## Silent Scone

Remove any OSD and overclocking tools for the GPU and see if it persists.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dVeLoPe*
> 
> quick question
> 
> what will be 2x the performance of a 4.4ghz 5820k?
> 
> would that be the 10 core or the 8 core or none?


an 8.8 5820K


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> an 8.8 5820K


----------



## Dwofzz

So... I'll end my journey with the 6850k and the Rampage Edition 10 with this :

CPU
Adaptive Mode
1.3v
offset + 69
( reads as 1.363v / actual with mm is 1.3596v )
Core 45
Core 45
Core 45
Core 45
Core 46
Core 45x
Input voltage 1.92 ( reads as 1.904 / actual is 1.888v )
SA Offset + 90 ( I think







) gives me 1.04v anyways..
LLC : 6
Vrm switch freq : 600
CC : 140%
PPC : Optimised
PDC : Extreme
Internal PLL ov : Enabled
Xtreme Tweaking : Enabled
source clock tuner : 6Ohm
PLL selection: LC PLL
Asus MCE : Disabled
Power limit : 4095

Cache
37x
Manual mode
1.223v

Mem
1.35v
3400 MHz
rampage tweak mode 2
Fast Boot / Cold Boot - Disabled
Swizzles all Enabled
Bclk Freq : Dram Freq : 100:100

Passed :
10 loops of x264 at normal with 18 threads
12x Cinebench 11.5 / 15.52p
Firestrike : 20476 physics
Handbrake : 9m vid in 1080p to Legacy android
RB Benchmark
Aida64 : All mem test and queen

Won't post any more pictures atm, Don't want to clog up the whole thread


----------



## Jbravo33

im confused. I previously had asked not sure in this thread that if i set manual core voltage lets say 1.35 that it constantly stays at 1.35 all the time. where as if set to auto it adjusts by usage so during non usage it would drop down to .79. im on auto and at 4.6Ghz it peaks at 1.46 volts but then drops when not in use. So if entering a manual value and its a constant 1.35 how is maxing out at 1.46 worse than a constant 1.35? wouldnt that pretty much equal out? or should i say isnt that more stress for cpu at the constant voltage? Im using 3 rads for just cpu so temps arent issue.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> im confused. I previously had asked not sure in this thread that if i set manual core voltage lets say 1.35 that it constantly stays at 1.35 all the time. where as if set to auto it adjusts by usage so during non usage it would drop down to .79. im on auto and at 4.6Ghz it peaks at 1.46 volts but then drops when not in use. So if entering a manual value and its a constant 1.35 how is maxing out at 1.46 worse than a constant 1.35? wouldnt that pretty much equal out? or should i say isnt that more stress for cpu at the constant voltage? Im using 3 rads for just cpu so temps arent issue.


idle voltage has no effect on durability, voltage (and current) under load is the important issue. So, at the same frequency under load, 1.35V is better than 1.46V assuming the 1.35V setting is stable. Folks worry way too much about idle voltage - it's basically meaningless. If you want your voltage to drop with clocks, you need to use Adaptive or Offset, with speedstep enabled.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> idle voltage has no effect on durability, voltage (and current) under load is the important issue. So, at the same frequency under load, 1.35V is better than 1.46V assuming the 1.35V setting is stable. Folks worry way too much about idle voltage - it's basically meaningless. If you want your voltage to drop with clocks, you need to use Adaptive or Offset, with speedstep enabled.


And 1.46v @ -196°c is of no harm at all while 1.35v can be already too much at 90°c.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> And 1.46v @ -196°c is of no harm at all while 1.35v can be already too much at 90°c.


very true... temperature is as important. under load


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> idle voltage has no effect on durability, voltage (and current) under load is the important issue. So, at the same frequency under load, 1.35V is better than 1.46V assuming the 1.35V setting is stable. Folks worry way too much about idle voltage - it's basically meaningless. If you want your voltage to drop with clocks, you need to use Adaptive or Offset, with speedstep enabled.


It is quite true that rapid damage comes with high current, but long-term voltage does affect longevity of a device as well.

At an atomic level things are always moving and they move more when there is more energy (potential, voltage) present in the system to allow them to overcome their bonds and physical constraints. Observed current is electrons moving over prescribed paths, but voltage present in the system provides energy to everything exposed to that voltage (hence heat, leakage current, etc...).

So, while various parts of the processor are literally powered down in idle so not exposed to this elevated voltage, there are other parts that are always on.

What's the real affect in life span? Intel's PD squirrels could give you some curves I'm sure, but even those are a probability not a promise. Less is better.


----------



## Silent Scone

So as stated it's basically meaningless to be concerned.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> So as stated it's basically meaningless to be concerned.


The opposite actually, its not easily quantifiable... Less is better, how much is unknown, but if you can make it lower, you should.

How much or how much you should be concerned is non-linearly related to what you voltage you use and how long you expect to use the chip.

If you upgrade every 12-18 months anyway, then pay the PTP tax and cook that thing. If you cycle your rigs through less and less important compute jobs as they age, then its nice to have them around longer.

As the Atom C2000 issue shows, "wear" is a thing on silicon and each and every path in the chip ultimately has its own margin before it stops working.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> The opposite actually, its not easily quantifiable... Less is better, how much is unknown, but if you can make it lower, you should.
> 
> How much or how much you should be concerned is non-linearly related to what you voltage you use and how long you expect to use the chip.
> 
> If you upgrade every 12-18 months anyway, then pay the PTP tax and cook that thing. If you cycle your rigs through less and less important compute jobs as they age, then its nice to have them around longer.
> 
> As the Atom C2000 issue shows, "wear" is a thing on silicon and each and every path in the chip ultimately has its own margin before it stops working.


How exactly is that the opposite? You're postulating something that JP hasn't denied exists. If you aren't able to quantify it, don't imply it's an issue. Not really an argument/debate that needs to be had.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> How exactly is that the opposite? You're postulating something that JP hasn't denied exists. If you aren't able to quantify it, don't imply it's an issue. Not really an argument/debate that needs to be had.


I'm saying the only safe bet is "less is better".

Exactly how much is too much or whether you are talking about degredation that shows in years or decades is the unknown, so you should use as much voltage as required and no more.

One of my favorite quotes:
"the solution to a problem should be no more complex than necessary.... but not less."


----------



## djgar

You need to define "what is necessary". Basically, the best solution is the simplest solution that actually solves the problem. Of course there could be other non-best solutions, but they might be more convenient in some situations for whatever reasons







.


----------



## Silent Scone

If stating the obvious was always this methodical I'd be late for work every morning


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> If stating the obvious was always this methodical I'd be late for work every morning


:







I was disagreeing that you should not worry about fixed high voltages. You should worry, ranging from not much to a lot depending on that voltage and your expectations for the life-span of the device.

Intel and AMD set their thresholds based on yield. Yield is a probability function. Even if a chip makes it past manufacturing and test, imperfections are waiting to fail based on heat and current. You are rolling the dice at stock voltages and frequencies, much less the spanking that most of us are giving them.

Contrary to popular belief, turbo speeds are not capped and core-count based because Intel and AMD don't like us.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was disagreeing that you should not worry about fixed high voltages. You should worry, ranging from not much to a lot depending on that voltage and your expectations for the life-span of the device.
> 
> Intel and AMD set their thresholds based on yield. Yield is a probability function. Even if a chip makes it past manufacturing and test, imperfections are waiting to fail based on heat and current. You are rolling the dice at stock voltages and frequencies, much less the spanking that most of us are giving them.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, turbo speeds are not capped and core-count based because Intel and AMD don't like us.


AFAIK, Intel sets the acceptable operating range (AOR) based upon a set of conditions (detailed in the spec sheets) and Max Operating Voltage requires both temperature and current conditions are satisfied (in other words, running 1.52V at 2x the TDP is not within the AOR, running 1.52V at 15W is). That said, we all know you can have your CPU sitting there at 6GHZ with 1.6V and it's a happy camper, ask it to do any work and it will either fall over or.... be the bulb that burns brightest before it burns out.


----------



## djgar

BE THE BULB ... BE THE BULB ... BE THE BULB ...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> AFAIK, Intel sets the acceptable operating range (AOR) based upon a set of conditions (detailed in the spec sheets) and Max Operating Voltage requires both temperature and current conditions are satisfied (in other words, running 1.52V at 2x the TDP is not within the AOR, running 1.52V at 15W is). That said, we all know you can have your CPU sitting there at 6GHZ with 1.6V and it's a happy camper, ask it to do any work and it will either fall over or.... be the bulb that burns brightest before it burns out.


Generally speaking the forces on ions in a semiconductor lattice are based on current and temperature (and ion density, blah, blah, blah). Until voltage is sufficient to produce current paths outside the intended conductors and things really get ugly.

However, a given structure (ex: a gate) in the device does not concern itself for the power consumed by the whole chip. It only cares what heat and current that IT sees and whatever physical damage that causes.

The gate damaged may be the least interesting part of the chip, but without it, the chip may no longer be useful for its intended purpose.

You are absolutely correct that rapid damage generally requires more wide-spread chip load as without it, current simply isn't flowing, most gates are not draining, pathways are not open to current flow, etc... That (high load) is the most likely scenario of failure in the near term - hence 1.30v+ on the cache with a few billions of gates toggling away draining amps of current though tiny metal layer routes, pads and pins and hilarity ensues...

However, some parts of the chip are always on and those parts are now seeing max voltage all the time and the corresponding current that goes with when they switch. They may not be as exciting as an ALU/FPU/Cache/address generator, but they are essential to function none-the-less. And again, they may tolerate that voltage for 1 month or 20 years, based on how much electron migration must occur before the function of a given gate has degraded sufficiently to alter the logical function of the system.

Whether it is 1 month or 20 years is a function of probability for any given gate in any given chip.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> BE THE BULB ... BE THE BULB ... BE THE BULB ...


Na na na na... Be the bulb Danny....


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Generally speaking the forces on ions in a semiconductor lattice are based on current and temperature (and ion density, blah, blah, blah). Until voltage is sufficient to produce current paths outside the intended conductors and things really get ugly.
> 
> However, a given structure (ex: a gate) in the device does not concern itself for the power consumed by the whole chip. It only cares what heat and current that IT sees and whatever physical damage that causes.
> 
> The gate damaged may be the least interesting part of the chip, but without it, the chip may no longer be useful for its intended purpose.
> 
> You are absolutely correct that rapid damage generally requires more wide-spread chip load as without it, current simply isn't flowing, most gates are not draining, pathways are not open to current flow, etc... That (high load) is the most likely scenario of failure in the near term - hence 1.30v+ on the cache with a few billions of gates toggling away draining amps of current though tiny metal layer routes, pads and pins and hilarity ensues...
> 
> However, some parts of the chip are always on and those parts are now seeing max voltage all the time and the corresponding current that goes with when they switch. They may not be as exciting as an ALU/FPU/Cache/address generator, but they are essential to function none-the-less. And again, they may tolerate that voltage for 1 month or 20 years, based on how much electron migration must occur before the function of a given gate has degraded sufficiently to alter the logical function of the system.
> 
> Whether it is 1 month or 20 years is a function of probability for any given gate in any given chip.


20 years is nice, but I'll take 2-3 good years.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 20 years is nice, but I'll take 2-3 good years.


Careful what you wish for since Tick-Tock is now, tick-Tooooooooooooooooock/process/architecture/optimization/marketing mumbo/marketing jumbo/hey here's another one that's completely identical except you totally need this chip or your toilet will no longer flush because we made a deal with all the toiler manufactures to require this hardware hand-shake...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Na na na na... Be the bulb Danny....


Yup, but that should be nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah. Gotta get that inflection


----------



## Vlada011

If Intel don't want, there is who can, AMD will sell i7-6950X speed for 500$.
Only is question what customers want, false reality and technology from 2012 with more cores or something newer and better as Ryzen.
I don't know how reviews success to sold story when i7-6950X have single threaded performance as i7-3770K, I bought him in May 2012.
And I looked single threded performance are as i7-6950X. Who say that he need to be so slow per cores. AMD prove opposite.
Most tragic is comparison between successors of Intel Xtreme, i7-3970X vs i7-6850K, 6 core vs 6 core, 15MB vs 15MB Cache, 5 years distance.
Check them, easiest is in CPU-Z Benchmark

i7-3960X 3.3GHz - 7600
i7-6850X 3.6GHz - 10.000
my i7-5820K OC 4.2 - 12.200

i7-3970X is even closer because little higher clock.

AMD R7 1800X - 20.000

Here you can see how small is difference between Intel processors for 5 years, so small as overclocked CPU.
And everyone will compare i7-3970X vs i7-6950X and that's not fair. We have practicaly 10-15% improvement for 5 years.
If we compare core for core, same clock, same CPU, everything same only newer. TRAGEDY. T. R.A.G.E.D.Y!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> If Intel don't want, there is who can, AMD will sell i7-6950X speed for 500$.
> Only is question what customers want, false reality and technology from 2012 with more cores or something newer and better as Ryzen.
> I don't know how reviews success to sold story when i7-6950X have single threaded performance as i7-3770K, I bought him in May 2012.
> And I looked single threded performance are as i7-6950X. Who say that he need to be so slow per cores. AMD prove opposite.
> Most tragic is comparison between successors of Intel Xtreme, i7-3970X vs i7-6850K, 6 core vs 6 core, 15MB vs 15MB Cache, 5 years distance.
> Check them, easiest is in CPU-Z Benchmark
> 
> i7-3960X 3.3GHz - 7600
> i7-6850X 3.6GHz - 10.000
> my i7-5820K OC 4.2 - 12.200
> 
> i7-3970X is even closer because little higher clock.
> 
> AMD R7 1800X - 20.000
> 
> Here you can see how small is difference between Intel processors for 5 years, so small as overclocked CPU.
> And everyone will compare i7-3970X vs i7-6950X and that's not fair. We have practicaly 10-15% improvement for 5 years.
> If we compare core for core, same clock, same CPU, everything same only newer. TRAGEDY. T. R.A.G.E.D.Y!


very hard to beat AMD's performance improvement... it went from ZERO to acceptable performance in what... 5 years?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> very hard to beat AMD's performance improvement... it went from ZERO to acceptable performance in what... 5 years?


Glad you're cheering for the other side as well









All Intel need to do is drop Skylake-X at a reasonable price and there's Ryzen dead in the water.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Glad you're cheering for the other side as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Intel need to do is drop Skylake-X at a reasonable price and there's Ryzen dead in the water.


eh... it's keeping it's head above water. Intel got a little complacent.

I'm "impressed" by the 5820K's number posted above... would like to have seen a snip








Here's what I have running ATM. maybe i'll have a ryzen at some point (soon).


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> eh... it's keeping it's head above water. Intel got a little complacent.
> 
> I'm "impressed" by the 5820K's number posted above... would like to have seen a snip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I have running ATM. maybe i'll have a ryzen at some point (soon).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I do think it had Intel worried as well, they have nothing in that core count to match the pricing/performance value.

I'm actually interested in see what you've got to say about it as well.
It's certainly not time to replace the 6900k with, but it would give performance boost to my wife's aging 4790k in productivity (her Ethernet port just died on the Hero board too..lol).


----------



## Vlada011

Yes, but Intel should change and improve Skylake Xtreme for 6 months 3 times more than for 5 years.
Who will buy Intel from normal population if their 8 core beat AMD for 10-20% and cost 800-900$. i7-6900K and i7-6950X together have less than 70-80 reports on Newegg from customers. That's not market. Market is up to 500$ and for 300-350$.
And second 6 core model no way to beat AMD because Broadwell-E is 60% weaker than 1800X/
How Intel could jump from 10.000 CPU-Z benchmark to 20.000 as 1800X for 6 core I don't know, for 6 months.
First samples of Skylake Xtreme are finished in December 2016. There is real chance that CPU is finished before they could change rapidly.

Everything is on side of AMD...AMD win in three P, PPP.

1. Performance
2. Price
3. Power Consumption

He win and because no Cheap paste, and because no Non K models where Intel sabotage overclocking.
Because poor people who pay only 300$ for i7 should OC their CPU, they need to pay 70-100$ more for OC and than they will have mocus under IHS.
If not they need to pay more for CPU and more for motherboard for other chipset. But then they chipset will be Gen 2 with less PCI-E lanes than chipset compatible only with 4 cores CPU. Madness.

And how Intel could jump from 10 to 20.000 in CPU-Z benchmark for 6 months, when for 5 years difference is from 7600 to 10.000.
I predict that even when Skylake show up AMD will be better in most situation, in best scenario off course. In other scenarion only 8 core will be faster than all AMDs, and i 6 core class AMD will win with 6 cores models and 8 cores models for same price as Intel 6 core.
We lived with AMD weakness not Intel;s power. Intel do nothing they run in circle only without competitior. And we have no answer is it Intel capable to design one more success as Nehalem. All money he get from us for Xtreme processor and mainstream he invest in battle with Samsung, Qualcome,. etc...But there he had players and he was not alone and he didn't pass very well from that battle and results is Samsung dominate on field of SSD SATA III and M.2 SSD.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Ah I nearly pooped myself then.
I just shutdown to reapply thermal paste, booted back up, got a new CPU detected, loaded my saved settings, restarted, code bf.
Long story short my VCCSA and VCCIO were to low (VCCIO 1.020, VCCSA 0.854v), after the string of problems with these Strix boards I was stressing.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Ah I nearly pooped myself then.
> I just shutdown to reapply thermal paste, booted back up, got a new CPU detected, loaded my saved settings, restarted, code bf.
> Long story short my VCCSA and VCCIO were to low (VCCIO 1.020, VCCSA 0.854v), after the string of problems with these Strix boards I was stressing.


how were the voltages too low if it was up and running before the shutdown? Sometimes I forget to re-save an OC after tweaking over a week or so - then that momentary sphincter relaxing moment when it fails to boot.


----------



## lilchronic

5820k 4.7Ghz


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> how were the voltages too low if it was up and running before the shutdown? Sometimes I forget to re-save an OC after tweaking over a week or so - then that momentary sphincter relaxing moment when it fails to boot.


I honestly can't answer that, it just happened even after loading the OC profile.
Seems ok now I increased it though, might try lowering them again see what happens.

It happened twice when I turned off the power (after shutting down) at the power supply.
Now it's all good.

Man I've got little trust in these Strix's at the moment..lol..

Update:
Just put the values back to before, powered off machine, turned of PSU, booted fine.
I did set the ram voltages manually though (1.36v).


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> So as stated it's basically meaningless to be concerned.


True, I have been running manual voltage 24/7 over 4 cpus from the x58 time :
980x 4.5 GHz 1.44v
3930k 4.8 GHz 1.42v
4930k 4.5 GHz 1.425v
4960x 4.6 GHz 1.32v
And none of them have died or is performing worse than when they where new









*I'm not saying* that you should go out there and nuke your cpu with volt to reach your desired frequency but if you keep them at max 75 degree and 1.4v or lower they will last you a good while imo







!


----------



## Vanquish171

I just got my i7 6850k around 4 days ago, traded in my janky-ass i7 6800k, which was unstable at 4.2GHz even at 1.45V. I played around with the OC a little bit as I am bit of a noob overclocker. Here are my settings:

I got 4.0GHz with 1.178V with straight up EZ OC from the board as sort of a baseline.

Currently running it at 4.3GHz at 1.25V, this values were just from the top of my head and the results were surprising,

1) 10 runs of Cinebench R15

2) 15 mins of OCCT: Linpack (90% of Memory): Passed

3) 10 mins of OCCT: CPU OCCT, large data set (90% of Memory): Passed

4) 8 Hrs of ROG Realbench Stress test with max 32GB RAM: Passed

5) 8 Hrs of OCCT: Linpack (90% of Memory): Failed (After 24 mins)

6) 8 Hrs of OCCT: CPU OCCT, large data set (90% of Memory): Failed (After 18 mins)

7) Online gaming session of 2 Hrs+ of Battlefield 1 - 64 player Conquest, 5 Hrs+ of Overwatch, 1+ Hrs of Rainbow Six Siege = Not a single crash or any hiccup

My question to you Gurus are whether I should consider my OC as stable and proceed as planned since it passed the 8 Hr test of Realbench or should I tweak it further as it didn't pass an hour of OCCT? The Error OCCT shows are in Core #0 and Core #1. Any feedback would be great as I want to learn but don't have enough time in hand to devote to this cause.

My PC Specs:

CPU: i7 6850K
Cooler: Corsair GTX H100i GTX
Motherboard: Gigabyte X99 Ultra Gaming
RAM: 32GB (4 x 8GB) G.Skill Trident Z 3200MHz RAM
GPU: GTX 970 (Placeholder as I pre-ordered the 1080 Ti:thumb
PSU: Cooler Master V850


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was disagreeing that you should not worry about fixed high voltages. You should worry, ranging from not much to a lot depending on that voltage and your expectations for the life-span of the device.
> 
> Intel and AMD set their thresholds based on yield. Yield is a probability function. Even if a chip makes it past manufacturing and test, imperfections are waiting to fail based on heat and current. You are rolling the dice at stock voltages and frequencies, much less the spanking that most of us are giving them.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, turbo speeds are not capped and core-count based because Intel and AMD don't like us.


Worrying about something like that is for those of a tinfoil or nervous disposition. If we take the fact that Intel specify the max VID to be applicable to stock frequency alone, then anything above this is a cekim (my new term for unnecessary concern







)

The Intel tuning plan should be considered if this is the case.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The Intel tuning plan should be considered if this is the case.


That reminds me...I still need to register my 6800K for it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> That reminds me...I still need to register my 6800K for it.


came in handy for me a week ago. New 5960X.


----------



## arrow0309

Hi guys, I'm gonna join soon with a 6850K from ebay.uk (oc 4.4 @1.36v, and 4.5Ghz @ ~1.42v.), 5 months old.
Going to buy a micro-atx (can't install regular atx motherboards) Asus X99M WS/SE
And (already have) a 4x8gb Trident Z kit @3600 cl17


----------



## dVeLoPe

i only ask because i think i got a looser chip and it maxs out at 4.3/4.4 for the 5820k and my buddy can get me intel edge pricing


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> If Intel don't want, there is who can, AMD will sell i7-6950X speed for 500$.
> Only is question what customers want, false reality and technology from 2012 with more cores or something newer and better as Ryzen.
> I don't know how reviews success to sold story when i7-6950X have single threaded performance as i7-3770K, I bought him in May 2012.
> And I looked single threded performance are as i7-6950X. Who say that he need to be so slow per cores. AMD prove opposite.
> Most tragic is comparison between successors of Intel Xtreme, i7-3970X vs i7-6850K, 6 core vs 6 core, 15MB vs 15MB Cache, 5 years distance.
> Check them, easiest is in CPU-Z Benchmark
> 
> i7-3960X 3.3GHz - 7600
> i7-6850X 3.6GHz - 10.000
> my i7-5820K OC 4.2 - 12.200
> 
> i7-3970X is even closer because little higher clock.
> 
> AMD R7 1800X - 20.000
> 
> Here you can see how small is difference between Intel processors for 5 years, so small as overclocked CPU.
> And everyone will compare i7-3970X vs i7-6950X and that's not fair. We have practicaly 10-15% improvement for 5 years.
> If we compare core for core, same clock, same CPU, everything same only newer. TRAGEDY. T. R.A.G.E.D.Y!
> 
> 
> 
> very hard to beat AMD's performance improvement... it went from ZERO to acceptable performance in what... 5 years?
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly Zero, here we have an FX 8300 scoring higher (max) fps than a 5Ghz 7700K











But maybe it's for the running shaddow play that makes the FX a more competitive cpu


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Well, not exactly Zero, here we have an FX 8300 scoring higher (max) fps than a 5Ghz 7700K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But maybe it's for the running shaddow play that makes the FX a more competitive cpu


well that really does say it is still ZERO for AMD... the 8300 is as good as the 1800X, silly.








(pointing to outlier data points is meaningless)


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys i need your help please.
My system
6800k
32 gb 2666 mhz
X99a pro carbon

My CPU stable at 4.1 ghz 1.275V
4.2 ghz 1.335V
I know it is not a good oc chip
Can you help me which one should i choose between to two oc for daily use and gaming?
i am so confused about voltage to damage the cpu
My temp always under 50 degree on gaming with water cooler
Thank u all


----------



## Vellinious

I'm pretty impressed with Ryzen. I really didn't expect them to perform as well as they have. Gaming performance aside, which I don't much care about anyway....which I'm sure will get addressed some when games are optimized for SMT, and AMD fixes their memory problems.

I plan on building one.


----------



## cg4200

I have same Mb but 6850k.. I don't know how you are cooling?? no sig but I have ek block water cooling mine at every day @4.6 1.385 as long as you are not going 90c or over 1.40 for every day (with proper cooling)
I played with my board voltages before I found a good mix..if it helps my settings on my pro carbon
ring 34 @1.120
core 4.6 1.385
vccin 1.905
cpu mode adaptive
cpu vccu 1.170
cpu sa 1.16
cpu vccio 1.090
dram 1.38
vdroop 75%
and a couple other settings in where vdroop are I set optimized
I would try 4.5 with those settings and if fail try 4.4 good luck


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys i need your help please.
> My system
> 6800k
> 32 gb 2666 mhz
> X99a pro carbon
> 
> My CPU stable at 4.1 ghz 1.275V
> 4.2 ghz 1.335V
> I know it is not a good oc chip
> Can you help me which one should i choose between to two oc for daily use and gaming?
> i am so confused about voltage to damage the cpu
> My temp always under 50 degree on gaming with water cooler
> Thank u all


Are you sure you can't get a better one?
However 4.2 is better than 4.1, 1.33v won't be something a BD can't handle if the themps are OK
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I'm pretty impressed with Ryzen. I really didn't expect them to perform as well as they have. Gaming performance aside, which I don't much care about anyway....which I'm sure will get addressed some when games are optimized for SMT, and AMD fixes their memory problems.
> 
> I plan on building one.


Yeah, I was looking for one also but they still don't run well, the memory latency is a big issue there.
Maybe they'll get a little better after some windows & bios updates, even a CPU revision would be welcomed.
They also don't overclock as they seemed to be already pushed to their limits and except for the LN2 stuff there's little headroom left


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Are you sure you can't get a better one?
> However 4.2 is better than 4.1, 1.33v won't be something a BD can't handle if the themps are OK
> 
> thanks for your reply/
> So 1.33V is safe ?
> 
> I cannot get another CPU, anyway I was looking to achieve the 4.2 Ghz but I am surprised that my chip needs that amount of voltage.
> 
> I saw some people have their 22nm CPU at 1.38V without any issue for many years, but I don't know if the 14nm can support that voltage for a long time


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Worrying about something like that is for those of a tinfoil or nervous disposition. If we take the fact that Intel specify the max VID to be applicable to stock frequency alone, then anything above this is a cekim (my new term for unnecessary concern
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> The Intel tuning plan should be considered if this is the case.


Chuckle... Not nervous at all, just trying to keep you guys honest for people who end up in here via google not realizing that their pain threshold, use case and expectations for longevity might be slightly longer than some in here who buy the PTP without a thought and for whom blowing a chip or 3 now and then is just part of the fun.

As silicon feature size shrinks, Intel and AMD are more and more building systems that are fit to typical usage (Intel and AMD spend a fair amount of time trolling through applications and source-code and make choices in their architecture sized to "what's out there").

They are fitting their chips to the reality that even in well designed IT systems, there's a lot of down-time. A little less extremely than SSD vendors who are often pushing the bounds of fraud with their drives that throttle quickly and badly because temp or running out of cache once they've reached the advertised throughput rate for a few seconds.

Those pushing the envelope need to understand that in some cases they are driving a VW bug at 200MPH and set expecations accordingly. Hit a big enough love-bug and show's over.


----------



## tps3443

It's so funny I was literally all over the place with which CPU to get.. 6950X, 6900K, 5960X, 1680 V3? I even considered a Ryzen.. yep I did.

5960X sale fell through..

Almost ordered a 6950X, my wife would have killed me..

I ended up buying a Xeon 1680 V2 8 core for $600. I WENT DINOSAUR STYLE on EM!

I'm hunting down a X79 board.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Those pushing the envelope need to understand that in some cases they are driving a VW bug at 200MPH and set expecations accordingly. Hit a big enough love-bug and show's over.


Yesterday you were making a case that people should be concerned with"driving" at lower speeds. So which is it today? I think on that shift in goal posts it's best to leave it.

Bottom line is your concern is more than it should be, especially given by example you can't show anything for it. By the time these things present themselves, everyone replying in this thread will have moved on to the next best thing. Any rapid degradation occurs due to misadventure with settings, or hammering the CPU with current.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> It's so funny I was literally all over the place with which CPU to get.. 6950X, 6900K, 5960X, 1680 V3? I even considered a Ryzen.. yep I did.
> 
> 5960X sale fell through..
> 
> Almost ordered a 6950X, my wife would have killed me..
> 
> I ended up buying a Xeon 1680 V2 8 core for $600. I WENT DINOSAUR STYLE on EM!
> 
> I'm hunting down a X79 board.


What's the difference between the v2 and v3 one?
Holy crap, the V3 is kinda expensive








What is a cpu (8core) like that capable to do for that amount of money?


----------



## rolldog

I keep reading all these articles about Skylake, Kaby, etc and these new Z270 MBs. As Intel keeps releasing these newer CPUs, none of them have as many cores as the 6950x. I assume some of these newer MBs will have more features than my X99 Deluxe II. How do these newer MBs and newer CPUs compare to the 6950X with the X99 chipset? All the reviews don't compare performance with the 6950X, only with other CPUs with less cores. When would it be advantageous to upgrade to a newer CPU? I imagine it's only beneficial to upgrade if someone is only running single threaded operations, correct? It's difficult to compare apples to apples when none of the newer CPUs have 10 cores. Maybe I need a 2nd system.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rolldog*
> 
> I keep reading all these articles about Skylake, Kaby, etc and these new Z270 MBs. As Intel keeps releasing these newer CPUs, none of them have as many cores as the 6950x. I assume some of these newer MBs will have more features than my X99 Deluxe II. How do these newer MBs and newer CPUs compare to the 6950X with the X99 chipset? All the reviews don't compare performance with the 6950X, only with other CPUs with less cores. When would it be advantageous to upgrade to a newer CPU? I imagine it's only beneficial to upgrade if someone is only running single threaded operations, correct? It's difficult to compare apples to apples when none of the newer CPUs have 10 cores. Maybe I need a 2nd system.


These are 2 distinct market segments that overlap with people playing games.

The comparison in TLDR form is:
1. Z270+4Core chip = best for gaming (better in many/most cases than X99+K or X chips
- Also best for reaching absolute GHz OC
2. X99 = best for productivity and benchmarking if your software can make use of it and compensating for your personal shortcomings as needed.
- Also best for systems where you have lots of high-bandwidth PCIE devices and can make use of the BW.

X99 and X/K HEDT can approach or equal game performance of 7700K in some cases, but out-of-the-box and even after a little tuning, the 7700k has the GHz advantage. My 6700k and 5920k @4.7 perform pretty much identically because the 5920k is OC'd and has a slight bump in SLI performance owing to PCIE lanes over the 6700k

7700K has only 4 cores and more software and some games are making use of cores beyond 4 with each passing day.

Gauge, your needs and budget accordingly.

Skylake X is supposed to be out later this year as the successor to BWE with similar 10/8/6 core arrangements, though it's not impossible that that could change in response to Ryzen (either in price or other configuration within reason - depends on how 10 cores is accomplished - i.e. where the diamond saw has to cut and what fuses get blown to produce a 10 core vs "something else").


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rolldog*
> 
> I keep reading all these articles about Skylake, Kaby, etc and these new Z270 MBs. As Intel keeps releasing these newer CPUs, none of them have as many cores as the 6950x. I assume some of these newer MBs will have more features than my X99 Deluxe II. How do these newer MBs and newer CPUs compare to the 6950X with the X99 chipset? All the reviews don't compare performance with the 6950X, only with other CPUs with less cores. When would it be advantageous to upgrade to a newer CPU? I imagine it's only beneficial to upgrade if someone is only running single threaded operations, correct? It's difficult to compare apples to apples when none of the newer CPUs have 10 cores. Maybe I need a 2nd system.


yeah, I think you need a second system


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, I think you need a second system


This is always the right answer...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> This is always the right answer...


dog builds some very handsome rigs.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> dog builds some very handsome rigs.


He builds things of beauty









Quite unlike mine which are basically just-what-you-need rustic things


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> dog builds some very handsome rigs.


Even better, but more ugly ones are good too...







It's the beauty on the inside that counts.

Just picked up some used v3 18c xeons to play around with uCode exploits and see if they can best my v4's and/or the 6950x (not in general benchmarks, I know they can already - I need specific work-loads). If not, they will be banished to a new file server vm host.

I'm not sure whether I should be wearing team BWE shirt or team xeon shirt?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Bottom line is your concern is more than it should be, especially given by example you can't show anything for it.


Clearly my VW analogy failed to convey "intended vs design use" and "you might get away with it, you might not", but my dead Alpha called from the grave to warm me about long term degradation..









I never disagreed about rapid degradation - just don't forget the less rapid stuff as well. Idle optimization needs love too.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Just thought I'd update your Broadwell-E users on how AWESOME this 280mm copper rad cooler is!! The temps say it all!! I went from 35C avg with an Antec Kuhler 1250, to the lower, mid 20's on idle! CRYORIG A80 is hands down the BEST cooler I've owned yet! The additional fan on the pump/heatsink, cools the VRM! I dropped 5 degrees on the VRM with this!!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Clearly my VW analogy failed to convey "intended vs design use" and "you might get away with it, you might not", but my dead Alpha called from the grave to warm me about long term degradation..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never disagreed about rapid degradation - just don't forget the less rapid stuff as well. Idle optimization needs love too.


Looks like my attic.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

question please

Under 1.3v or 1.35v is safe for broadwell e?
Are you running your cpu's with voltage higher than 1.3?

Thank u


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Even better, but more ugly ones are good too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the beauty on the inside that counts.
> 
> Just picked up some used v3 18c xeons to play around with uCode exploits and see if they can best my v4's and/or the 6950x (not in general benchmarks, I know they can already - I need specific work-loads). If not, they will be banished to a new file server vm host.
> 
> I'm not sure whether I should be wearing team BWE shirt or team xeon shirt?


you guys don't know ugly.










Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!























Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> question please
> 
> Under 1.3v or 1.35v is safe for broadwell e?
> Are you running your cpu's with voltage higher than 1.3?
> 
> Thank u


not much higher than 1.3 for 24/7. Keep the cache voltage below 1.3 and you should be good to go (assuming the cooling is capable).


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> question please
> 
> Under 1.3v or 1.35v is safe for broadwell e?
> Are you running your cpu's with voltage higher than 1.3?
> 
> Thank u


I'm 1.46. I like to live dangerously.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I didnt touch the cache coltage, it is auto 1.05V and i don't want to touch the cache.
I have a water cooler and temp under 50 always under normal load (gaming)
I am talking about 1.32-1.33V
I need that voltage for 4.2ghz ( i have a bad chip)
And 4.1 at 1.272V

So it is safe to go to 4.2 at that voltage?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> I'm 1.46. I like to live dangerously.


brave heart is required for 1.4XX V.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys , why the cpu fail occt stress test with adaptive voltage mode in bios and pass it with override voltage mode in bios? Same voltage applied with both modes.
I am sorry about my questions but I don't have oc experiences like you here


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys , why the cpu fail occt stress test with adaptive voltage mode in bios and pass it with override voltage mode in bios? Same voltage applied with both modes.
> I am sorry about my questions but I don't have oc experiences like you here


you're probably missing a setting for adaptive... please fil out rigbuilder so we know what gear you are talking about.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you're probably missing a setting for adaptive... please fil out rigbuilder so we know what gear you are talking about.


i7 6800K
32 GB
X99A MSI PRO

I passed 3 hours OCCT large data set with 1.277V 4.1 Ghz
but I have an issue to go beyond that, I tested now with OCCT 4.2Ghz 1.332V and error detected.

can I go more with voltage? or stay with 4.1 Ghz
thank u


----------



## gta1989

im testing the theory on the voltage degradation im running 4.6ghz on a 6850k at 1.450v temps dont go above 70c in realbench after 2 hours. but i am having a very hard time getting the cache to clock even at 4.4ghz or 4.2ghz core, i cant get the cache above 2.6ghz. at stock clocks it will run 3.0ghz cache but even at 1.25v sys agent and 1.30vring i cant get it stable with higher core clocks. any suggestions?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gta1989*
> 
> im testing the theory on the voltage degradation im running 4.6ghz on a 6850k at 1.450v temps dont go above 70c in realbench after 2 hours. but i am having a very hard time getting the cache to clock even at 4.4ghz or 4.2ghz core, i cant get the cache above 2.6ghz. at stock clocks it will run 3.0ghz cache but even at 1.25v sys agent and 1.30vring i cant get it stable with higher core clocks. any suggestions?


How long are you with that voltage?

at stock, it is 3.1 Ghz on my cpu, I cannot go above 3.3 ghz, I left it at stock.


----------



## gta1989

ive had the cpu for about 3 months now so not that long and no problems so far mine would cache clock stock at 2.8ghz but with xmp enabled it would bump it to 3.1ghz. but as soon as i up the cpu core clock the cache becomes unstable no matter the voltages


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Looks like my attic.


Oh, that's just a taste lol... and/or what I'm willing to take a pic of and put on the internet. there are buckets, piles, shelves, boxes, bins and beige cases... oh so many beige cases. One of these days I need to go through and sort out the interesting stuff.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> i7 6800K
> 32 GB
> X99A MSI PRO
> 
> I passed 3 hours OCCT large data set with 1.277V 4.1 Ghz
> but I have an issue to go beyond that, I tested now with OCCT 4.2Ghz 1.332V and error detected.
> 
> can I go more with voltage? or stay with 4.1 Ghz
> thank u


if it's a gaming rig, dump OCCT and use realbench stress test for several hours. You'll be a much happier. If it is a production rig which will experience OCCT-like or p95-liike current loads on a regular basis, then you are probably at the limit.
You may find that by using realbench, the system is capable of a higher overclock, and run fine for games.

if you would rather not engage the graphics system in the test, use the x264 stress test in wizzie's Kabylake thread.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> How long are you with that voltage?
> 
> at stock, it is 3.1 Ghz on my cpu, I cannot go above 3.3 ghz, I left it at stock.


Cache frequency will be sample dependent, but as both memory and core frequency are overclocked range can become limited. I know a few users who simply leave uncore at stock. The gains are too small to be concerned with as few applications are that cache intensive. As always, core is king.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if it's a gaming rig, dump OCCT and use realbench stress test for several hours. You'll be a much happier. If it is a production rig which will experience OCCT-like or p95-liike current loads on a regular basis, then you are probably at the limit.
> You may find that by using realbench, the system is capable of a higher overclock, and run fine for games.
> 
> if you would rather not engage the graphics system in the test, use the x264 stress test in wizzie's Kabylake thread.


With realbench, i can passed 4.2 ghz with 1.32V
But i read that occt is the best, 3 hours with large data set means 100% stable.
You are right, for gaming occt is overkill.

But i have a conclusion that a cpu to be 100% stable for any use, must pass 3 hours without error on large data set cpucct.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> But i have a conclusion that a cpu to be 100% stable for any use, must pass 3 hours without error on large data set cpucct.


Hello

This is nonsense. All that is proven is that the system was stable for that particular 3 hour run of OCCT.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

3 hours is recommended on occt website.
I always failed in under 30 min if i am not stable.
You can run it more than 3 hours, but what i am trying to say thar occt is the best, if a cpu pass it for >= 3 hours, it is perfect stable.
Because i tried many stress test software(p95, ibt, realbench, aida 64) passed then all for many hours but failed in occt in less than 30 minutes, sometimes in 5 minutes.
This my opinion.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> 3 hours is recommended on occt website.
> I always failed in under 30 min if i am not stable.
> You can run it more than 3 hours, but what i am trying to say thar occt is the best, if a cpu pass it for >= 3 hours, it is perfect stable.
> Because i tried many stress test software(p95, ibt, realbench, aida 64) passed then all for many hours but failed in occt in less than 30 minutes, sometimes in 5 minutes.
> This my opinion.


It comes down to criticality of the rig and one's personal preference for sure. Frankly, there's no such thing as a perfectly stable OC, or stock for that matter. More importantly, repeated abuse with OCCT will do little more than unnecessarily degrade the CPU and force a lower OC than would be stable to normal use. Which ever route you go with, be sure to use something like HCi memtest to test the ram... more so called perfectly "Stable" systems fail because of this than you'd think.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

If you have an ASUS mobo, the one click OC found in intelligent processor 5, has proven to be more than adequate for a healthy stable OC done with the metrics from the people at ASUS. Whatever the program comes up with, is where I find myself comfortable with. I can OC to 4.6ghz on 2 cores but I dont, instead the ASUS OCing tool gives me 4.5 on all cores at 1.49v, which I lowered to 1.42 and have had no issues as my temps remain rather low, and I can also OC my Cache as well, which the tool does not do. If I have issues, my warrenty replaces the parts and also, ASUS must retain some responsibility with it all as I am on thier software as well as hardware..


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> If you have an ASUS mobo, the one click OC found in intelligent processor 5, has proven to be more than adequate for a healthy stable OC done with the metrics from the people at ASUS. Whatever the program comes up with, is where I find myself comfortable with. I can OC to 4.6ghz on 2 cores but I dont, instead the ASUS OCing tool gives me 4.5 on all cores at 1.49v, which I lowered to 1.42 and have had no issues as my temps remain rather low, and I can also OC my Cache as well, which the tool does not do. If I have issues, my warrenty replaces the parts and also, ASUS must retain some responsibility with it all as I am on thier software as well as hardware..


No not really.. It doesn't work like that.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> No not really.. It doesn't work lile that.


Not even a little... Danger Will Robinson... Danger!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

hello everyone

are you using load line calibration (vdroop) at 50% or 75% ? and both are safe ?

thank u


----------



## xTesla1856

Little update of my 6800K

4.4GHz is now stable at 1.365v, LLC5. I got the Cache stable at 3.6GHz 1.23v, though I haven't pushed it further yet. RAM is just a basic 2x8GB HyperX kit 2133 CL14, while I wait for G.Skill to release those damn X99 RGB kits. Seems I have lucked out in the 6800K lottery after all, seeing as most are done at 4.2ish GHz.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Little update of my 6800K
> 
> 4.4GHz is now stable at 1.365v, LLC5. I got the Cache stable at 3.6GHz 1.23v, though I haven't pushed it further yet. RAM is just a basic 2x8GB HyperX kit 2133 CL14, while I wait for G.Skill to release those damn X99 RGB kits. Seems I have lucked out in the 6800K lottery after all, seeing as most are done at 4.2ish GHz.


LLC5 is 50% or 75% ?


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> LLC5 is 50% or 75% ?


It was 50% IIRC


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Little update of my 6800K
> 
> 4.4GHz is now stable at 1.365v, LLC5. I got the Cache stable at 3.6GHz 1.23v, though I haven't pushed it further yet. RAM is just a basic 2x8GB HyperX kit 2133 CL14, while I wait for G.Skill to release those damn X99 RGB kits. Seems I have lucked out in the 6800K lottery after all, seeing as most are done at 4.2ish GHz.


I wouldn't push further till you've gone about installing the new memory.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I wouldn't push further till you've gone about installing the new memory.


Yeah, I'm really happy about 4.4GHz on the core, I don't really have to push further. Now all that's missing are those X99 Trident Z RGB kits.....


----------



## arrow0309

So, has any of you guys managed to use a 3600 cl17 TridentZ kit of 4x8gb by simply setting their Xmp?
I'm gonna run them on a X99M WS with a 6850k @4.4 Ghz.


----------



## axiumone

That will be a feat. I think very few bwd-e chips will work out of the box with a 3600 ram kit. Good ones tend to reach 3400 with tight timings.


----------



## Dwofzz

Running 3400 mhz 16-18-18-36 and my chip max out at about 3550 mhz .. So 3600 is possible, you just need that chip!


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Running 3400 mhz 16-18-18-36 and my chip max out at about 3550 mhz .. So 3600 is possible, you just need that chip!


Hello

A good chip should be capable of 3400MHz 14-14-14 1T. Few will do that speed or higher with only setting XMP though. And it will be rare that one is capable of 3600MHz with XMP only. Also Arrow is most likely asking in regards to actual stability not just post n' go.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Running 3400 mhz 16-18-18-36 and my chip max out at about 3550 mhz .. So 3600 is possible, you just need that chip!
> 
> 
> 
> Hello
> 
> A good chip should be capable of 3400MHz 14-14-14 1T. Few will do that speed or higher with only setting XMP though. And it will be rare that one is capable of 3600MHz with XMP only. Also Arrow is most likely asking in regards to actual stability not just post n' go.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is correct, thanks guys.
In case, for a stable 24/7 oc 3200 ram speed I'll have to set all the timings manually?
Or just the main (five) timings?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, that is correct, thanks guys.
> In case, for a stable 24/7 oc 3200 ram speed I'll have to set all the timings manually?
> Or just the main (five) timings?


either primaries or tightened all the way. 3200 XMP should work NP.

Whomever it was suggesting that 3600 _stable_ would be "easy" on a BWE quad channel rig, has definitely not tried yet.










... yeah I know, it's gsat in BASH.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> either primaries or tightened all the way. 3200 XMP should work NP.
> 
> Whomever it was suggesting that 3600 _stable_ would be "easy" on a BWE quad channel rig, has definitely not tried yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... yeah I know, it's gsat in BASH.


Have you found GSAT in bash to be effective (or ineffective)?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Have you found GSAT in bash to be effective (or ineffective)?


well... more effective than not taking the time to switch over to another OS.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Can you tell me what is the safe voltage of the cache for the 6800K

my board X99 MSI shows me anything above 1.19V in red color

thank u all


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> either primaries or tightened all the way. 3200 XMP should work NP.
> 
> Whomever it was suggesting that 3600 _stable_ would be "easy" on a BWE quad channel rig, has definitely not tried yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... yeah I know, it's gsat in BASH.


Didn't realise you could bash in Windows....is there a guide somewhere?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Didn't realise you could bash in Windows....is there a guide somewhere?


You can turn it on in the Windows section of Programs and Features in the Control Panel.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Didn't realise you could bash in Windows....is there a guide somewhere?


dozens - just google it.








win 10 feature.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well... more effective than not taking the time to switch over to another OS.


Perhaps more to the point, has it caught memory errors for you? Or just provide bogus warm fuzzies? (not that warm fuzzies aren't warm... and fuzzy).


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Perhaps more to the point, has it caught memory errors for you? Or just provide bogus warm fuzzies? (not that warm fuzzies aren't warm... and fuzzy).


oh, it will find errors alright, just maybe not as thoroughly anal as a fresh linux install would do simply because you cannot commit as much of the installed ram to the process.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Perhaps more to the point, has it caught memory errors for you? Or just provide bogus warm fuzzies? (not that warm fuzzies aren't warm... and fuzzy).
> 
> 
> 
> oh, it will find errors alright, just maybe not as thoroughly anal as a fresh linux install would do simply because you cannot commit as much of the installed ram to the process.
Click to expand...

The only difference I have found has been acceptance into the DDR4 STABILITY AND OVERCLOCKING thread. Having bash in windows rocks. You can actually install and run a full blown (your flavor) GUI from within windows.

Edit to add: I believe the only real difference is that Windows will allocate some reserve memory for OS tasks, and doesn't hand it over to GSAT.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

I have had 100% stability even with XMP with this certified quad channel, 3400Mhz, cas 16, ddr 4 memory. It's 100% compatible with my Asus x99 A-II and 6800k gaming rig. I overclock the cpu to 4.5ghz all cores and run XMP on these 4 sticks. I can highly recommend them for stability, but I have never been successful with overclocking them as changing the fsb makes the rest of the rig unstable. I would love to see if this mem kit has that potential, as other review sites have gotten them to 3600 mhz cas 18 I think. I can run this kit with 1T command but never really noticed any performance increase. Here's the pics and link to buy them as I think they are exclusive to Fry's computer superstore found in CA, USA.



Here is the link, they are still the same price as when I got them 8 months ago.

http://www.frys.com/product/8587589?source=google&gclid=CjwKEAiArvTFBRCLq5-7-MSJ0jMSJABHBvp0qYA_fYCzt6jHe6jtX71hUqj5-WISKSZFvwpfOVcnHxoClvnw_wcB


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> I have had 100% stability even with XMP with this certified quad channel, 3400Mhz, cas 16, ddr 4 memory. It's 100% compatible with my Asus x99 A-II and 6800k gaming rig. I overclock the cpu to 4.5ghz all cores and run XMP on these 4 sticks. I can highly recommend them for stability, but I have never been successful with overclocking them as changing the fsb makes the rest of the rig unstable. I would love to see if this mem kit has that potential, as other review sites have gotten them to 3600 mhz cas 18 I think. I can run this kit with 1T command but never really noticed any performance increase. Here's the pics and link to buy them as I think they are exclusive to Fry's computer superstore found in CA, USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the link, they are still the same price as when I got them 8 months ago.
> 
> http://www.frys.com/product/8587589?source=google&gclid=CjwKEAiArvTFBRCLq5-7-MSJ0jMSJABHBvp0qYA_fYCzt6jHe6jtX71hUqj5-WISKSZFvwpfOVcnHxoClvnw_wcB


what's 100% stability?


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what's 100% stability?


Not throwing an error until the universe dies a cold death?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seijitsu*
> 
> Not throwing an error until the universe dies a cold death?


no big crunch anymore, a cold "red" place.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what's 100% stability?


It passes mem test, also it runs without mem training, as i have run it for months with it disabled in bios to speed up post time. I have it enebaled again, but basically, I have never had an error come up with regards to something that even points to a mem error. that to me is stable, and of course its not exactly scientific, but you get the idea.. I've been OCing since pentium 1 days if you have an idea of knowledge and trial and error gained over almost 20 years.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> It passes mem test, also it runs without mem training, as i have run it for months with it disabled in bios to speed up post time. I have it enebaled again, but basically, I have never had an error come up with regards to something that even points to a mem error. that to me is stable, and of course its not exactly scientific, but you get the idea.. I've been OCing since pentium 1 days if you have an idea of knowledge and trial and error gained over almost 20 years.


memtest? like memtest86 or something?


----------



## djgar

I would think if memory training is delaying your post time frequently then it seems to be having to fix something ...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Didn't realise you could bash in Windows....is there a guide somewhere?


I made a post with a guide somewhere in the thread in my sig, however note that through Windows 10 you are not able to allocate as much memory to the test, making it less of one. Also Mint requires a slightly higher level of general system stability than W10. Running the test in BASH is simply for those who cannot be bothered to setup a separate install for the purpose.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dbLIVEdb*
> 
> It passes mem test, also it runs without mem training, as i have run it for months with it disabled in bios to speed up post time. I have it enebaled again, but basically, I have never had an error come up with regards to something that even points to a mem error. that to me is stable, and of course its not exactly scientific, but you get the idea.. I've been OCing since pentium 1 days if you have an idea of knowledge and trial and error gained over almost 20 years.


Trial and error is fruitless if not using the right tools for the job


----------



## xarot

I just bought a 64GB kit and I was wondering if HCI MemTest Deluxe version (bootable/USB) is as good as the Windows version? To be honest, I would myself always prefer a separate bootable testing environment to exclude the OS from the equation. Thoughts?


----------



## arrow0309

A lot of nice info I'm getting here daily (I have to admit I'm a bit noob on the X99 BD overclocking).
And I got your point guys about the "relative" RS stability in OC.
But why do you have to use Linux for some memory testing?
I've just ordered today a nice Asus X99M WS for £226 and I was thinking since yesterday about my 32gb of "waste" 3600 TridentX so I put them on sale:

http://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/G-Skill-F4-3600C17Q-32GTZ-4-x-8GB-TridentZ-Series-DDR4-3600MHZ-/172564710403?nav=SELLING_ACTIVE

In order to get another certified kit of 3200 TridentX or (better) 3000 Dominator Platinum.
Am I doing right?


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I just bought a 64GB kit and I was wondering if HCI MemTest Deluxe version (bootable/USB) is as good as the Windows version? To be honest, I would myself always prefer a separate bootable testing environment to exclude the OS from the equation. Thoughts?


If you are willing to boot from usb for memory testing, then just use GSAT. It is free and reliable.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Now my CPU 6800K

at 4.2 Ghz 1.25V (Passed 3 hours on occt without error)
cache 3.3 at 1.15V
DDR4 RAM 2666 Mhz C14
Input voltage : 1.92V
VCCIO: 1.05V
System agent : 1.232V (on auto with XMP profile 2)
LLC: 50%

Cinebench R15 : 1340 Score

I think this is the max I can get form my CPU

Temp while gaming max 50 Degree C on water cooler


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I just bought a 64GB kit and I was wondering if HCI MemTest Deluxe version (bootable/USB) is as good as the Windows version? To be honest, I would myself always prefer a separate bootable testing environment to exclude the OS from the equation. Thoughts?


I would recommend GSAT over HCI bootable if there is a preference to be had, simply due to the coverage time.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> If you are willing to boot from usb for memory testing, then just use GSAT. It is free and reliable.


I've tried that in the past, for some reason in my system GSAT always hangs when it's preparing for a power spike and needs the power spikes to be disabled. The OS continues to work normally. Also on some systems (like my laptop) it is trying to allocate more memory than available. I guess there are some bugs with it. Also Mint has been a PITA to boot with my Titan X Pascal. Maybe I'll try latest release again.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I would recommend GSAT over HCI bootable if there is a preference to be had, simply due to the coverage time.


100% agreed. HCI bootable runs in single thread taking forever...
For HCI, I would stick with Windows version (can be run in mutiple instances)


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I've tried that in the past, for some reason in my system GSAT always hangs when it's preparing for a power spike and needs the power spikes to be disabled. The OS continues to work normally. Also on some systems (like my laptop) it is trying to allocate more memory than available. I guess there are some bugs with it. Also Mint has been a PITA to boot with my Titan X Pascal. Maybe I'll try latest release again.


Use Puppy Linux. It boots and works fine with Nvidia Pascal cards.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1510388/haswell-e-overclock-leaderboard-owners-club/20700_20#post_25658575


----------



## Vlada011

Now when AMD have World Recorded with half power consumption and 1/3 of price better than i7-6950X...
Intel should give us i7-6950X for 500$.









How many people will change side from Intel to AMD not now... Good part of them done that immediately, but bigger percent will change when Intel launch Skylake Xtreme and when 10% stronger Intel with 8 cores reach few hundreds higher price and Intel 6 core show weaker results with more power consumption than 8 core AMD.
But that's not everything Skylake-E and Kaby Lake-E on 2066 will be very similar processors.
That mean Intel could answer only with socket after 2066 with something really powerfull. Until than AMD will rule.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> I just bought a 64GB kit and I was wondering if HCI MemTest Deluxe version (bootable/USB) is as good as the Windows version? To be honest, I would myself always prefer a separate bootable testing environment to exclude the OS from the equation. Thoughts?


with 64GB of ram.. .use GSAT. HCi memtest in any form takes geologic time to reach meaningful coverage.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Use Puppy Linux. It boots and works fine with Nvidia Pascal cards.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510388/haswell-e-overclock-leaderboard-owners-club/20700_20#post_25658575


^^ THIS! and you can use it on just about any machine with a usb port.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> Now when AMD have World Recorded with half power consumption and 1/3 of price better than i7-6950X...
> Intel should give us i7-6950X for 500$.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people will change side from Intel to AMD not now... Good part of them done that immediately, but bigger percent will change when Intel launch Skylake Xtreme and when 10% stronger Intel with 8 cores reach few hundreds higher price and Intel 6 core show weaker results with more power consumption than 8 core AMD.
> But that's not everything Skylake-E and Kaby Lake-E on 2066 will be very similar processors.
> That mean Intel could answer only with socket after 2066 with something really powerfull. Until than AMD will rule.


dude - your aphasic ramblings are boring. Blocked.


----------



## Gunslinger.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlada011*
> 
> Now when AMD have World Recorded with half power consumption and 1/3 of price better than i7-6950X...
> Intel should give us i7-6950X for 500$.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people will change side from Intel to AMD not now... Good part of them done that immediately, but bigger percent will change when Intel launch Skylake Xtreme and when 10% stronger Intel with 8 cores reach few hundreds higher price and Intel 6 core show weaker results with more power consumption than 8 core AMD.
> But that's not everything Skylake-E and Kaby Lake-E on 2066 will be very similar processors.
> That mean Intel could answer only with socket after 2066 with something really powerfull. Until than AMD will rule.


3 WR benchmark scores does not even remotely come close to ruling...

How about all the bugs that are now showing up? All AMD has done is slightly close the gap with a good price point.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Can someone tell me the safe oc cache voltage please?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Can someone tell me the safe oc cache voltage please?


I think if you stay under 1.30V for cache, it's ok.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Thank u
I am at x34 1.19, and i dont want to go over


----------



## Kimir

1.2v has been said to be the max safe 24/7 voltage, but we are overclock.net not safevoltage.net so some of us go 1.25v/1.3v daily.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I know i know
I just asked a question.
This is my first experience in over clocking


----------



## Scrimstar

What are the average max/reasonable OC speeds for the newer batches of 6800k/6850k/6900k


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scrimstar*
> 
> What are the average max/reasonable OC speeds for the newer batches of 6800k/6850k/6900k


I have not heard of newer batches doing any better. With such a huge voltage wall that these chips have, I imagine it wont budge much.

43x core, 36x cache is a reasonable expectation for broadwell-e.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> 1.2v has been said to be the max safe 24/7 voltage, but we are overclock.net not safevoltage.net so some of us go 1.25v/1.3v daily.


That's me!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> I have not heard of newer batches doing any better. With such a huge voltage wall that these chips have, I imagine it wont budge much.
> 
> 43x core, 36x cache is a reasonable expectation for broadwell-e.


I did 46x / 37x for months, now relaxing at 45x / 36x at quite lower volts.


----------



## Iceman2733

With overclocking it looks like most run a MIN/MAX of Cache/Uncore the same, with overclocking is it ok to run a low MIN and keep the max set to your desired. I know Asus says adaptive voltage to the cache doesn't work well with overclocking in there guide wasn't for sure how that would work without adaptive voltage.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I did 46x / 37x for months, now relaxing at 45x / 36x at quite lower volts.


Nice! That is above average though. Stellar sample.


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I would think if memory training is delaying your post time frequently then it seems to be having to fix something ...


It doesnt delay post abnormally. It's just while the training happens, it counts as time at a negative value, away from the post speed. It's not at all what you are implying. The setting is rec-commended by Asus themselves if you want absolute fastest post times. It takes me about 10-12 sec to post into windows log in even with it enabled..


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> with 64GB of ram.. .use GSAT. HCi memtest in any form takes geologic time to reach meaningful coverage.
> ^^ THIS! and you can use it on just about any machine with a usb port.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Use Puppy Linux. It boots and works fine with Nvidia Pascal cards.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1510388/haswell-e-overclock-leaderboard-owners-club/20700_20#post_25658575


Thanks both. Tried newest Mint 18.1 Serena yesterday, booted right off without any tweaks with a Pascal Titan.

Ran GSAT for 8 hours with power spiking disabled, no hardware issues detected. Default XMP 8x8 GB DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-1.35V.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Thanks both. Tried newest Mint 18.1 Serena yesterday, booted right off without any tweaks with a Pascal Titan.
> 
> Ran GSAT for 8 hours with power spiking disabled, no hardware issues detected. Default XMP 8x8 GB DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-1.35V.


Congrats. 8 hours of GSAT definitely assures RAM stability.
Any particular reason for disabling power spiking?


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Congrats. 8 hours of GSAT definitely assures RAM stability.
> Any particular reason for disabling power spiking?


It doesn't work in my system. It worked when I had Rampage V Extreme but not when I'm using RVE10. Also now I have 6950X and I used to have 6900K. Also used to have Maxwell Titan.

It seems it might be some kind of bug...same issue explained here:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-ddr4-z170-z270-and-x99-24-7-memory-stability-thread/2400#post_25412878
http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-ddr4-z170-z270-and-x99-24-7-memory-stability-thread/2400#post_25413173


----------



## Silent Scone

Disabling this argument is fine, if there is instability the test will still find errors with or without the power spiking.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> With overclocking it looks like most run a MIN/MAX of Cache/Uncore the same, with overclocking is it ok to run a low MIN and keep the max set to your desired. I know Asus says adaptive voltage to the cache doesn't work well with overclocking in there guide wasn't for sure how that would work without adaptive voltage.


you can leave min cache on Auto and use offset cache voltage. this will downclock and downvolt the cache. Adaptive cache voltage doe snot work. Manual or offset does.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Thanks both. Tried newest Mint 18.1 Serena yesterday, booted right off without any tweaks with a Pascal Titan.
> 
> Ran GSAT for 8 hours with power spiking disabled, no hardware issues detected. Default XMP 8x8 GB DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-1.35V.


yeah... _that's_ stable.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Thanks both. Tried newest Mint 18.1 Serena yesterday, booted right off without any tweaks with a Pascal Titan.
> 
> Ran GSAT for 8 hours with power spiking disabled, no hardware issues detected. Default XMP 8x8 GB DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-1.35V.


I take it that was overnight, no snoring


----------



## ELIAS-EH

So intel wants to release the Skylake-x with 12 cores ?!! I think intel is so angry from amd


----------



## Radox-0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> So intel wants to release the Skylake-x with 12 cores ?!! I think intel is so angry from amd


Well there is already a 10 core / 20 thread in form of the 6950x (not to mention Xeons), so a 12 core would not be entirely unexpected I would have thought on a new platform regardless of RYZEN.


----------



## xTesla1856

I'm very excited for LGA2066. Will be my next big upgrade


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> So intel wants to release the Skylake-x with 12 cores ?!! I think intel is so angry from amd


4 more and they've got an interesting processor even at the $1500 mark...


----------



## -terabyte-

I just wish they'd drop the damn price finally


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I'm very excited for LGA2066. Will be my next big upgrade


But your system is plenty enough for now and near future,
from my side, I will wait for the 10 nm or 7 nm CPU
but definitely my next upgrade will be 8 cores intel CPU


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> But your system is plenty enough for now and near future,
> from my side, I will wait for the 10 nm or 7 nm CPU
> but definitely my next upgrade will be 8 cores intel CPU


It's not I need it, it's I need to play


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I'm very excited for LGA2066. Will be my next big upgrade


yeah - should be vrey interesting if it keeps the skylake IPC.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> It's not I need it, it's I need to play


want... want


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - should be vrey interesting if it keeps the skylake IPC.
> want... want


Please! Stop drooling!


----------



## Keromyaou

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> So intel wants to release the Skylake-x with 12 cores ?!! I think intel is so angry from amd


I think that Intel will sell a Skylake-e 12-core CPU for $1700, 10-core for $1100, 8-core for $600, and 6-core for $400 (and $280 for 28 lanes), which will significantly reduce the competitiveness of Ryzen CPUs without losing faces (It IS a price markdown, but it doesn't look like a price markdown).


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Keromyaou*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> So intel wants to release the Skylake-x with 12 cores ?!! I think intel is so angry from amd
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Intel will sell a Skylake-e 12-core CPU for $1700, 10-core for $1100, 8-core for $600, and 6-core for $400 (and $280 for 28 lanes), which will significantly reduce the competitiveness of Ryzen CPUs without losing faces (It IS a price markdown, but it doesn't look like a price markdown).
Click to expand...

Nice, than I'll probably wanna upgrade my platform once again








But for now, let me enjoy my first X99 (and socket 2011) build, coming back to the hedt after years, last time I had a Nehalem.
So, my 6850k is probably going to be posted today, also my new X99M WS /SE.
And I've also ordered from Scan (attractive price) last night an Intel 750 pcie (400gb), Intel is the way!


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> HCI bootable runs in single thread taking forever...


Also, there is no way a single thread is going to heavily load the memory subsystem of a multi-core processor.

You want one thread per logical core, at a minimum.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

To conclude:

Minimum 6 cores CPU
Recommended 8 cores CPU

No more quad cores CPU

Long live INTEL


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> To conclude:
> 
> Minimum 6 cores CPU
> Recommended 8 cores CPU
> 
> No more quad cores CPU
> 
> Long live INTEL


Not sure where you get your info about no more quad-cores from. There is an LGA2066 Quad-Core with dual channel RAM coming...


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Not sure where you get your info about no more quad-cores from. There is an LGA2066 Quad-Core with dual channel RAM coming...


You didn't understand me.

I means that I will never back to quad cores CPU.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> You didn't understand me.
> 
> I means that I will never back to quad cores CPU.


My bad


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> My bad


I want to ask you a question please

your system is a beast.
If you are playing battlefield 1.
did you get some random spikes on the CPU graph?

when I am playing battlefield 1, my CPU usage is always under 50%, but my CPU graph in the game (with perfoverlay.drawgraph = true in the console), it shown a random CPU spikes, the line most of the time is smooth and perfectly alignment with my GPU, but randomly a CPU spikes a little, is this from the game or from my CPU ?

hope you understand me.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I want to ask you a question please
> 
> your system is a beast.
> If you are playing battlefield 1.
> did you get some random spikes on the CPU graph?
> 
> when I am playing battlefield 1, my CPU usage is always under 50%, but my CPU graph in the game (with perfoverlay.drawgraph = true in the console), it shown a random CPU spikes, the line most of the time is smooth and perfectly alignment with my GPU, but randomly a CPU spikes a little, is this from the game or from my CPU ?
> 
> hope you understand me.


I don't own BF1, so I coulnd't tell you, sorry


----------



## arrow0309

I'm back with another query








Since I'm switching with my Supremacy Evo Nickel Plexi from 4790K to 6850K it is obvious that I'll also have to change the insert / jetplate.
But according to the guys from Thermalbench there's something I don't quite understand, the Insert 2 (I2) should be the AMD cpu's insert:

http://thermalbench.com/2015/01/07/ek-supremacy-evo-cpu-waterblock/3/

And still used for the 2011-3 cpu's:

http://thermalbench.com/2015/01/07/ek-supremacy-evo-cpu-waterblock/6/
http://thermalbench.com/2015/05/07/ek-supremacy-evo-full-nickel-cpu-waterblock/5/

One thing's for sure, the Jetplate 3 (J3) is the one to use.
As for the slight difference between the _regular_ and _goofy_ position I don't give a damn, I like it regular, in his vertical, natural position.

Any clues?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I'm back with another query
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I'm switching with my Supremacy Evo Nickel Plexi from 4790K to 6850K it is obvious that I'll also have to change the insert / jetplate.
> But according to the guys from Thermalbench there's something I don't quite understand, the Insert 2 (I2) should be the AMD cpu's insert:
> 
> http://thermalbench.com/2015/01/07/ek-supremacy-evo-cpu-waterblock/3/
> 
> And still used for the 2011-3 cpu's:
> 
> http://thermalbench.com/2015/01/07/ek-supremacy-evo-cpu-waterblock/6/
> http://thermalbench.com/2015/05/07/ek-supremacy-evo-full-nickel-cpu-waterblock/5/
> 
> One thing's for sure, the Jetplate 3 (J3) is the one to use.
> As for the slight difference between the _regular_ and _goofy_ position I don't give a damn, I like it regular, in his vertical, natural position.
> 
> Any clues?


It's all about orientation and placement of the die and then potentially the placement of the hottest portions of the design on that die as well.

They aren't all square and definitely aren't uniform in their distribution of gates and gates that produce the most heat.

Notice the shape and orientation:


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I'm back with another query
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I'm switching with my Supremacy Evo Nickel Plexi from 4790K to 6850K it is obvious that I'll also have to change the insert / jetplate.
> But according to the guys from Thermalbench there's something I don't quite understand, the Insert 2 (I2) should be the AMD cpu's insert:
> 
> http://thermalbench.com/2015/01/07/ek-supremacy-evo-cpu-waterblock/3/
> 
> And still used for the 2011-3 cpu's:
> 
> http://thermalbench.com/2015/01/07/ek-supremacy-evo-cpu-waterblock/6/
> http://thermalbench.com/2015/05/07/ek-supremacy-evo-full-nickel-cpu-waterblock/5/
> 
> One thing's for sure, the Jetplate 3 (J3) is the one to use.
> As for the slight difference between the _regular_ and _goofy_ position I don't give a damn, I like it regular, in his vertical, natural position.
> 
> Any clues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about orientation and placement of the die and then potentially the placement of the hottest portions of the design on that die as well.
> 
> They aren't all square and definitely aren't uniform in their distribution of gates and gates that produce the most heat.
> 
> Notice the shape and orientation:
Click to expand...

Ok, but the 6850K looks pretty square:




And smaller than the 5960X:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-5960x-de-lidded-haswell-e-uses-soldered-tim,3.html

So the best combo for my Supremacy Evo?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> So the best combo for my Supremacy Evo?


EK has a far better answer than I do - they've tested it. Have you checked with them?

Square is just the first question - then the distribution/orientation of components on the die itself comes into play...


----------



## djgar

I love how people save themselves work by making somebody else work ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *accountbanned*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> - may I please have a zip copy of your 6950X bios settings at 4.40GHz? I'd like to compare my HW-E notes with an old 5960X I had at 4.70GHz. The 6950X should arrive sometime next week and looking forward to clocking it.
> 
> Previously, I had the 5960X clocked as follows:
> 4HR Realbench, x264/5 Benchmark .998, HCI Memtest 1000%, Aida 3 hour Cache Stable
> 
> 4700MHz Core (47x100blck) - 1.35v core (adaptive), llc 5, 1.95v input
> 4400MHz Cache - 1.25v cache (adaptive)
> 
> I'm looking for the finer tuning elements in the bios in terms of tweak modes, memory timings and whatnot.
> 
> Thank you!


not sure it would be of any value: different CPU samples, which MB are you using? Which ram kit.. cooling, etc

whoa... what just happened?


----------



## SauronTheGreat

guys sorry i need some help in a sort of an off topic issue, i need to merge two 1080p videos into one , can someone help me out by suggesting a name of a good free video editing tool ..... thank you


----------



## gta1989

so ive been having a problem with my 6850k. i think i figured out the solution. im coming from x58 platform and have a 980ti classy under water with a modded bios for more voltage and power limit which worked perfect on my x58. i get my x99a msi mpower mobo and swap over my 980ti with its same stable overclock. seems fine at stock cpu settings. so i move to over clocking the cpu core clock and cache i get 4.6ghz on all 6 cores fine at 1.45v but cache wont clock above a -4x multiplier no matter the voltage. apparently if you have a gpu bios that has extra power target head room you cant take it from the pci lane on the x99a platform or the cache will become unstable. max i found to still get 4.2ghz cache is 60watts from the pci lane which is 15watts less then stock bios and helps with memory over clock as well. just something i found in my adventure to get my cpu stable. so if you have a overclocked gpu and cant get your cpu stable try stock settings then do cpu


----------



## djgar

New Strix BIOS!

STRIX X99 GAMING BIOS 1504
1.Improve system performance
2.Add in turn-off function of LED under S3/S4/S5 status.
3.Fixed Samsung device (SM961, printer) issues.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gta1989*
> 
> so ive been having a problem with my 6850k. i think i figured out the solution. im coming from x58 platform and have a 980ti classy under water with a modded bios for more voltage and power limit which worked perfect on my x58. i get my x99a msi mpower mobo and swap over my 980ti with its same stable overclock. seems fine at stock cpu settings. so i move to over clocking the cpu core clock and cache i get 4.6ghz on all 6 cores fine at 1.45v but cache wont clock above a -4x multiplier no matter the voltage. apparently if you have a gpu bios that has extra power target head room you cant take it from the pci lane on the x99a platform or the cache will become unstable. max i found to still get 4.2ghz cache is 60watts from the pci lane which is 15watts less then stock bios and helps with memory over clock as well. just something i found in my adventure to get my cpu stable. so if you have a overclocked gpu and cant get your cpu stable try stock settings then do cpu


uncore range on BWE is limited compared to Haswell parts. 3.8 is generally the hard wall, I wouldn't recommend pushing this rail beyond 1.25v


----------



## gta1989

yeah i was having very bad instability at 2400mhz uncore and 2133mhz mem with the bios i had on my gpu but after that i am perfectly stable with all tests and gaming at 4.2ghz uncore and 2800mhz memory. i am well aware of the effects of running 1.45 volts for the 4.6ghz clock daily but i have plenty of cooling and never see above 70c and am willing to take the chance on the ill effects.. i guess well call it an experiment for chip degradation i only needed 1.20v for the uncore and 1.050 vccsa for the memory


----------



## shonik09

So I just upgraded from a 6850k to a 6900k (managed to find one for a really good price used), but I am finding temps at the same voltage (~1.36v) are nearly 10 degrees higher... is this normal??


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> So I just upgraded from a 6850k to a 6900k (managed to find one for a really good price used), but I am finding temps at the same voltage (~1.36v) are nearly 10 degrees higher... is this normal??


more cores.


----------



## shonik09

Yeah I thought this would have an effect, but didn't expect 10 degrees... damn, looks like 4.3 may be my OC limit then


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> So I just upgraded from a 6850k to a 6900k (managed to find one for a really good price used), but I am finding temps at the same voltage (~1.36v) are nearly 10 degrees higher... is this normal??


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> Yeah I thought this would have an effect, but didn't expect 10 degrees... damn, looks like 4.3 may be my OC limit then


Just curious (as I'm gonna start installing my new system with 6850K soon) what was your previous 6850k OC (core & cache) at 1.36v and also what temps are you talking (assuming you were running it water cooled)?


----------



## shonik09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Just curious (as I'm gonna start installing my new system with 6850K soon) what was your previous 6850k OC (core & cache) at 1.36v and also what temps are you talking (assuming you were running it water cooled)?


Well I didn't touch the cache, but 1.36 v was my max adaptive voltage (literally didn't go higher). My max temps were in the mid 70s when using IBT or OCCT. I was still getting safe temps all the way to 1.44v. That's why I'm so surprised with the temps on my 6900k maxing out at around 1.37...

Anyone have any idea if this is really normal? I may try reposting the CPU to see if that helps...


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> Well I didn't touch the cache, but 1.36 v was my max adaptive voltage (literally didn't go higher). My max temps were in the mid 70s when using IBT or OCCT. I was still getting safe temps all the way to 1.44v. That's why I'm so surprised with the temps on my 6900k maxing out at around 1.37...
> 
> Anyone have any idea if this is really normal? I may try reposting the CPU to see if that helps...


Hello

What @Jpmboy has already wrote. Plus the amount of leakage of different CPUs will also vary so a temperature difference can be expected.


----------



## shonik09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> What @Jpmboy has already wrote. Plus the amount of leakage of different CPUs will also vary so a temperature difference can be expected.


Fair enough. Maybe I won't repaste then, as temps don't go higher than 50 in gaming tbh... What are the common signs of too little paste? Super high temps even at idle?


----------



## mrkambo

been playing around with my timings today down to 14-15-14-32 1T at 3000mhz, dont think i can get the timings down much more...


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Just curious (as I'm gonna start installing my new system with 6850K soon) what was your previous 6850k OC (core & cache) at 1.36v and also what temps are you talking (assuming you were running it water cooled)?
> 
> 
> 
> Well I didn't touch the cache, but 1.36 v was my max adaptive voltage (literally didn't go higher). My max temps were in the mid 70s when using IBT or OCCT. I was still getting safe temps all the way to 1.44v. That's why I'm so surprised with the temps on my 6900k maxing out at around 1.37...
> 
> Anyone have any idea if this is really normal? I may try reposting the CPU to see if that helps...
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks!








But were you talking about what OC freq?


----------



## shonik09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Ok, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But were you talking about what OC freq?


That was at 4.4Ghz rock solid stable. At 1.36 it passed 50 IBT followed by an hour on OCCT, as well as AIDA 64, with 0 crashes. More importantly, I didn't experience any crashes for around 4 months, in games or data analysis workloads.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> That was at 4.4Ghz rock solid stable. At 1.36 it passed 50 IBT followed by an hour on OCCT, as well as AIDA 64, with 0 crashes. More importantly, I didn't experience any crashes for around 4 months, in games or data analysis workloads.


Wait a minute, wait a minute, I know this (avatar) rig you got with blue liquid!








So, where's your old cpu?
Cause I've just got one identical


----------



## shonik09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Wait a minute, wait a minute, I know this (avatar) rig you got with blue liquid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where's your old cpu?
> Cause I've just got one identical


Now you mention it, I just sold it to a guy in London... you didn't buy off eBay by any chance did you? Haha what are the odds!


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shonik09*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Wait a minute, wait a minute, I know this (avatar) rig you got with blue liquid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where's your old cpu?
> Cause I've just got one identical
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you mention it, I just sold it to a guy in London... you didn't buy off eBay by any chance did you? Haha what are the odds!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's me mate!








Btw:



Still waiting for a rotary 45 Barrow fitting and I'm gonna start installing everything


----------



## Silent Scone

Small world


----------



## shonik09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, it's me mate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a rotary 45 Barrow fitting and I'm gonna start installing everything


Ah sweet, glad the CPU arrived in time







Well at least now you have a good idea of how the CPU should overclock







I'd say between 1.36 and 1.37 you should get 4.4 rock solid for anything, and like I said my temps never went above 75 with my cooling. If you want to push it, 4.5 with rock solid stability is also possible, but you need to go to at least 1.42 to achieve it. I had it there for about a week before deciding to just settle at ~1.36v, as I felt the voltage increase for 4.5 wasn't really worth it.

I've got my 6900k in now, but somehow managed to sell my Titan X Pascal for enough to be able to buy a 1080Ti + waterblock and have ~£250 left over, which I felt was too good of a deal to pass up, so will have to take my loop apart again for that


----------



## mrkambo

14-15-14-32 1T stable GSAT for 2 hours, needed +210mv on VCCSA and VCCIO is at 1.015v










EDIT:

Got the VCCSA down to 200mv


----------



## Jpmboy

what ram settings/timings?


----------



## cekim

head scratcher for my fellow broadwellers - subtle performance loss... somewhere.... recently....


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



6950x humming along at 4.4/3.7 since launch. Only real change I know of is adding an 960PRO M.2 1TB drive vs sata SSD(s) previously.

By itself seems fine cinebench and similar look good for a 4.4 6950x in windows (R15 = 2310). In linux, tight synthetic loops it shows its IPC improvement over a 5960x at 4.4 core for core.

But.... Not so long ago in a specific 8thread task (sorry can't say more than that) it edged out the 5960x slightly. It no longer does and I can't figure out why.

Here is the result of the last compute run - 8 cores on both, 4.4GHz on both, local disk (ssd) on both 3000 CAS15 on the 5960x, 3000 CAS14 on the 6950x, same kernel, OS, software packages, etc...:
5960x: Elapsed time: 2:57:45 (hh:mm::ss)
6950x: Elapsed time: 3:06:4

This difference is very consistent and repeatable now and I can even seen it in a much shorter run:
5960x: 2m:04s
6950x: 2m:18s

So, here's where things get really odd for broadwell-land:
2x2690v4: 2m:17s







:
- limited to 8 cores as with 6950x - running on a single socket cores 0-7 not 0:0-3 and 1:0-3 (so it _should NOT_ be getting a benefit from 8 channels vs 4 as a result).
- keep in mind this is 2400 CAS17 3.2GHz "all core turbo" (because xeon).

At this point, I'm down to the NVME stack on linux (3.10.x kernel) being really, really terrible under low load? It's the only variable I have not eliminated. Fair amount of setup to eliminate that... What is odd is that disk bound tasks show the benefit of the 960 pro. So, I find it odd that this would be a problem?



EDIT: NVM: ID-10-T error. Machine was busy re-building a raid array in the background. Once it finished, performance is now as expected.

... though the delta from BW-EP/Xeon as well as HW/xeon is still a bit of a mystery. This is of course one application with a large memory foot-print and churn within that image, lots of inter-thread/IPC as well. This example favors the HW-E chips as the 5960x has a 4.2GHz cache and the HW-EP/Xeon is modded to run faster than spec all-core turbo.

The break-down right now for 8 cores short-run:
5960x 2:04-2:06
6950x 2:04-2.06
2690v4: 2:16-2:17 (DDR4 2400 CAS17)
2696v3: 2.28-2:29 (DDR4 2133 CAS15 - bios mod to unlock turbo 3.1-3.8GHz)
2696v3: 2:16-2:17 (DDR4 2133 CAS11 - bios mod to unlock turbo 3.1-3.8GHz)


----------



## pangallosr

New to the B-E and trying to set up my OC. Day three in fact and feeling like I am not understanding what I am doing.
I've OC'd 3770's, 4790's and even 6700. Only once on a 4790 did I feel like I may have had a chip that fell in the SL category, and it wasn't mine..









Now with this a 6850k and I am stable with RB, CB gives me 1417, and while I type this out I am [email protected] on the cpu only.

Vcore 1.354
Vccin 1.792
all core at 45, I tried 46 but wasn't stable for RB.
Using the XMP on GSkill 3200 to that point.

I have an 8c spread across the 6 cores at most. With the highest the temperature ever reached has been on any test has been 57C, ambient 22C

So I guess I have a question, a couple I guess.
Do I really have a good chip?
and, should I try to see if that 46 is doable so long as I keep the core temps below 70C.

Thanks for any input.

edit: shutoff the folding for a bit while I go game
the vcore dropped to .935 and temperature is now at a steady 26C.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pangallosr*
> 
> New to the B-E and trying to set up my OC. Day three in fact and feeling like I am not understanding what I am doing.
> I've OC'd 3770's, 4790's and even 6700. Only once on a 4790 did I feel like I may have had a chip that fell in the SL category, and it wasn't mine..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now with this a 6850k and I am stable with RB, CB gives me 1417, and while I type this out I am [email protected] on the cpu only.
> 
> Vcore 1.354
> Vccin 1.792
> all core at 45, I tried 46 but wasn't stable for RB.
> Using the XMP on GSkill 3200 to that point.
> 
> I have an 8c spread across the 6 cores at most. With the highest the temperature ever reached has been on any test has been 57C, ambient 22C
> 
> So I guess I have a question, a couple I guess.
> Do I really have a good chip?
> and, should I try to see if that 46 is doable so long as I keep the core temps below 70C.
> 
> Thanks for any input.
> 
> edit: shutoff the folding for a bit while I go game
> the vcore dropped to .935 and temperature is now at a steady 26C.


If RealBench is stable for 1-2 hours with 1.35v 4.5, then I would be happy with this. The voltage required for 4.6 if possible likely isn't worth it.

Once better familiar with everything, you can maybe try experimenting with the Thermal Control tool if using an ASUS board, dialing in a stable voltage for 4.6 for light load scenarios such as gaming. It's a bit of a balancing act, but if wanting to push the envelope it works well.


----------



## pangallosr

Quote:


> If RealBench is stable for 1-2 hours with 1.35v 4.5, then I would be happy with this. The voltage required for 4.6 if possible likely isn't worth it.
> 
> Once better familiar with everything, you can maybe try experimenting with the Thermal Control tool if using an ASUS board, dialing in a stable voltage for 4.6 for light load scenarios such as gaming. It's a bit of a balancing act, but if wanting to push the envelope it works well.


thanks, just played a pretty heavy modded Skyrim SE for a little over an hour and the cpu never got above 36C on any of the cores


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pangallosr*
> 
> thanks, just played a pretty heavy modded Skyrim SE for a little over an hour and the cpu never got above 36C on any of the cores


good chip and seems like good cooling.


----------



## Blameless

Finally found some time to get back to tweaking my replacement 6800K and X99 OC Formula. Board is solid and came with updated firmware, but they didn't include any if the retention screws for the M.2 standoffs, so I've got to hit the hardware store before I can use any of my SSDs.

CPU is fine, though nothing special and a bit of a lower leakage part. Don't think I'm going to get more than 4.3GHz out of the cores and this takes 1.35-1.36v as it is. On the other hand, it runs phenomenally cool and I've been able to stress test it on an H55 set to 7v on the fan with the pump at 50%. This is my placeholder/test cooler (got it on sale for $40 a while back) and I was planning on putting a Swiftech AIO on it, but seeing how little heat this chip needs to dissipate I'll probably just keep the H55 on it until it breaks.

Also, looks like Micron/Crucial is binning their D9 ICs and Ballistix sticks more heavily than before...my newer kit is a good bit inferior to my old one. New kit doesn't budge past stock 2400MT/s, though I've at least been able to tighten timings significantly. Older kit, currently in my 5820K primary system does 2667MT/s 12-11-12-27-T1, with extremely tight subs. Newer kit is limited to 2400MT/s, 11-13-12-28-T2, with slightly looser subs. Tried both kits on both boards/CPUs and it's primarily the memory itself, not the platforms, that is the limiting factor.

These inflated DDR4 prices are really throwing a wrench in my upgrade plans. I don't particularly need fast memory, but I'd like a lot more of it. I was running 24-64GiB of DDR3 in my prior first line systems and having my fastest two setups now with only 16GiB each is frustrating. Still, my inner cheapskate won't let me pay current prices.

Right now I'm seeing how far I can take the uncore. 3.5GHz looks ok, so far, with 1.2v ring and +0.05 VccU. VccU seems to be the limiting factor at this point.


----------



## Vellinious

I finally broke down and bought an RVE10....I've been eye balling it for quite a while. I don't expect much more from it than what I already have, but....I'm always stoked to try something a little different.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I finally broke down and bought an RVE10....I've been eye balling it for quite a while. I don't expect much more from it than what I already have, but....I'm always stoked to try something a little different.


compared to the X99A... I think you're gonna liker the Re5-10!


----------



## xTesla1856

The Edition 10 is hands down the best board I've ever had.


----------



## djgar

I was entertaining it, but the larger width would've made the front-facing edge connectors inaccessible in my case configuration, so I settled for the Strix.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I was entertaining it, but the larger width would've made the front-facing edge connectors inaccessible in my case configuration, so I settled for the Strix.


Hmm....I should have plenty of room I think.

EDIT: just checked. It's 1.1" wider. No problem.

The board arrives on Thursday, the 3rd 1080 arrives today and the new pump tops and the other GPU block come in on Friday. This weekend should be fun. = ) It's time to tear it all down and redo it anyway.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Hmm....I should have plenty of room I think.
> 
> EDIT: just checked. It's 1.1" wider. No problem.
> 
> The board arrives on Thursday, the 3rd 1080 arrives today and the new pump tops and the other GPU block come in on Friday. This weekend should be fun. = ) *It's time to tear it all down and redo it anyway*.


for more than these things.. I have 2 bikes in my garage that need a complete "nut&bolt" work over...


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> for more than these things.. I have 2 bikes in my garage that need a complete "nut&bolt" work over...


The fun stuff. Sometimes I think I do this to just tear it down and rebuild it. lol


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> for more than these things.. I have 2 bikes in my garage that need a complete "nut&bolt" work over...


After shoveling snow today I need a "nut & bolt" make over









At least my OC seems to be in a decent position.


----------



## Silent Scone

Ah, oh what a chore it is to have multiple hobbies


----------



## xTesla1856

After more dialing in I can say this thing is finally stable (for now). 4.4GHz at 1.37V and 3.7GHz cache at 1.25V. Little high on the voltage side but temps stay below 70.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> After shoveling snow today I need a "nut & bolt" make over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least my OC seems to be in a decent position.


Shoveling? NFW, not this white cement that we got here.. 14" of ice ball bearings! I hug this contraption on days like today!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Ah, oh what a chore it is to have multiple hobbies


okayh, I'll sit down and shut up.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Shoveling? NFW, not this white cement that we got here.. 14" of ice ball bearings! I hug this contraption on days like today!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> okayh, I'll sit down and shut up.


We got one maybe a little smaller, but it can't take care of some areas ...


----------



## Carfax83

Hey guys, this is my first post here, but I thought you could help me as this forum is such a vast depository of knowledge when it comes to CPU overclocking.

I just bought a 6900K and a new motherboard (Asus X99A II with the latest UEFI) paired with a 32GB G.Skill DDR4 3200 kit and so far, everything is going fine. I have it set right now to 4.3ghz and it's rock solid stable, but I know it can do more.

However I've noticed a weird discrepancy. The chip seems to be unresponsive to the adaptive voltage setting in the UEFI. I have it set to 1.2v for max turbo voltage, which means it's not supposed to exceed that amount, except for maybe a little bit.

But, this chip routinely hits 1.26v when I monitor the voltage under load in Windows with CPU-Z and AIDA64 Extreme. HWinfo also reported the same voltage.

It maxes out at 1.264v regardless of whether it's at adaptive or just at auto, which makes me suspect the adaptive setting isn't functioning properly. I even put the max turbo at 1.185v, and it still goes up to 1.264v

This is weird, because my previous CPU (a 5930K) worked very well with adaptive voltage, and I know that Broadwell isn't a huge change from Haswell so I don't know what's causing it.

Anyone else with a Broadwell-E CPU ever encountered this before? It appears I'm not the only one having this issue either, as a guy at LinusTechTips had the same problem:

Core voltage too high when using adaptive voltage.

Thanks for any assist. I called Asus tech support BTW, and predictably they blamed the CPU.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> Hey guys, this is my first post here, but I thought you could help me as this forum is such a vast depository of knowledge when it comes to CPU overclocking.
> 
> I just bought a 6900K and a new motherboard (Asus X99A II with the latest UEFI) paired with a 32GB G.Skill DDR4 3200 kit and so far, everything is going fine. I have it set right now to 4.3ghz and it's rock solid stable, but I know it can do more.
> 
> However I've noticed a weird discrepancy. The chip seems to be unresponsive to the adaptive voltage setting in the UEFI. I have it set to 1.2v for max turbo voltage, which means it's not supposed to exceed that amount, except for maybe a little bit.
> 
> But, this chip routinely hits 1.26v when I monitor the voltage under load in Windows with CPU-Z and AIDA64 Extreme. HWinfo also reported the same voltage.
> 
> It maxes out at 1.264v regardless of whether it's at adaptive or just at auto, which makes me suspect the adaptive setting isn't functioning properly. I even put the max turbo at 1.185v, and it still goes up to 1.264v
> 
> This is weird, because my previous CPU (a 5930K) worked very well with adaptive voltage, and I know that Broadwell isn't a huge change from Haswell so I don't know what's causing it.
> 
> Anyone else with a Broadwell-E CPU ever encountered this before? It appears I'm not the only one having this issue either, as a guy at LinusTechTips had the same problem:
> 
> Core voltage too high when using adaptive voltage.
> 
> Thanks for any assist. I called Asus tech support BTW, and predictably they blamed the CPU.


Hello

Adaptive seems to be functioning fine. It does not allow for a voltage level lower than what is default. Set a higher value and it will respond accordingly.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> We got one maybe a little smaller, but it can't take care of some areas ...


snow was so nasty crusted here, the horses didn't want to leave the paddock area... until I cleared a path for them. freakin' pansies.


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Adaptive seems to be functioning fine. It does not allow for a voltage level lower than what is default. Set a higher value and it will respond accordingly.


Thanks Praz for replying to my post. My question is, the default voltage for my CPU is 1.043 as shown in the UEFI, so how could it be so much higher than the default?

Also, if I set everything to *auto* with adaptive voltage disabled, then it draws the same voltage. That's what made me suspect that the adaptive voltage wasn't working properly in the first place.

I don't know, when I had my 5930K adaptive voltage worked perfectly fine according to what I'd read about it. But with Broadwell-E, I haven't had that impression at all.


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> I just bought a 6900K and a new motherboard (Asus X99A II with the latest UEFI) paired with a 32GB G.Skill DDR4 3200 kit and so far, everything is going fine. I have it set right now to 4.3ghz and it's rock solid stable, but I know it can do more.
> 
> However I've noticed a weird discrepancy. The chip seems to be unresponsive to the adaptive voltage setting in the UEFI. I have it set to 1.2v for max turbo voltage, which means it's not supposed to exceed that amount, except for maybe a little bit.
> 
> But, this chip routinely hits 1.26v when I monitor the voltage under load in Windows with CPU-Z and AIDA64 Extreme. HWinfo also reported the same voltage.
> 
> It maxes out at 1.264v regardless of whether it's at adaptive or just at auto, which makes me suspect the adaptive setting isn't functioning properly. I even put the max turbo at 1.185v, and it still goes up to 1.264v.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Adaptive seems to be functioning fine. It does not allow for a voltage level lower than what is default. Set a higher value and it will respond accordingly.


Adaptive is CPU dependent on what the base VID requires at certain MHz. Praz can definitely explain it more eloquently than I, but think of it as what Intel hardcoded into the CPU to think it requires. It will not go below that threshold unless you go with manual voltage, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> Thanks Praz for replying to my post. My question is, the default voltage for my CPU is 1.043 as shown in the UEFI, so how could it be so much higher than the default?
> 
> Also, if I set everything to *auto* with adaptive voltage disabled, then it draws the same voltage. That's what made me suspect that the adaptive voltage wasn't working properly in the first place.
> 
> I don't know, when I had my 5930K adaptive voltage worked perfectly fine according to what I'd read about it. But with Broadwell-E, I haven't had that impression at all.


Depending on if you have changed the Boot performance mode, the volttage you are seeing in UEFI is the VID for that frequency (likely max non-turbo multiplier - useful to know if you were using offset). So, as Praz said, the voltage set with adaptive (since it is Additional Turbo voltage) is added on top of the VID for the frequency being used. It may be that for your cpu the VID of 1.264V is that high.. but it may not necessarily be what the chip needs. Best to first switch to Manual (override) and determine the voltage needed for the freq you want to run (and that the chip/cooling can deal with). then, simply enter that number in the Adaptive field after switching back (leave CPU SVID on Auto for both). Also, remember that CPUZ AID64 etc, report voltage in 16mV increments.


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Adaptive is CPU dependent on what the base VID requires at certain MHz. Praz can definitely explain it more eloquently than I, but think of it as what Intel hardcoded into the CPU to think it requires. It will not go below that threshold unless you go with manual voltage, if I recall correctly.


Wow well if this is true about it being "hardcoded" to require a certain VID at a certain clock speed, then that definitely explains my problems!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Depending on if you have changed the Boot performance mode, the volttage you are seeing in UEFI is the VID for that frequency (likely max non-turbo multiplier - useful to know if you were using offset). So, as Praz said, the voltage set with adaptive (since it is Additional Turbo voltage) is added on top of the VID for the frequency being used. It may be that for your cpu the VID of 1.264V is that high.. but it may not necessarily be what the chip needs. Best to first switch to Manual (override) and determine the voltage needed for the freq you want to run (and that the chip/cooling can deal with). then, simply enter that number in the Adaptive field after switching back (leave CPU SVID on Auto for both). Also, remember that CPUZ AID64 etc, report voltage in 16mV increments.


I did a test with manual voltage, and I have excellent stability at 4.3ghz with 1.24v. However, because of the VID thing, it seems I will never be able to run at less than 1.26vv at 4.3 with adaptive voltage.

Is there a way to override the VID limitation without using manual voltage?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> snow was so nasty crusted here, the horses didn't want to leave the paddock area... until I cleared a path for them. freakin' pansies.


yeah, maybe they were being smartly sensible







. It was sludgy and heavy here.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Ah, oh what a chore it is to have multiple hobbies


I need to stop working to have enough time for goofing around. This working stuff is BS...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> yeah, maybe they were being smartly sensible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . It was sludgy and heavy here.


I think I might agree if I had metal shoden hooves and saw ice... "Noooope!"


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I need to stop working to have enough time for goofing around. This working stuff is BS...


Ironically, I got a BS so I could get work ...


----------



## SpeedyIV

Ha! That's funny. So did I. I have a BS E.E. though I can't say it made me a better over clocker


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> Ha! That's funny. So did I. I have a BS E.E. though I can't say it made me a better over clocker


I started in EE but switched to CS. May not make us better OC'ers but definitely sparks our interest


----------



## SpeedyIV

Yeah I 'll agree with that cause here I am


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> Wow well if this is true about it being "hardcoded" to require a certain VID at a certain clock speed, then that definitely explains my problems!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did a test with manual voltage, and I have excellent stability at 4.3ghz with 1.24v. However, because of the VID thing, it seems I will never be able to run at less than 1.26vv at 4.3 with adaptive voltage.
> 
> Is there a way to override the VID limitation without using manual voltage?


You can use a negative offset value with adaptive... the potential issues is that the offset applies across the entire VID stack so it could lead to instability at idle due to a lowered idle voltage. On the other hand, you could run at 4.4 and see what voltage it requires.
Using manual really is not a problem - just use aggressive c-states and the system will enter low power at idle. Not low voltage but low power. idle voltage is nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> You can use a negative offset value with adaptive... the potential issues is that the offset applies across the entire VID stack so it could lead to instability at idle due to a lowered idle voltage. On the other hand, you could run at 4.4 and see what voltage it requires.
> Using manual really is not a problem - just use aggressive c-states and the system will enter low power at idle. Not low voltage but low power. idle voltage is nothing to be concerned about.


Hey thanks for the info man. I think I will just stick with my current config. It's not as though 1.264v is that high, and while the chip can hit 4.3ghz at 1.24v, it's not a huge difference.

Ever since I degraded a Core i7 920 D0 and a 3930K years ago, I'm very wary of using fixed voltages. I much prefer to use adaptive, as I want the CPU to be using the least amount of voltage/power as possible during most of its lifetime, which like most CPUs will be spent in low power states by idling on the desktop and surfing the net. As such, load voltage which occurs during performance activities like gaming and encoding are secondary concerns as long as it's not outrageous.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> Hey thanks for the info man. I think I will just stick with my current config. It's not as though 1.264v is that high, and while the chip can hit 4.3ghz at 1.24v, it's not a huge difference.
> 
> Ever since I degraded a Core i7 920 D0 and a 3930K years ago, I'm very wary of using fixed voltages. I much prefer to use adaptive, as I want the CPU to be using the least amount of voltage/power as possible during most of its lifetime, which like most CPUs will be spent in low power states by idling on the desktop and surfing the net. As such, load voltage which occurs during performance activities like gaming and encoding are secondary concerns as long as it's not outrageous.


it's very unusual for manual override to result in degradation. That said, Adaptive is very comforting.


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> it's very unusual for manual override to result in degradation. That said, Adaptive is very comforting.


Well let's just say, that my knowledge concerning overclocking on the Core i7s back then wasn't very good, and combined with my zeal to get as high an overclock as possible, it wasn't exactly a winning combination









Nowadays though I'm much wiser, and I won't be falling into that same trap again with the lust for MHz







My 6900K at 4.3ghz is already noticeably faster than my old 5930K which did 4.4ghz at 1.23v, even on the desktop environment. I think a Haswell-E would need around a 400Mhz clock speed advantage of equal Broadwell-E, and even more in certain workloads that are heavy on floating point and SIMD due to Broadwell-E having a faster multiplier, divider and vector gather.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> head scratcher for my fellow broadwellers - subtle performance loss... somewhere.... recently....
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 6950x humming along at 4.4/3.7 since launch. Only real change I know of is adding an 960PRO M.2 1TB drive vs sata SSD(s) previously.
> 
> By itself seems fine cinebench and similar look good for a 4.4 6950x in windows (R15 = 2310). In linux, tight synthetic loops it shows its IPC improvement over a 5960x at 4.4 core for core.
> 
> But.... Not so long ago in a specific 8thread task (sorry can't say more than that) it edged out the 5960x slightly. It no longer does and I can't figure out why.
> 
> Here is the result of the last compute run - 8 cores on both, 4.4GHz on both, local disk (ssd) on both 3000 CAS15 on the 5960x, 3000 CAS14 on the 6950x, same kernel, OS, software packages, etc...:
> 5960x: Elapsed time: 2:57:45 (hh:mm::ss)
> 6950x: Elapsed time: 3:06:4
> 
> This difference is very consistent and repeatable now and I can even seen it in a much shorter run:
> 5960x: 2m:04s
> 6950x: 2m:18s
> 
> So, here's where things get really odd for broadwell-land:
> 2x2690v4: 2m:17s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :
> - limited to 8 cores as with 6950x - running on a single socket cores 0-7 not 0:0-3 and 1:0-3 (so it _should NOT_ be getting a benefit from 8 channels vs 4 as a result).
> - keep in mind this is 2400 CAS17 3.2GHz "all core turbo" (because xeon).
> 
> At this point, I'm down to the NVME stack on linux (3.10.x kernel) being really, really terrible under low load? It's the only variable I have not eliminated. Fair amount of setup to eliminate that... What is odd is that disk bound tasks show the benefit of the 960 pro. So, I find it odd that this would be a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: NVM: ID-10-T error. Machine was busy re-building a raid array in the background. Once it finished, performance is now as expected.
> 
> ... though the delta from BW-EP/Xeon as well as HW/xeon is still a bit of a mystery. This is of course one application with a large memory foot-print and churn within that image, lots of inter-thread/IPC as well. This example favors the HW-E chips as the 5960x has a 4.2GHz cache and the HW-EP/Xeon is modded to run faster than spec all-core turbo.
> 
> The break-down right now for 8 cores short-run:
> 5960x 2:04-2:06
> 6950x 2:04-2.06
> 2690v4: 2:16-2:17 (DDR4 2400 CAS17)
> 2696v3: 2.28-2:29 (DDR4 2133 CAS15 - bios mod to unlock turbo 3.1-3.8GHz)
> 2696v3: 2:16-2:17 (DDR4 2133 CAS11 - bios mod to unlock turbo 3.1-3.8GHz)


Revive of this issue... Replaced 128G of 3000 CAS14 with 128G 3200 CAS14 (TridentZ).

1. Before I did, I was seeing a return to poor performance of the 6950x randomly that I've never seen on the the 5960x system. (2.04-2.06 randomly becomes 2.15-2:18 with no evident cause. Thought I had traced it to a raid re-build, but seeing it now with no such load on the system).

2. Now that I did. All that just went away...

Performance in the specific test mentioned here jumped by 11% from the best this 6950x ever did and and ~19% from what I would typically see on any given day in any given run. new result is consistently 1:51-1:52, which now beats, with 8 cores, a 16 core xeon v3 and v4 running the same test (1:55-1:57)

So, I'm happy, but very confused.









What the heck was going on with that old memory kit that did not produce errors but slowed the system down?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Hello
I oc my ram to 3000 mhz and passed 2 hours on google stress test under linux
But the board set the timing cas 16, trcd 18, trp 18, tras 40, trfc 391.
Can i lower these values or lower the cas or should i left them as they are set by the board?
Thank u


----------



## psychok9

Hello guys, i need to build a new system for gaming/virtualization at the cheapest price. Do you have any advise?
I was thinking about a 6800k, to overclock ofc, plus 32GB DDR4 2666/3000MHz.
At the moment I have an I7 [email protected] 16GB DDR3 1600.
Do you think that it is worths?

Thank you.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

For me, it makes a huge difference in battlefield 1, no more stutter and smooth gameplay, get the fastest ram because it makes also huge difference , i had the 3770k now 6800k 4.2 quad memory @3000 oc, if you can wait for the skylake 6 cores in the summer, but takes my advice, go for hexa core cpu


----------



## psychok9

Does Skylake 6C/12T will bring new socket? I can wait summer, but not over than that


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Yes lga 2066, and will support many comming generation hexa core cpu,
But don't listen for people said, 6 cores or fast ram not makes difference, watch dogs 2 and battlefield 1 maxed all 4 cores cpu even 7700k cannot support watch dogs 2, 100% usage on all cores with gpu bottleneck, and fast ram makes huge difference on watch dogs 2 especially in open world games, 6 cores cpu and 3000 mhz ram and you will not regret, and if i had money i picked the 8 cores cpu.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> compared to the X99A... I think you're gonna liker the Re5-10!


Got it put in today....love it. I'm getting the same clocks with slightly less voltage, and it's scoring better in benches by a little bit. Now I just need a cold day so I can put the boots to it and see what it can do with the CPU ramped up to 4.6.


----------



## Dwofzz

Am I also a victim of ddr4 going rogue or is it just that my x79 system is properly tuned?

X79
4.5 GHz
125 blck
2666 MHz

Cinebench 11.5 - 13.64p
Cinebench 15 - ?
Firestrike physics - 17800 ~
RB bench - 29, 41, 46 sec
Aida64 - 63000, 69800, 66000 mb/s 48,2 ms

Vs

X99
4.4 GHz
3200/3200 ram/cache
100 blck

Cinebench 11.5 - 15.20p
Cinebench 15 - 1400p
Firestrike physics - 20060p
RB bench - 21,41,41 sec
Aida64 - 59000,70000,67000 mb/s 54,3 ms

So what do you guys think?


----------



## Kimir

what CPUs? your aida bandwidth will be influenced by the amount of cores.
From those results on x99, I'd say you haven't optimized your timings at all.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> what CPUs? your aida bandwidth will be influenced by the amount of cores.
> From those results on x99, I'd say you haven't optimized your timings at all.


4930k vs 6850k and the timings are perfect, as tight as they can get.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> 4930k vs 6850k and the timings are perfect, as tight as they can get.


Hello

As tight as they can get often equates to background error correction which impacts performance. Also the same version of AIDA needs to be used for all comparison testing.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> As tight as they can get often equates to background error correction which impacts performance. Also the same version of AIDA needs to be used for all comparison testing.


Hmm, I had not realized Intel was making use of DDR4 retry/crc on non-ECC systems??

This would provide an explanation for the huge performance jump I've seen moving from a 128G 3000CAS14 to a 3200CAS14 kit on Friday.

The 3000/14 kit would run PSAT without error, but overall the system was slower than it should be compared to past performance and in comparison to HWE.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Hmm, I had not realized Intel was making use of DDR4 retry/crc on non-ECC systems??
> 
> This would provide an explanation for the huge performance jump I've seen moving from a 128G 3000CAS14 to a 3200CAS14 kit on Friday.
> 
> The 3000/14 kit would run PSAT without error, but overall the system was slower than it should be compared to past performance and in comparison to HWE.


Hello

CRC and parity checks are part of the base specification for DDR4 irrespective of ECC capability. These properties are similar in nature to error correction used with GDDR5.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> As tight as they can get often equates to background error correction which impacts performance. Also the same version of AIDA needs to be used for all comparison testing.


You did not read the perfect part








Looser = less performance
More aggressive = no go
This is the point where I get the most out of the system and this is well tested. However I did up the cache to 3.5 GHz and changed the cache and SA volt and now I'm getting :

63500
76200 mb/s
69800
51,8 ms

Something is fishy with these ddr4...

And ofc it is the same version of aida64!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> CRC and parity checks are part of the base specification for DDR4 irrespective of ECC capability.


Understood, but it is up to the memory controller to choose to retry vs report the error and allow the chip to "halt and catch fire".

Makes sense, just didn't realize they had done that with the HW/BW IMC.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> You did not read the perfect part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looser = less performance
> More aggressive = no go
> This is the point where I get the most out of the system and this is well tested. However I did up the cache to 3.5 GHz and changed the cache and SA volt and now I'm getting :
> 
> 63500
> 76200 mb/s
> 69800
> 51,8 ms
> 
> Something is fishy with these ddr4...
> 
> And ofc it is the same version of aida64!


Got a screen of those timings? (asrock timing configurator preferably)


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Got a screen of those timings? (asrock timing configurator preferably)


----------



## Vellinious

The RVE10 installed and lit up. Gotta get Aura downloaded and get the backlights set to stop cycling.

Yeah, yeah...cable management sucks yet. Need to get the cables sleeved and the monoblock is on the way. Will work on that soon.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> The RVE10 installed and lit up. Gotta get Aura downloaded and get the backlights set to stop cycling.
> 
> Yeah, yeah...cable management sucks yet. Need to get the cables sleeved and the monoblock is on the way. Will work on that soon.


You can do that from the bios!


----------



## chibi

You can, but it won't stop the RGB backlight when the computer is in a shutdown state - Aura will fix that.


----------



## IchiRuki

Upgrading my rig with this beauty


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hello e!!

Hello to everybody,

I am having this strange "problem".
Almost on every 3D game or benchmark I am having one core working @100% instead of balancing the load between the other cores.
And I don't have any clue why this is happening.



Any pro tip I can try?

Thanks in adavance.

Regards.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello e!!
> 
> Hello to everybody,
> 
> I am having this strange "problem".
> Almost on every 3D game or benchmark I am having one core working @100% instead of balancing the load between the other cores.
> And I don't have any clue why this is happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Any pro tip I can try?
> 
> Thanks in adavance.
> 
> Regards.


That benchmark you're running in the picture looks like Valley....it's very CPU bound and only utilizes one core. Heaven is the same way, just not as bad. There are still quite a few games / benchmarks that only utilize one core.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Is the same on every game :|


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> 
> 
> Is the same on every game :|


The games you're playing are likely very lightly threaded......try a DX12 title, they have a better chance of using more threads than anything in DX11. Could be something with Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 or whatever they call it. It works like this....gives preference to the "preferred core".


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> The games you're playing are likely very lightly threaded......try a DX12 title, they have a better chance of using more threads than anything in DX11. Could be something with Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 or whatever they call it. It works like this....gives preference to the "preferred core".


Thank you for your help









Is there any way of turning this off (Intel turbo boost)?
I do have 6900K paired with Asus RE10 MB.

Thanks again


----------



## Vlada011

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IchiRuki*
> 
> Upgrading my rig with this beauty


Nice upgrade. Only is bad because Intel keep same high prices, instead to their customers upgrade to i7-6900K for same price as AMD.
i7-6800K - 200$
I7-6850K - 300$
i7-6900K - 500$
i7-6950X - 800$


----------



## brakedalen

I'm struggling a bit with my OC, and hope someone can help me.

CPU: Intel i7-6800k, 3.4ghz (OC @ 4,2Ghz)
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 QC 32GB (4x8)
MOBO: ASRock X99 Taichi
GPU: ATI AMD FirePro W7100
PSU: Corsair RM850i
Water cooler Cooler: CORSAIR Hydro Series H100i v2
SDD: INTEL 600p Series 512GB NVMe PCIe, M.2

I'm struggling to get a stable OC at 4.2Ghz.
I have found a stable voltage for stress test without any issues, at 4,0 / 4,2 / 4,4Ghz.
But they all fail, after the stress test is finished and the systems is idle for a period of time.
They even fail when i don't stress test, but just use the compluter for 7-8 hours and let it stay idle over night.

Currently I have the VCORE at 1,366, and multipler at 42x100Mhz.

I see that many people are able to OC this to 4,2Ghz at much lover voltages, so i'm thinking that it's probably something else.
Does anyone have "the soluition" for this? =)

PS: I have updated all drivers, and run ccleaner.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brakedalen*
> 
> I'm struggling a bit with my OC, and hope someone can help me.
> 
> CPU: Intel i7-6800k, 3.4ghz (OC @ 4,2Ghz)
> RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 QC 32GB (4x8)
> MOBO: ASRock X99 Taichi
> GPU: ATI AMD FirePro W7100
> PSU: Corsair RM850i
> Water cooler Cooler: CORSAIR Hydro Series H100i v2
> SDD: INTEL 600p Series 512GB NVMe PCIe, M.2
> 
> I'm struggling to get a stable OC at 4.2Ghz.
> I have found a stable voltage for stress test without any issues, at 4,0 / 4,2 / 4,4Ghz.
> But they all fail, after the stress test is finished and the systems is idle for a period of time.
> They even fail when i don't stress test, but just use the compluter for 7-8 hours and let it stay idle over night.
> 
> Currently I have the VCORE at 1,366, and multipler at 42x100Mhz.
> 
> I see that many people are able to OC this to 4,2Ghz at much lover voltages, so i'm thinking that it's probably something else.
> Does anyone have "the soluition" for this? =)
> 
> PS: I have updated all drivers, and run ccleaner.


1) What stress test(s) are you using

2) Disable XMP and retest to ensure the crashes are not a red herring from memory instability


----------



## KCDC

Looks like there's a RealBench 2.5 RC2 available to try:

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?43233-Realbench-v2-Discussion-Thread-Download-Links/page42


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> Looks like there's a RealBench 2.5 RC2 available to try:
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?43233-Realbench-v2-Discussion-Thread-Download-Links/page42


Cool!


----------



## brakedalen

I have been using prime95 v26.6, Intel XTU and Autodesk Inventor 2017(Raytrace).
I've tried multiple variants of VCORE, and have done multiple successfull stress tests. The problem always occurs during idle status.
I have also done run multiple MemTests without anny errors.

The PC actually made it though a whole night, last night, and did not freeze until 26,5h. The VCORE is now at 1,393V.
Should i should keep increasing the voltage to i get a stable system?
I have read that it should be kept under 1,4V for 24/7 operation.

I will try disabling the XMP profile, and see if i get better results.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hello again,

I am new with my 6900K (had the chance to upgrade my 6850K to 6900K and I took it).

I am playing with values right now I am struggling making RAM stable (HCI MEMTEST) without errors but not sure which values I should play with

I have been reading about VSA & VCCIO having big impact on mem stability but not sure how high I can go for 3200 MHz CL 14.

Right now this down below are my settings set in BIOS:

Core: x43
Cache: x34
LLC: 6

Thanks to Jpmboy:





I know I do have high vcore for 4.3 but just want it to be very stable and then relax voltages to get the lowest ones.

My main goal is to have that CPU @ 4.4 GHz with 3200 MHz for RAM.

Any thing you can see out of bounds?
Any pro tips to get it stable first on 4.3 GHz?

Regards


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello again,
> 
> I am new with my 6900K (had the chance to upgrade my 6850K to 6900K and I took it).
> 
> I am playing with values right now I am struggling making RAM stable (HCI MEMTEST) without errors but not sure which values I should play with
> 
> I have been reading about VSA & VCCIO having big impact on mem stability but not sure how high I can go for 3200 MHz CL 14.
> 
> Right now this down below are my settings set in BIOS:
> 
> Core: x43
> Cache: x34
> LLC: 6
> 
> Thanks to Jpmboy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I do have high vcore for 4.3 but just want it to be very stable and then relax voltages to get the lowest ones.
> 
> My main goal is to have that CPU @ 4.4 GHz with 3200 MHz for RAM.
> 
> Any thing you can see out of bounds?
> Any pro tips to get it stable first on 4.3 GHz?
> 
> Regards


The VCCSA can be adjusted via offset. Aim for a voltage of 0.900 and work up to 1.15v till stability is found. More is not necessarily better for this rail, and 1.3v is more than you want to be using on these CPU. For example my CPU likes around 0.950 - 1v and is perfectly happy at the quoted frequency and CAS


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The VCCSA can be adjusted via offset. Aim for a voltage of 0.900 and work up to 1.15v till stability is found. More is not necessarily better for this rail, *and 1.3v is more than you want to be using on these CPU*. For example my CPU likes around 0.950 - 1v and is perfectly happy at the quoted frequency and CAS


^^ This. that level VSA on a BWE is likely not very healthy.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The VCCSA can be adjusted via offset. Aim for a voltage of 0.900 and work up to 1.15v till stability is found. More is not necessarily better for this rail, and 1.3v is more than you want to be using on these CPU. For example my CPU likes around 0.950 - 1v and is perfectly happy at the quoted frequency and CAS


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This. that level VSA on a BWE is likely not very healthy.


Ok I managed to lower VSA to this:



Any other voltage you see there out of range or high? I think I can lower vcore but I want it to be high at the moment so no problems comes from there.
I will try to lower VCCIN as well.

Has VCCIN and Vcore impact on memory stability?

I mean if it has impact I will retest mem to look for stability.

Thanks to both of you


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Ok I managed to lower VSA to this:
> 
> 
> 
> Any other voltage you see there out of range or high? I think I can lower vcore but I want it to be high at the moment so no problems comes from there.
> I will try to lower VCCIN as well.
> 
> Has VCCIN and Vcore impact on memory stability?
> 
> I mean if it has impact I will retest mem to look for stability.
> 
> Thanks to both of you


Lowering different rails for the sake of lowering them is a recipe for coming unstuck quickly. Now that you've lowered the system agent voltage, test memory stability with HCI or Google Stress app. The correct methods for doing so can be found in the link in my signature


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Ok I managed to lower VSA to this:
> 
> 
> 
> Any other voltage you see there out of range or high? I think I can lower vcore but I want it to be high at the moment so no problems comes from there.
> I will try to lower VCCIN as well.
> 
> Has VCCIN and Vcore impact on memory stability?
> 
> I mean if it has impact I will retest mem to look for stability.
> 
> Thanks to both of you


cpu vccio "1.05V"... most you should need is like 1.07 or so. BTW, are these the Auto values??


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> cpu vccio "1.05V"... most you should need is like 1.07 or so. BTW, are these the Auto values??


Yes most of them are Auto values.
Is anything wrong there?

I will provide pics from BIOS if that helps you to see any wrong value.

Thanks


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Yes most of them are Auto values.
> Is anything wrong there?
> 
> I will provide pics from BIOS if that helps you to see any wrong value.
> 
> Thanks


Many of us overclockers tend to be a bit suspicious of key parameter Auto settings









Hmmm, I didn't know they watched Ghost in the Shell out there in Spain (I'm originally from Gijón







) ...


----------



## Blameless

I've got one lemon core on my current 6800K sample that needs about 80mV more than any of the others for stability.

Probably going to need to limit my part to 4.2GHz if I don't want to push 1.4 vcore.


----------



## VinnieM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I've got one lemon core on my current 6800K sample that needs about 80mV more than any of the others for stability.
> 
> Probably going to need to limit my part to 4.2GHz if I don't want to push 1.4 vcore.


Just set the "bad" cores at a lower multiplier (if you have the option to change the multiplier per core) and try running the other cores on a higher multiplier than 42. Using adaptive voltage the cores on lower multipliers automatically run on lower voltages. With a negative voltage offset you can even control how much the voltage "drops" per lower multiplier.
I'm running 2 cores on 45 at 1.405V, 2 cores on 44 at 1.360V and the 2 worst cores on 43 at 1.310V.
This is achieved by using a additional turbo voltage at 1.485V, but a negative offset of 0.080, thus the net result is 1.405V for the cores running on the highest multiplier (45). I can run all cores on 44 at 1.385V, but then the temperatures are higher than what I'm using now.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

hello

did someone ever use the coollaboratory liquid cooler (thermal paste) between the water cooler and the CPU ? it is safe ?

CPU cooler surface is copper not aluminum, but the cpu heatsink is aluminum ? or nickel ? thank u


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> hello
> 
> did someone ever use the coollaboratory liquid cooler (thermal paste) between the water cooler and the CPU ? it is safe ?
> 
> CPU cooler surface is copper not aluminum, but the cpu heatsink is aluminum ? or nickel ? thank u


do not use CLU/P with anything Alu. Copper will stain. Best to use a nickel plated block.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Yes lga 2066
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hello again,
> 
> I am new with my 6900K (had the chance to upgrade my 6850K to 6900K and I took it).
> 
> I am playing with values right now I am struggling making RAM stable (HCI MEMTEST) without errors but not sure which values I should play with
> 
> I have been reading about VSA & VCCIO having big impact on mem stability but not sure how high I can go for 3200 MHz CL 14.
> 
> Right now this down below are my settings set in BIOS:
> 
> Core: x43
> Cache: x34
> LLC: 6
> 
> Thanks to Jpmboy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I do have high vcore for 4.3 but just want it to be very stable and then relax voltages to get the lowest ones.
> 
> My main goal is to have that CPU @ 4.4 GHz with 3200 MHz for RAM.
> 
> Any thing you can see out of bounds?
> Any pro tips to get it stable first on 4.3 GHz?
> 
> Regards


How much did c
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> do not use CLU/P with anything Alu. Copper will stain. Best to use a nickel plated block.


thanks for reply
my AIO water cooler surface is copper
as I understand from you reply, there is a risk, so I will avoid it, thank u


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VinnieM*
> 
> Just set the "bad" cores at a lower multiplier (if you have the option to change the multiplier per core) and try running the other cores on a higher multiplier than 42.


Unfortunately neither of my X99 boards support per core multipliers. I can set turbo multiplier based on number of active cores, and I can disable cores, but I can't pick the turbo multiplier that will be used on a per-core basis.


----------



## pompss

Guys one question

I change thermal paste three times and im still having idle temperature at 44c .

One time i think was too much second time to less but im sure that this time i put the correct amount of grizzly paste.

Temp never changed always at 44. At the Begging seems to stay at 34c after few minute jump up to 44c.

So after three attempts still 44c

COOLING WITH EK supermacy block nickel - radiator 480 hwlabs 4 fan running 50% and d5 pump running 100%

I really dont undestand why its so high

Any idea ? asus edition 10 my mb . i think it the vram and the chipset


----------



## Martin778

Have you guys tried the new 3505 bios for x99 deluxe? Man, my VRM's run HOT now. 52*C at CPU idle on stock settings with the 6950x.

LC loop is dismantled so not touching any OC.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> hello
> 
> did someone ever use the coollaboratory liquid cooler (thermal paste) between the water cooler and the CPU ? it is safe ?
> 
> CPU cooler surface is copper not aluminum, but the cpu heatsink is aluminum ? or nickel ? thank u
> 
> 
> 
> do not use CLU/P with anything Alu. Copper will stain. Best to use a nickel plated block.
Click to expand...

Can I use CLP with the 6850k (obviously undelidded) and my Supremacy Evo Nickel / plexi?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Can I use CLP with the 6850k (obviously undelidded) and my Supremacy Evo Nickel / plexi?


I wouldn't bother with it, as you can get nearly the same performance out of Kryonaut


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I wouldn't bother with it, as you can get nearly the same performance out of Kryonaut


It doesn't bother as soon as I get at least 1°
How about this new Cooler Master MasterGel Maker Nano:

http://www.eteknix.com/cooler-master-mastergel-maker-nano-review/3/

Anyone tested it?
The fact is that I do have both the CLP and Kryonaut (and the GC-Extreme as well)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I wouldn't bother with it, as you can get nearly the same performance out of Kryonaut


^^ This


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Lowering different rails for the sake of lowering them is a recipe for coming unstuck quickly. Now that you've lowered the system agent voltage, test memory stability with HCI or Google Stress app. The correct methods for doing so can be found in the link in my signature


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> cpu vccio "1.05V"... most you should need is like 1.07 or so. BTW, are these the Auto values??


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This. that level VSA on a BWE is likely not very healthy.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Many of us overclockers tend to be a bit suspicious of key parameter Auto settings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, I didn't know they watched Ghost in the Shell out there in Spain (I'm originally from Gijón
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) ...


Here are my BIOS settings:














Anything out of bounds?
Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Here are my BIOS settings:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything out of bounds?
> Thanks


first - if you insert a USB stick in any port and hit F12 on a bios page, it drops a bmp file of the screen to the stick. you can put the phone/camera away.









1) Long duration and short duration power limits -> Auto. you are not running clocks that need this, and besides, short should be 2x long duration anyway.
2) Dram phasing to Optimized.
3) VCCIO to 1.05 to 1.08V
4) Cache voltage may be low
5) do you really want EIST disabled? just set this to Auto and then set windows power plan to high performance. this way you can let the system idle at sane frequencies.


----------



## Dwofzz

So, I'm up at :
64000 mb/s read
77100 mb/s write
71000 mb/s copy

Cl 14-16-16-34 3200 MHz

Read still seems a bit low tho?


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> So, I'm up at :
> 64000 mb/s read
> 77100 mb/s write
> 71000 mb/s copy
> 
> Cl 14-16-16-34 3200 MHz
> 
> Read still seems a bit low tho?


Depends on your core/cache

Here is my 6 core BW-E 43/35/15-17-17 3200 (4x8GB) with some junk in background.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Depends on your core/cache
> 
> Here is my 6 core BW-E 43/35/15-17-17 3200 (4x8GB) with some junk in background.


Running a 6850k at 44/35 with 4x4 3400 MHz ( set at 3200 ). Btw what would the max vccio volt be? running 1.05v but when I was tuning the system I had it at auto and saw 1.224v ~ ( asking just out of curiosity since there isn't much info about this )..


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Depends on your core/cache
> 
> Here is my 6 core BW-E 43/35/15-17-17 3200 (4x8GB) with some junk in background.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Running a 6850k at 44/35 with 4x4 3400 MHz ( set at 3200 ). Btw what would the max vccio volt be? running 1.05v but when I was tuning the system I had it at auto and saw 1.224v ~ ( asking just out of curiosity since there isn't much info about this )..
Click to expand...

Mine autos to 1.2ish as well when I enable XMP, but much like you, I just set it to 1.05 and let it ride without any further adjustment. The ASUS EDGE-UP guide for BW-E states that it generally shouldn't need to be any higher than .05 less than VCCSA when overclocking RAM. Maybe one of the smarter people here can elaborate, but I think you are fine running it ~1.05 since you are not really tuning VCCSA at all.

I think your scores look fine. Pretty close to mine, and I am running double the density with roughly equal clocks across the board.


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Mine autos to 1.2ish as well when I enable XMP, but much like you, I just set it to 1.05 and let it ride without any further adjustment. The ASUS EDGE-UP guide for BW-E states that it generally shouldn't need to be any higher than .05 less than VCCSA when overclocking RAM. Maybe one of the smarter people here can elaborate, but I think you are fine running it ~1.05 since you are not really tuning VCCSA at all.
> 
> I think your scores look fine. Pretty close to mine, and I am running double the density with roughly equal clocks across the board.


Finally some good information, and a close match system to compare to! Much appreciated


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> So, I'm up at :
> 64000 mb/s read
> 77100 mb/s write
> 71000 mb/s copy
> 
> Cl 14-16-16-34 3200 MHz
> 
> Read still seems a bit low tho?


Looks fine to me.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> first - if you insert a USB stick in any port and hit F12 on a bios page, it drops a bmp file of the screen to the stick. you can put the phone/camera away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Long duration and short duration power limits -> Auto. you are not running clocks that need this, and besides, short should be 2x long duration anyway.
> *Done*
> 2) Dram phasing to Optimized.
> *Done*
> 3) VCCIO to 1.05 to 1.08V
> *Done*
> 4) Cache voltage may be low
> *Not stable I will come back to this value later*
> 5) do you really want EIST disabled? just set this to Auto and then set windows power plan to high performance. this way you can let the system idle at sane frequencies.


*Don't mind to have the CPU all the time running at high freqs*

Struggling with some memory's stability problem, I have been playing with VSA & VCCIO


Which value should be the one to play with? I mean I leave VCCIO around 1.05 and then play with VSA or the other way around? Any other value that can cause mem instability? Cache? Vcore?

Thanks


----------



## Kimir

Try with cache ratio on auto, HCI memtest also stress the cache when testing the ram, unlike StressApptest on linux/win10 bash.
Also, no reason to have the cache min ration identical to max one.


----------



## Silent Scone

Also make sure you are assigning the correct amount of memory to the test, whilst leaving enough for the OS to function


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ This (both). Additionally, when you post up a screen with HCi memtest, open up memtwaekit or asrock timing configurator so we can see the timings.

yeah - as scone said... why XMP sets min cache is beyond me. and if you have EIST disabled, min setting is irrelevant anyway.


----------



## Blameless

The more I play with these Broadwell-Es the more I appreciate how insensitive to temperature Haswell-E and prior HEDT parts were.

Figured that thermal constraints wouldn't be the limiting factor on this low leakage 6800K part, but stability is enormously temperature dependent. Most of my 5820Ks were just as stable at 80-90C as they were at 40-50C, but this 6800K needs another ~25mV for every 10C warmer it gets.


----------



## djgar

I actually am getting noticeably cooler temps with B-E than I ever got with H-E.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I actually am getting noticeably cooler temps with B-E than I ever got with H-E.


So am I, which is nice, but I also need to run the parts at almost impossibly low temperatures (worst case ambients can surpass 35C in my case) to get clocks anywhere near what I was getting with Haswell-E.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> So am I, which is nice, but I also need to run the parts at almost impossibly low temperatures (worst case ambients can surpass 35C in my case) to get clocks anywhere near what I was getting with Haswell-E.


My core ambients are ~20-21 ...


----------



## Blameless

My systems have to work even if the air going into them reaches 35-40C.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> My systems have to work even if the air going into them reaches 35-40C.


That is warm. I should correct my typical air ambient (not core) is ~26-27.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> That is warm. I should correct my typical air ambient (not core) is ~26-27.


If you're not running chilled water in that loop, there is no way your CPU temps are cooler than, or even more than 5-10C below, your intake air temps.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If you're not running chilled water in that loop, there is no way your CPU temps are cooler than, or even more than 5-10C below, your intake air temps.


That air temp I mentioned was actually the water coolant temp I read off my case readout. Air temp is ~73f so ~23c. It's been a long day ...


----------



## arrow0309

Hi guys, I'm powering my new system with 6850k, an Asus X99M WS /SE and 32gb of TridentZ for the first time (after having my cpu replaced by Intel with a new one).
I just wanted to know (I remember was reading somewhere this uefi boot option) CSM, is better have it enabled (launch CSM) or disabled?
I do remember something about disabling it (it's enabled by default settings) but it seems (from the info) it has better compatibility when enabled.
I really don't know how to set it, just before I install Windows 10.
Btw, I'm gonna install Windows 10 on a new Intel 750 pcie 400gb.


----------



## arrow0309

CSM ignored for now.
But this stupid Asus Qfan is driving me nuts.
Since I have a pwm (kinda, input only, DC output) phanteks fan hub on the cpu fan it won't let me finish the post no matter the (possible) setting I'm choosing, it will always end up with the cpu fan error.
Unbelievable









In the end I've thrown inside a small, 50mm 3 pin fan for the "cpu" main fan header and connect the other fans (3x 140mm intake case fans and 2x 120mm rear rad exhaust fans) from the phanteks hub on the Cha_Fan 2
Now it's working.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> CSM ignored for now.
> But this stupid Asus Qfan is driving me nuts.
> Since I have a pwm (kinda, input only, DC output) phanteks fan hub on the cpu fan it won't let me finish the post no matter the (possible) setting I'm choosing, it will always end up with the cpu fan error.
> Unbelievable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end I've thrown inside a small, 50mm 3 pin fan for the "cpu" main fan header and connect the other fans (3x 140mm intake case fans and 2x 120mm rear rad exhaust fans) from the phanteks hub on the Cha_Fan 2
> Now it's working.


or set the cpu fan rpm monitor to ignore. no cpu fan error. viola!


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> or set the cpu fan rpm monitor to ignore. no cpu fan error. viola!


Let's say I'm OK for now, found a place for the NB small fan behind the 750 pcie and I can still play with the settings in order to have a decent rpm (or volt) on the 5 (hub controlled) fans (and for the small one too).
Later I'll try to find if I can still configure the QFan even in CHA_FAN 2 mode (seems to be working) or simply continue to use my old and trusty speedfan.
The other 2 rad (3x 120, 2x 120) fans are controlled by the CW611

How about a quick and easy freq for my ram, before I really start to push them (after the cpu oc)
But I can't just stand them at 2133 cl 15 and 2T @1.2v
Something like 2666 or 2800 and 1.2-1.3v and some light timings without having to test them at once.









Btw:
They're 4x8gb, 3600 cl 17-18-18-38


----------



## Blameless

Found a few more oddities with my ASRock X99 OC Formula when it's paired with BW-E:

1. VCCIO is actually an offset, despite being listed as an absolute voltage. As per Intel's data sheets, the stock VCCIO of BW-E is 0.95v (vs. 1.05v for HW-E). The lowest VCCIO setting is 1.0v on this board, so I started there, but actual VCCIO measurement was 0.913v...setting it back to AUTO or 1.05v results in the correct ~0.95v as read via DMM.

2. The LLC settings (five levels in all) imply that Level 1 is no droop, with Level 5 being spec droop. In fact, any setting except AUTO completely removes droop and only offsets the input voltage.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Let's say I'm OK for now, found a place for the NB small fan behind the 750 pcie and I can still play with the settings in order to have a decent rpm (or volt) on the 5 (hub controlled) fans (and for the small one too).
> Later I'll try to find if I can still configure the QFan even in CHA_FAN 2 mode (seems to be working) or simply continue to use my old and trusty speedfan.
> The other 2 rad (3x 120, 2x 120) fans are controlled by the CW611
> 
> How about a quick and easy freq for my ram, before I really start to push them (after the cpu oc)
> But I can't just stand them at 2133 cl 15 and 2T @1.2v
> Something like 2666 or 2800 and 1.2-1.3v *and some light timings without having to test them at once.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw:
> They're 4x8gb, 3600 cl 17-18-18-38


no such thing...


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no such thing...


OK ok, what do you suggest me to start with (ram freq) before (or after) the cpu oc?
I'll test with hci windows memtest (for now) at def cpu and wanna run a couple of h prime 95 or real bench session to see the def voltages and temps (mostly)


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> OK ok, what do you suggest me to start with (ram freq) before (or after) the cpu oc?
> I'll test with hci windows memtest (for now) at def cpu and wanna run a couple of h prime 95 or real bench session to see the def voltages and temps (mostly)


Tune your cpu first, then go with the ram!


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> OK ok, what do you suggest me to start with (ram freq) before (or after) the cpu oc?
> I'll test with hci windows memtest (for now) at def cpu and wanna run a couple of h prime 95 or real bench session to see the def voltages and temps (mostly)


First core
Second cache
Third RAM


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> First core
> Second cache
> Third RAM


Cache should be the last, really.


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Cache should be the last, really.


Can you explain the logic in going memory second? I've always gone Core, Cache then Mem as Grabibus mentioned.

I suppose if using GSAT, it would be quicker to do the memory second then isolate the cache. I find there's a fine line with Cache and Memory overclocking that can overlap and cause instabilities if one is taken too far (usually mem).


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Can you explain the logic in going memory second? I've always gone Core, Cache then Mem as Grabibus mentioned.
> 
> I suppose if using GSAT, it would be quicker to do the memory second then isolate the cache. I find there's a fine line with Cache and Memory overclocking that can overlap and cause instabilities if one is taken too far (usually mem).


Hello

Cache has the least influence on performance. It makes little sense to hold back memory performance for the sake of a slight increase in cache speed.


----------



## chibi

Interesting, I will have to re-evaluate my OC process going forward. Thank you Praz.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> OK ok, what do you suggest me to start with (ram freq) before (or after) the cpu oc?
> I'll test with hci windows memtest (for now) at def cpu and wanna run a couple of h prime 95 or real bench session to see the def voltages and temps (mostly)
> 
> 
> 
> Tune your cpu first, then go with the ram!
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> OK ok, what do you suggest me to start with (ram freq) before (or after) the cpu oc?
> I'll test with hci windows memtest (for now) at def cpu and wanna run a couple of h prime 95 or real bench session to see the def voltages and temps (mostly)
> 
> 
> 
> First core
> Second cache
> Third RAM
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> First core
> Second cache
> Third RAM
> 
> 
> 
> Cache should be the last, really.
Click to expand...

Couldn't we make an exception and only bump the ram a bit higher than 2133 and than continuing in the above order (hoping you decide which one should run last)?








Holy Christ, shouldn't we already have to get the 2400 default jedec with the Broadwell?

Sorry for quoting the old quote, I'm on mobile


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Can you explain the logic in going memory second? I've always gone Core, Cache then Mem as Grabibus mentioned.
> 
> I suppose if using GSAT, it would be quicker to do the memory second then isolate the cache. I find there's a fine line with Cache and Memory overclocking that can overlap and cause instabilities if one is taken too far (usually mem).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Cache has the least influence on performance. It makes little sense to hold back memory performance for the sake of a slight increase in cache speed.


^ This, plus BWE has fairly limited uncore overclocking range. If it wasn't for the nature of forums and sharing results, I doubt most users would even bother touching cache.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> OK ok, what do you suggest me to start with (ram freq) before (or after) the cpu oc?
> I'll test with hci windows memtest (for now) at def cpu and wanna run a couple of h prime 95 or real bench session to see the def voltages and temps (mostly)


yeah.. what ^^ they said.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Can you explain the logic in going memory second? I've always gone Core, Cache then Mem as Grabibus mentioned.
> 
> I suppose if using GSAT, it would be quicker to do the memory second then isolate the cache. I find there's a fine line with Cache and Memory overclocking that can overlap and cause instabilities if one is taken too far (usually mem).
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Cache has the least influence on performance. It makes little sense to hold back memory performance for the sake of a slight increase in cache speed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ This, plus BWE has fairly limited uncore overclocking range. If it wasn't for the nature of forums and sharing results, I doubt most users would even bother touching cache.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah.. what ^^ they said.


OK, will do








So, cpu - ram - cache, right?


----------



## PowerK

From my personal experience,
when finding stabilities with overclocks, making sure RAM (VCCSA, VCCIO, vDIMM) is stable before working on core and/or uncore helps.
1. RAM (GSAT + HCI)
2. Core (OCCT + RealBench)
3. Cache (HCI + AIDA64 Cache)
4. Overall stability (OCCT + RealBench again)

I think there are some people claiming that passing RealBench stress test is good enough for finding stability especially when it comes to core overclocking. But I find that RealBench is not good enough for finding stable core freq. (I think RealBench is good for stressing whole system though. Core, GPU and RAM)


----------



## arrow0309

Ok, I do have a small result, an easy one I've to admit, the Asus's 5 Way somehow (fast) set on performance all core 4400, 1.300v max (didn't planned to do it but I was just curious about these dual intelligent processors)













And don't blame me for the 2666 ram freq, it came out of nowhere (suppose at 1.2v looking at those high, 3600 timings)









Now I really don't know how or better where to start


----------



## Sentinela

Guys, do you think i can rely only on aida64 stability test on my 6800k? Should i use any other software?


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XPredator*
> 
> Guys, do you think i can rely only on aida64 stability test on my 6800k? Should i use any other software?


Aida is ok for cache overclocking, but falls short in core and RAM overclocking. ASUS RealBench is a good alternative for a gaming or non-mission critical rig. For mission critical, something like OCCT or P95 are probably going to be your best bet, but be prepared to lower your expectations.

RealBench is pretty much the way to go.


----------



## Sentinela

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Aida is ok for cache overclocking, but falls short in core and RAM overclocking. ASUS RealBench is a good alternative for a gaming or non-mission critical rig. For mission critical, something like OCCT or P95 are probably going to be your best bet, but be prepared to lower your expectations.
> 
> RealBench is pretty much the way to go.


Just got a copy from version 2.54RC2 from RealBench, running it right now. System is used for gaming only! Thx for your reply my dear!


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XPredator*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Aida is ok for cache overclocking, but falls short in core and RAM overclocking. ASUS RealBench is a good alternative for a gaming or non-mission critical rig. For mission critical, something like OCCT or P95 are probably going to be your best bet, but be prepared to lower your expectations.
> 
> RealBench is pretty much the way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Just got a copy from version 2.54RC2 from RealBench, running it right now. System is used for gaming only! Thx for your reply my dear!
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too








4.3 cpu @1.26v all cache & ram default for now

Edit:
Blue screen
Trying with 1.27v, adaptive
Vccin 1.820 llc 6 should be enough?


----------



## Sentinela

Just light overclocked my 6800k at 4.0 ghz. Thats the sweet spot for me, as i'm just gaming. I can keep my voltages low, my temps never go above 55 full load (in brazil, thats a very good temp, ambient temperature 30+). Perfect 6 hours of AIDA64 pass, vcore at 1.184v. Now pushing my 2400mhz ram kit (4 x 4gb) to 2666mhz, lose timings to see if i can get stable (15-16-16-38-1t). Running XTU mem test right now. Realbench give some odd issue on my windows 10, windows pops up "gpu access blocked to luxmark" or something like it (its in portuguese lol)...but aida 64 gives me a pretty real world use scenario. My 3960x back in the days was rock stable, just using AIDA64 stress test, so, no prime95 for me!


----------



## arrow0309

My realbench (2.54RC1) has stopped after 18m








Did I set something wrong or what?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> I suppose if using GSAT, it would be quicker to do the memory second then isolate the cache.


GSAT can actually test cache pretty well with the right parameters.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> My realbench (2.54RC1) has stopped after 18m
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I set something wrong or what?


system is not stable.. that's all.


----------



## matogl0396

Hi all,

Think I have a preliminary stable overclock on my new 6800k. I haven't overclocked in almost a decade, so this has taken me a long time and a LOT of research. In the end, I'm a little disappointed that my result seem to be below average for this chip. I'm not sure if this is due to the CPU itself, the motherboard, or my own ignorance. I'll include some notes regarding my hardware and methodology below, but TL/DR, can anyone check out my overall settings and let me know if you have any suggestions? Thanks in advance!

Hardware:
CPU: i7-6800k
CPU Cooler: Corsair H105 (240mm AIO)
RAM: 1x16GB DDR4 (G.SKILL Ripjaws V) with XMP profile of 3200 16-18-18-38 2T @ 1.35v
Motherboard: ASRock X99E-ITX/ac (believe this is the only mini ITX x99 board in existence)
Case: NCASE M1 (this is an HTPC that sits in my media center)

Settings:
Core clock: 4.2 load (42 * 100), 1.2 idle, 4.1 AVX load, 4.3 single-threaded load on favorite core
Cache clock: 2.8 (default)
Vcore: 1.385 in BIOS, .770 idle in Windows, 1.355 light load, 1.363 heavy load, 1.338 AVX load
CPU Input voltage: 1.95
LLC: Level 3
Cache/Ring voltage: 1.295
CPU VCCIO: 1.05
VCCSA: 1.155 (.215 offset in BIOS)
RAM: 3000 15-17-17-35 2T @ 1.38v
TEMPERATURES: 76C is the highest I've seen, this was under AVX load WITHOUT a negative offset. After I added the -1 offset (runs at 4.1 and undervolted under AVX), the highest I saw was 67C. When gaming, the highest I noticed was ~ 54C.

Methodology:
1. Disabled speed step, C-states, and Turbo Boost 3.0, and set Override (constant) voltages.
2. Set RAM at default speeds (2133, no XMP, loose timings and plenty of voltage to eliminate RAM from the equation).
3. Underclocked Cache to 1.2 (minimum), also to eliminate this from the equation.
4. Set Core Clock to 4.2 (42 * 100) and slowly increased vcore + CPU Input voltage until I could run 3 loops of the custom x264 stress test which I found here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1621347/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics.
5. Reset Cache back to 2.8 (default) and slowly increased Cache/Ring voltage + CPU Input voltage until I could pass another 3 loops with the increased Cache.
6. Played around with RAM frequency, timings, DRAM voltage, CPU VCCIO, and VCCSA until I had a satisfactory memory overclock. What a nightmare! First of all, with all Auto voltages and XMP enabled, my motherboard was setting .3 VCCSA offset and then XMP was adding .3 more, so under HWMONITOR I noticed I was pushing 1.5v+ VCCSA! Furthermore, although XMP worked fine WITHOUT a CPU overclock, it wouldn't even POST with my CPU at 4.2. Even after tweaking voltages, I simply couldn't get it to run at rated speeds, so I eventually compromised with slightly lower speed and tighter timings. Ran 300% HCI memtest to test stability.
7. Re-enabled power-saver options (see #1 above), set a minor AVX negative offset, as well as a small extra single-core clock increase to go along with Turbo Boost 3.0. Ran 3 loops of the x264 stress test once again.
8. Played games for a few hours! Chose Batman Arkham Knight first, since it is a poorly optimized, CPU intensive mess. Noticed that adaptive voltage was causing freezes in ~ 5 - 15 mins, so had to go back and increase vcore a few more notches.
9. NEXT STEPS (not yet completed) will be to run a much longer x264 stress test, and have a few more gaming sessions of course.

Hopefully that is all the info you need, but please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks again for your help.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> system is not stable.. that's all.


Thanks, I've just increased the adaptive vcore from 1.270 to 1.280
Same vccin of 1.820 LLC 6

CPU package at 83°C already (after 10m), these Bw-E are really hot

Edit:
It stopped again, even sooner this time (after 12m only)
Gonna increase the vccin to 1.85v first


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Thanks, I've just increased the adaptive vcore from 1.270 to 1.280
> Same vccin of 1.820 LLC 6
> 
> CPU package at 83°C already (after 10m), these Bw-E are really hot
> 
> Edit:
> It stopped again, even sooner this time (after 12m only)
> Gonna increase the vccin to 1.85v first


If your package temps are hitting 83c and you're still not stable, you're probably better off lowering the multiplier and finding stability there.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Thanks, I've just increased the adaptive vcore from 1.270 to 1.280
> Same vccin of 1.820 LLC 6
> 
> CPU package at 83°C already (after 10m), these Bw-E are really hot
> 
> Edit:
> It stopped again, even sooner this time (after 12m only)
> Gonna increase the vccin to 1.85v first
> 
> 
> 
> If your package temps are hitting 83c and you're still not stable, you're probably better off lowering the multiplier and finding stability there.
Click to expand...

Now it seems stable, 30m already but 81 core max and hell 86 package max
All with 27°C of the water temp

Should this last rc1 RealBench stress higher than the other?
What cpu max core temp can these BDE handle as maximum stress ?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> If your package temps are hitting 83c and you're still not stable, you're probably better off lowering the multiplier and finding stability there.


Not only that, if you are seeing 83C at 1.28v, something else is wrong...

I don't break 75C peak (65 average) under max sustained load (after an hour) at 1.38v adaptive, but it has a dedicated loop.

So, either:
a. your cooling is inadequate as designed.
b. your cooling is malfunctioning as installed.
b. VID is overriding your vcore, which is much higher than you've set


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Not only that, if you are seeing 83C at 1.28v, something else is wrong...
> 
> I don't break 75C peak (65 average) under max sustained load (after an hour) at 1.38v adaptive, but it has a dedicated loop.
> 
> So, either:
> a. your cooling is inadequate as designed.
> b. your cooling is malfunctioning as installed.
> b. VID is overriding your vcore, which is much higher than you've set


I've reset the sensors and now, after other 15' I have 81 package max (and 76 core max)
The wc should work fine (at least is working according to my gpu temps/ liquid temps).
I really wish to use some CLP instead of this TG

I also notice some differences between the cores max temps (from 61 to 76 right now)
Maybe I should lower the pressure force of the wb's 4 nuts (all max tight)


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I've reset the sensors and now, after other 15' I have 81 package max (and 76 core max)
> The wc should work fine (at least is working according to my gpu temps/ liquid temps).
> I really wish to use some CLP instead of this TG


1.28 for both HW and BW is the "easy OC" voltage. That's where I set ASUS thermal control tool to throttle down during gaming because the extra few 100MHz doesn't buy me anything I care about and I don't want to hear fans and pumps.

At that voltage you should be able to get 15-20C lower regardless of your TIM.

81C for that voltage is not "off by a little" is what I'm trying to get across here. What does aida or hwinfo say your actual vcore is during such a run?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> 1.28 for both HW and BW is the "easy OC" voltage. That's where I set ASUS thermal control tool to throttle down during gaming because the extra few 100MHz doesn't buy me anything I care about and I don't want to hear fans and pumps.
> 
> At that voltage you should be able to get 15-20C lower regardless of your TIM.
> 
> 81C for that voltage is not "off by a little" is what I'm trying to get across here. What does aida or hwinfo say your actual vcore is during such a run?


That's a nice question I still can't figure out








The vid is 1.280v (more or less), the real vcore, hmm?











Water temp is 25 now


----------



## Dwofzz

I'm running 1.293v at 4.4 Ghz with 1.91 vccin, Run CPU power duty control at extreme and Power phase optimized This will help big time.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> I'm running 1.293v at 4.4 Ghz with 1.91 vccin, Run CPU power duty control at extreme and Power phase optimized This will help big time.


Will keep that in mind, what are your cpu package max temps?


----------



## Dwofzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Will keep that in mind, what are your cpu package max temps?


Around 55c max core 67 when I'm running benchmarks. Gaming temps are in the low 40.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> That's a nice question I still can't figure out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vid is 1.280v (more or less), the real vcore, hmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Water temp is 25 now


AID64 will show vcore... it is not shown in that screenshot. CPU SVID is on Auto or Enabled?

(off topic... the new ASUS z270 boards will not even show the adaptive vcore option in the drop down list if CPU SVID is disabled - nice.)


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dwofzz*
> 
> Around 55c max core 67 when I'm running benchmarks. Gaming temps are in the low 40.


Than something's wrong with my cpu cooling.
Looking carefully I can see now there are still a couple of bubbles inside the wb, I have to get rid of them

@Jpmboy, strange but the vcore on aida64 is the same as on the hwinfo64, 0.112v maybe because it's in adaptive?
I don't remember about the cpu svid, will look and let you know in a couple of min as the RealBench finishes its 2h run

Edit:
Never mind, blue screen at 117m, didn't complete the stress test

I can't find this CPU SVID setting
These are the Digi+ Power Control sett:



Edit 2
Found the cpu svid, it was on auto, tried to enable it and it disabled the vccin ov voltage
So I just disabled it and will try again soon with 1.290 vcore and (the same) 1.850 vcin

Or maybe I'll try on manual vcore at 1.280v once again (and LLC 5)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Than something's wrong with my cpu cooling.
> Looking carefully I can see now there are still a couple of bubbles inside the wb, I have to get rid of them
> 
> @Jpmboy, strange but the vcore on aida64 is the same as on the hwinfo64, 0.112v maybe because it's in adaptive?
> I don't remember about the cpu svid, will look and let you know in a couple of min as the RealBench finishes its 2h run
> 
> Edit:
> Never mind, blue screen at 117m, didn't complete the stress test
> 
> I can't find this CPU SVID setting
> These are the Digi+ Power Control sett:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit 2
> Found the cpu svid, it was on auto, tried to enable it and it disabled the vccin ov voltage
> So I just disabled it and will try again soon with 1.290 vcore and (the same) 1.850 vcin
> 
> Or maybe I'll try on manual vcore at 1.280v once again (and LLC 5)


SVID is the com lilnk between the cpu and PMU. Disabling it makes the PMU ignore the VID request. This is fine for manual override, not for Adaptive. If you are using Adaptive, leave it on Auto or Enabled. POst up a zip file of all main bios screens - need to see what's going on there rather than playing 20 questions.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> SVID is the com lilnk between the cpu and PMU. Disabling it makes the PMU ignore the VID request. This is fine for manual override, not for Adaptive. If you are using Adaptive, leave it on Auto or Enabled. POst up a zip file of all main bios screens - need to see what's going on there rather than playing 20 questions.


OK but I've noticed that enabling this cpu svid made my vccin voltage voice disappear (it turns to def) and there's an adaptive type instead of the vccin, I've even tried to add a 0.050v but after that it didn't boot to post anymore.
Auto seems to be the same as disabled.
However I've taken all the main bios screens inside this rar:

https://mega.nz/#!X8hDzYAR!ul5gdyAJr1k8XE51Qi06GjGNmBzGGIRM6shJJDXS8bw


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> OK but I've noticed that enabling this cpu svid made my vccin voltage voice disappear (it turns to def) and there's an adaptive type instead of the vccin, I've even tried to add a 0.050v but after that it didn't boot to post anymore.
> Auto seems to be the same as disabled.
> However I've taken all the main bios screens inside this rar:
> 
> https://mega.nz/#!X8hDzYAR!ul5gdyAJr1k8XE51Qi06GjGNmBzGGIRM6shJJDXS8bw


okay. thanks. (btw - you can post the zip file directly to OCN using the paperclip tool in the editor, third party sites unnecessary)

Change:

VR Fault -> disabled
VR Eficiency -> high perf,
VCCIN -> 1.88 to 1.92V
CPU SVID -> Auto
CPu power management confog (not sent): c-states to disabled.

I need to see the tweakers paradise page.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> From my personal experience,
> when finding stabilities with overclocks, making sure RAM (VCCSA, VCCIO, vDIMM) is stable before working on core and/or uncore helps.
> 1. RAM (GSAT + HCI)
> 2. Core (OCCT + RealBench)
> 3. Cache (HCI + AIDA64 Cache)
> 4. Overall stability (OCCT + RealBench again)
> 
> I think there are some people claiming that passing RealBench stress test is good enough for finding stability especially when it comes to core overclocking. But I find that RealBench is not good enough for finding stable core freq. (I think RealBench is good for stressing whole system though. Core, GPU and RAM)


You are right,
Hci memtest for ram, and occt large data set for cpu.
I don't trust any other software, i tried them all.
No more crash after passed occt (3 hours large data set) and hci memtest 500%


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> okay. thanks. (btw - you can post the zip file directly to OCN using the paperclip tool in the editor, third party sites unnecessary)
> 
> Change:
> 
> VR Fault -> disabled
> VR Eficiency -> high perf,
> VCCIN -> 1.88 to 1.92V
> CPU SVID -> Auto
> CPu power management confog (not sent): c-states to disabled.
> 
> I need to see the tweakers paradise page.


Done and done, thanks








Vccin 1.88 (for now)
Yeah, disabled the c-states
And here ya go the tweaker's paradise (didn't touch anything yet)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> From my personal experience,
> when finding stabilities with overclocks, making sure RAM (VCCSA, VCCIO, vDIMM) is stable before working on core and/or uncore helps.
> 1. RAM (GSAT + HCI)
> 2. Core (OCCT + RealBench)
> 3. Cache (HCI + AIDA64 Cache)
> 4. Overall stability (OCCT + RealBench again)
> 
> I think there are some people claiming that passing RealBench stress test is good enough for finding stability especially when it comes to core overclocking. But I find that RealBench is not good enough for finding stable core freq. (I think RealBench is good for stressing whole system though. Core, GPU and RAM)
> 
> 
> 
> You are right,
> Hci memtest for ram, and occt large data set for cpu.
> I don't trust any other software, i tried them all.
> No more crash after passed occt (3 hours large data set) and hci memtest 500%
Click to expand...

Even if it's only for gaming?


----------



## arrow0309

Hope I don't really have to delid a soldered Broadwell-E cpu (given the high temps I'm getting)









https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf8V_UulpBk


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Done and done, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vccin 1.88 (for now)
> Yeah, disabled the c-states
> And here ya go the tweaker's paradise (didn't touch anything yet)
> 
> 
> Even if it's only for gaming?


internal PLL voltage step -> 1
VCCU voltage offset -> 4

once you make these changes and it loks stable, we can set the ram up and get that cache multiplier up off the floor.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> internal PLL voltage step -> 1
> VCCU voltage offset -> 4
> 
> once you make these changes and it loks stable, we can set the ram up and get that cache multiplier up off the floor.


I was just testing with RealBench and honestly, after 40m I had better temps (75 max)








Now I've stopped it, added the last two "tweaker's paradise" bios setting and set the RealBench for 4h.

Now I can finally watch Rogue One's part two


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Done and done, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vccin 1.88 (for now)
> Yeah, disabled the c-states
> And here ya go the tweaker's paradise (didn't touch anything yet)
> 
> 
> Even if it's only for gaming?


Maybe OC that passed realbench will not crash on games but it is not guaranteed.

and with OCCT, maybe you will loose 100 MHz with same voltage, but the pc that passed occt large data set for 3 hours without error, is perfectly stable for any applications.


----------



## Silent Scone

I've never used OCCT on this platform to test stability, nor had any trouble running anything.


----------



## arrow0309

It didn't pass the night testing with the realbench, next step (this evening) is to add more vcore (1.280 > 1.290) and / or vccin (1.880 to 1.900).
But I feel like needing to check something with my block, even changing the Tim, lowering the pressure or turning it by 90° to goofy.
I gotta improve core and package (max) temps

But loosing another 100mhz, I don't think I'd like to
I don't even work with this pc, the 4h realbench stability will be just enough


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> It didn't pass the night testing with the realbench, next step (this evening) is to add more vcore (1.280 > 1.290) and / or vccin (1.880 to 1.900).
> But I feel like needing to check something with my block, even changing the Tim, lowering the pressure or turning it by 90° to goofy.
> I gotta improve core and package (max) temps
> 
> But loosing another 100mhz, I don't think I'd like to
> I don't even work with this pc, the 4h realbench stability will be just enough


As already suggested - you need to investigate why you're seeing the temps you are before progressing further


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Try with cache ratio on auto, HCI memtest also stress the cache when testing the ram, unlike StressApptest on linux/win10 bash.
> Also, no reason to have the cache min ration identical to max one.


*Ok. I am on it but starting from 3000 MHz*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Also make sure you are assigning the correct amount of memory to the test, whilst leaving enough for the OS to function


*I am using MemTest Pro so it does the assignment automatically AFAIK.*

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This (both). Additionally, when you post up a screen with HCi memtest, open up memtwaekit or asrock timing configurator so we can see the timings.
> 
> yeah - as scone said... why XMP sets min cache is beyond me. and if you have EIST disabled, min setting is irrelevant anyway.


I have started from scratch after reading last pages.

First I did stabilize CPU Core (reading values):
4.4 GHz @ 1.3250v - [1.856v min - 1.888v max]
Cache Auto
Mem 2133 MHz - VSA [Auto - 0.936v] & VCCIO CPU 1.05v [Manual set -> 1.050v -> 1.008v reading]

After running OCCT I moved on to memory.

Right now checking if memory is stable @ 3000 MHz with:

VSA & VCCIO same values as before



It is normal that I had set VCCIO to 1.05v and motherboard is applying 1.008v?

Should I get it higher to match 1.05v?

Regards,

Nikos


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> As already suggested - you need to investigate why you're seeing the temps you are before progressing further


Yeah, working on it

@Nikos4Life
Did you fasten the wb's 4 bolts till the end of their thread?
Cause it seems pretty tight (hard pressure) to me


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> *Ok. I am on it but starting from 3000 MHz*
> *I am using MemTest Pro so it does the assignment automatically AFAIK.*
> I have started from scratch after reading last pages.
> 
> First I did stabilize CPU Core (reading values):
> 4.4 GHz @ 1.3250v - [1.856v min - 1.888v max]
> Cache Auto
> Mem 2133 MHz - VSA [Auto - 0.936v] & VCCIO CPU 1.05v [Manual set -> 1.050v -> 1.008v reading]
> 
> After running OCCT I moved on to memory.
> 
> Right now checking if memory is stable @ 3000 MHz with:
> 
> VSA & VCCIO same values as before
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal that I had set VCCIO to 1.05v and motherboard is applying 1.008v?
> 
> Should I get it higher to match 1.05v?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nikos


I wouldn;t worry about that voltage. Just let the board handle it until you lock down the ones you are adjusting.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, working on it
> 
> @Nikos4Life
> Did you fasten the wb's 4 bolts till the end of their thread?
> Cause it seems pretty tight (hard pressure) to me


^^ This. over tightening the block can cause all sorts of issues... even dropped ram sticks.


----------



## 1033ruben

YEA HELLO to all of my fellow overclockers, i seem to be having some issues with my setup. okay so i just received my 6800k yesterday and i cant seem to oc it past 4.3 and it is only at 1.34 volts. temp is not an issue as it is under custom water at idle is it at 33 c. and under load using aida64 it got to like 65 and under Intel burn test it got to like 68-70 c. so i have plenty of head room left , now my issue is that there is a ton of voltage options in the bios and quite frankly im not sure what they do. i was able to boot into windows at 4.5 (wasnt stable though according to intelburn test) at like 1.4 vcore hottest was like72 c. but i had to adjust the vccin, and sa voltage maybe one of you guys/gals can help me out with all of the voltage options.
THANKS IN ADVANCE
RUBEN


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> YEA HELLO to all of my fellow overclockers, i seem to be having some issues with my setup. okay so i just received my 6800k yesterday and i cant seem to oc it past 4.3 and it is only at 1.34 volts. temp is not an issue as it is under custom water at idle is it at 33 c. and under load using aida64 it got to like 65 and under Intel burn test it got to like 68-70 c. so i have plenty of head room left , now my issue is that there is a ton of voltage options in the bios and quite frankly im not sure what they do. i was able to boot into windows at 4.5 (wasnt stable though according to intelburn test) at like 1.4 vcore hottest was like72 c. but i had to adjust the vccin, and sa voltage maybe one of you guys/gals can help me out with all of the voltage options.
> THANKS IN ADVANCE
> RUBEN


A 6800K at 4.5 would be a miracle. You can be happy at 4.3-4.4


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> A 6800K at 4.5 would be a miracle. You can be happy at 4.3-4.4


thank you for your quick reply maybe you can tell me what some of the other voltages are in my bios and what exactly do they do.
THANK YOU
RUBEN


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, working on it
> 
> @Nikos4Life
> Did you fasten the wb's 4 bolts till the end of their thread?
> Cause it seems pretty tight (hard pressure) to me


*I think I do not have the screws till the end just be sure they are with enough pressure and that is all, AFAIK.*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I wouldn;t worry about that voltage. Just let the board handle it until you lock down the ones you are adjusting.
> ^^ This. over tightening the block can cause all sorts of issues... even dropped ram sticks.


4.4 @ 3000 MHz seems stable right?
x28 cache



I guess I am ok to move to 3200 MHz and try it again :/

Regards,

Nikos


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> YEA HELLO to all of my fellow overclockers, i seem to be having some issues with my setup. okay so i just received my 6800k yesterday and i cant seem to oc it past 4.3 and it is only at 1.34 volts. temp is not an issue as it is under custom water at idle is it at 33 c. and under load using aida64 it got to like 65 and under Intel burn test it got to like 68-70 c. so i have plenty of head room left , now my issue is that there is a ton of voltage options in the bios and quite frankly im not sure what they do. i was able to boot into windows at 4.5 (wasnt stable though according to intelburn test) at like 1.4 vcore hottest was like72 c. but i had to adjust the vccin, and sa voltage maybe one of you guys/gals can help me out with all of the voltage options.
> THANKS IN ADVANCE
> RUBEN


hard to help when you don;t have your MB listed in a sig rig.


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hard to help when you don;t have your MB listed in a sig rig.


my bad it is an msi x99a gaming pro carbon.
THANK YOU
RUBEN


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> my bad it is an msi x99a gaming pro carbon.
> THANK YOU
> RUBEN


eh, sorry - i don;lt know much about MSI boards and bios "names". Basically, vcore, vccin, and ring/uncore/cache are the main voltages.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This. over tightening the block can cause all sorts of issues... even dropped ram sticks.


Hi yeah, I was feeling the same but many of my (Italian) friends insisted I have to tighten them up till the max since it's already calculated with the EK's different bolts (same springs) especially made for the 2011 socket.
Now I've just removed the cooler and checked the tim print (maybe the IHS is not 100% even):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLaTE3MzY1R21Ddzg/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLTF9nOVpSdWtVbjA/view

Reinstalled using the GC Extreme this time instead of the TG Kryonaut and it seems I've gained 3 degrees (on a quick run of Realbench, same sett and 0 curing time for the GC Extreme yet):



Obviously I didn't over tighten the bolts this time, the pressure is however enough IMHO.
More than this I really don't know what to do.
I'll live with these (a little) higher temps, no worries









Later I'm gonna increase a bit more the vcore and hopefully will finish the 4 h run this night


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Think I have a preliminary stable overclock on my new 6800k. I haven't overclocked in almost a decade, so this has taken me a long time and a LOT of research. In the end, I'm a little disappointed that my result seem to be below average for this chip. I'm not sure if this is due to the CPU itself, the motherboard, or my own ignorance. Can anyone check out my overall settings and let me know if you have any suggestions? Thanks in advance!
> 
> Hardware:
> CPU: i7-6800k
> CPU Cooler: Corsair H105 (240mm AIO)
> RAM: 1x16GB DDR4 (G.SKILL Ripjaws V) with XMP profile of 3200 16-18-18-38 2T @ 1.35v
> Motherboard: ASRock X99E-ITX/ac (believe this is the only mini ITX x99 board in existence)
> Case: NCASE M1 (this is an HTPC that sits in my media center)
> 
> Settings:
> Core clock: 4.2 load (42 * 100), 1.2 idle, 4.1 AVX load, 4.3 single-threaded load on favorite core
> Cache clock: 2.8 (default)
> Vcore: 1.385 in BIOS, .770 idle in Windows, 1.355 light load, 1.363 heavy load, 1.338 AVX load
> CPU Input voltage: 1.95
> LLC: Level 3
> Cache/Ring voltage: 1.295
> CPU VCCIO: 1.05
> VCCSA: 1.155 (.215 offset in BIOS)
> RAM: 3000 15-17-17-35 2T @ 1.38v
> TEMPERATURES: 76C is the highest I've seen, this was under AVX load WITHOUT a negative offset. After I added the -1 offset (runs at 4.1 and undervolted under AVX), the highest I saw was 67C. When gaming, the highest I noticed was ~ 54C. The motherboard (VRM?) temperatures top out in the mid-50s as well.


Hey guys did anyone have any thoughts for me? I was gaming/streaming (Steam IHS) last night and froze after a bit, so apparently it's still not stable. Seems like my voltages are much higher than most for this chip at these speeds.

Please note that I tested vcore before I overclocked the RAM, and I have run HCI memtest (although I will still do a longer run of this asap).

Would really appreciate any advice.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi yeah, I was feeling the same but many of my (Italian) friends insisted I have to tighten them up till the max since it's already calculated with the EK's different bolts (same springs) especially made for the 2011 socket.
> Now I've just removed the cooler and checked the tim print (maybe the IHS is not 100% even):
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLaTE3MzY1R21Ddzg/view
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLTF9nOVpSdWtVbjA/view
> 
> Reinstalled using the GC Extreme this time instead of the TG Kryonaut and it seems I've gained 3 degrees (on a quick run of Realbench, same sett and 0 curing time for the GC Extreme yet):
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I didn't over tighten the bolts this time, the pressure is however enough IMHO.
> More than this I really don't know what to do.
> I'll live with these (a little) higher temps, no worries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later I'm gonna increase a bit more the vcore and hopefully will finish the 4 h run this night


I think that's a bit too much TIM, but that's my opinion. Also, the print on the block from your earlier tim app, looks like it is squeezing out. I doubt the block is uneven, usually the tightening is tho. I have Ek blocks, koolance (my favorite), aquacomputer and a few others for 2011-3, 2011, 1151 etc all the way back to 775. None instruct the user to tighten down to the threads run out or until the springs are fully compressed. and several of these get remounted multiple times month. When you first set the block on the TIM blob (small pea size) rock it gently and in a radial pattern. then tighten down the mount screws in a radial pattern also. (if you were doing this with a large flange or plate - you'd rock it clockwise and tighten counter clockwise).


----------



## arrow0309

There's something wrong with my Supremacy Evo block, tried 10 min ago to start a new 4h run of realbench and the temps were jumping to the 85 package in a minute (with water still at 27)
I don't know what's going on, I'm gonna buy a new Watercool Heatkiller® IV Pro Acryl Clean selling the EK later on the ebay.

Edit:
Purchased already from CandCCentral


----------



## dbLIVEdb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> A 6800K at 4.5 would be a miracle. You can be happy at 4.3-4.4


I can run 45x on all cores stable with auto volt set to 1.5 adaptively. But instead, I run core 3 at 45x and the other 5 cores at 4.3x at 1.41 v. That is also with uncore set to 34x. @ 1.28v. The trick you may ask? my cryorig A80 has a fan on top of the waterpump/heatsink that blows cool air on the relatively cool VRM. The only way to get 45x is to have a 280mm copper rad/heatsink at the very least. I have tried over 4 AIO setups and my temps at idle are usually 25C. I'd seriously reccomend your rad has a push pull config. The Cryorig A80 is easily the BEST AIO watercooler I have ever used, it beat the corsair, antec Kuhler (with 2 pumps) and the oother 240mm rad AIO setups I had previously. Sold out at newegg currently.. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4UF3GA3246&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleKWLess&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleKWLess-_-DSA-_-CategoryPages-_-NA&gclid=CjwKEAjw8OLGBRCklJalqKHzjQ0SJACP4BHrdTeukFtytFiiurXviY8To0nLp0e-9w_xFaVdk6DWRBoCjhXw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds


----------



## Nikos4Life

No way to make this stable with RAM at 3200 MHz

I have been playing with VSA & VCCIO and also VCache but there is no luck for me.

Any idea?



Anyway I will keep with this testing till something good happens but some guidance will be much appreciated to be honest









Regards,

Nikos


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> No way to make this stable with RAM at 3200 MHz
> 
> I have been playing with VSA & VCCIO and also VCache but there is no luck for me.
> 
> Any idea?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway I will keep with this testing till something good happens but some guidance will be much appreciated to be honest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nikos


Sorry if somebody suggested that. But try to disabled Fast Boot and enable Memory Training and enhanced training?


----------



## Jpmboy

and increase dram voltage before ranging vsa and vccio.


----------



## Sentinela

guys, can i consider 6 hours of occt cpu test stable? by the way, im using the new 4.5.0 occt


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XPredator*
> 
> guys, can i consider 6 hours of occt cpu test stable? by the way, im using the new 4.5.0 occt


I would....probably more load than you'll ever put on it in daily tasks anyway.


----------



## jsutter71

Question for the 6950x owners out their. I purchased a 4.3GHz tested CPU from Silicon lottery last October and have been running at that speed from day 1. At that speed my CPU runs idle at 80F and 115F during benchmarks. With those temps I feel like can push it further but the CPU refuses to go beyond 4.3. The max I've seen is 4.8GHZ at 140F but not stable.

I'd like to hear from anyone able to push beyond 4.3 stable, and what settings are you using.


----------



## arrow0309

What to say, I can't get stable this bloody 6850k at 4.3 and you're complaining about a 6950X? 10 c/20t, all at 4.3ghz?
You guys nuts, why in the world would you need more power?

Congrats, nice cpu anyway!








If you sell it somewhere after passing to the new X299 platform I may wanna buy it








Cheers


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> No way to make this stable with RAM at 3200 MHz
> 
> I have been playing with VSA & VCCIO and also VCache but there is no luck for me.
> 
> Any idea?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway I will keep with this testing till something good happens but some guidance will be much appreciated to be honest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nikos


Nikos,

A Couple of things.

1) Revert the CPU and Uncore to default values and retest. At 16% coverage you are not even close to stable

2) Without trying to add more doubt, your ambient is clearly on the high side. Modules in excess of 50c as shown in the screenshot will not aid your cause. If practical, have some active air flow over the top of the modules

3) When using HCI make sure the operating system has enough memory to function


----------



## ELIAS-EH

guys, are the NOCTUA 140 mm fan industrial Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-2000 loud?

get it or the NOCTUA NF-A14 PWM ?

regards


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XPredator*
> 
> guys, can i consider 6 hours of occt cpu test stable? by the way, im using the new 4.5.0 occt


Yes , more then enough, OCCT is the best, be sure it is on large data set CPU:OCCT,
I passed 3 hours and never ever had any crash on any applications.
I only trust OCCT large data set


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Yes , more then enough, OCCT is the best, be sure it is on large data set CPU:OCCT,
> I passed 3 hours and never ever had any crash on any applications.
> I only trust OCCT large data set


that's a bit "declarative". I never ran OCCT... and never crashed, so a "type B statement" at best.


----------



## arrow0309

@Jmpboy
Here you can find the indication from EK to tighten the 4 screws of the Supremacy Evo (or better their nuts) till the end of the thread:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ekwb.com/shop/EK-IM/EK-IM-3831109800065.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj19-v2rPnSAhXjO5oKHajVB7gQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFDYGt6HZ3Gt_sg1Cz7q5wqwEI04w&sig2=2ZqCTYlwlV2-jueLjfafQw

And it is pretty much the same for the Watercool Heatkillers also.
No, Koolance don't use a similar "exact mount" or "easy mount" mechanism.

I'm also gonna start checking with the realtemp sensor test this evening cause a couple of the cores are (in oc only) showing some huge higher and abnormal temps then the other 4 cores.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> @Jmpboy
> Here you can find the indication from EK to tighten the 4 screws of the Supremacy Evo (or better their nuts) till the end of the thread:
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ekwb.com/shop/EK-IM/EK-IM-3831109800065.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj19-v2rPnSAhXjO5oKHajVB7gQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFDYGt6HZ3Gt_sg1Cz7q5wqwEI04w&sig2=2ZqCTYlwlV2-jueLjfafQw
> 
> And it is pretty much the same for the Watercool Heatkillers also.
> No, Koolance don't use a similar "exact mount" or "easy mount" mechanism.
> 
> I'm also gonna start checking with the realtemp sensor test this evening cause a couple of the cores are (in oc only) showing some huge higher and abnormal temps then the other 4 cores.


\
Yeah, I've seen the instructions. Main aspect is to ensure that the springs are NOT fully compressed (else why have springs at all). THe 2011-3 socket can hold several cpu skus and if you check, the IHS is not identical for each (hwe, bwe, and E-class).
reading back thru the posts... you have set the jet plate correctly? and have the inlet and outlet correct? If yes.... yeah, try another block. I find it hard to believe an EK block "went bad".


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Yeah, I've seen the instructions. Main aspect is to ensure that the springs are NOT fully compressed (else why have springs at all). THe 2011-3 socket can hold several cpu skus and if you check, the IHS is not identical for each (hwe, bwe, and E-class).
> reading back thru the posts... you have set the jet plate correctly? and have the inlet and outlet correct? If yes.... yeah, try another block. I find it hard to believe an EK block "went bad".


Yeah, I find it hard to believe as well.
However they've already shipped my new Heatkiller IV and I'm gonna install it by the end of this week and we'll see.
In the meantime I'm really curious to test those real temp sensors, I have a feeling they might be drunk (like some in the old times)









*Edit:*
Here are the results of the real temp's sensors (prime95 v27.9 small ftt):

Default cpu:



OC @4.3



No stuck sensors
But it's unbelievable how the third but mostly the fifth core literally burn while the others remain in the 60's-65's C

And how do you explain this last RealBench attempt of 1h ago (stopped now) with the core max temp way lower this time (and even package) by more than 5 degrees











Also look at the cpu temp from Asus's utility


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Hardware:
> CPU: i7-6800k
> CPU Cooler: Corsair H105 (240mm AIO)
> RAM: 1x16GB DDR4 (G.SKILL Ripjaws V) with XMP profile of 3200 16-18-18-38 2T @ 1.35v
> Motherboard: ASRock X99E-ITX/ac (believe this is the only mini ITX x99 board in existence)
> Case: NCASE M1 (this is an HTPC that sits in my media center)
> 
> Settings:
> Core clock: 4.2 load (42 * 100), 1.2 idle, 4.1 AVX load, 4.3 single-threaded load on favorite core
> Cache clock: 2.8 (default)
> Vcore (adaptive): 1.385 in BIOS, .770 idle in Windows, 1.355 light load, 1.363 heavy load, 1.338 AVX load
> CPU Input voltage: 1.95
> LLC: Level 3
> Cache/Ring voltage: 1.295
> CPU VCCIO: 1.05
> VCCSA: 1.155 (.215 offset in BIOS)
> RAM: 3000 15-17-17-35 2T @ 1.38v
> TEMPERATURES: 76C is the highest I've seen, this was under AVX load WITHOUT a negative offset. After I added the -1 offset (runs at 4.1 and undervolted under AVX), the highest I saw was 67C. When gaming, the highest I noticed was ~ 54C. The motherboard (VRM?) sensors hover in the low/mid-50s under load as well.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Hey guys did anyone have any thoughts for me? I was gaming/streaming (Steam IHS) last night and froze after a bit, so apparently it's still not stable. Disappointed because it seems like my voltages are much higher than most for this chip at these speeds.
> 
> Please note that I tested vcore before I overclocked the RAM, and I have run HCI memtest ~ 300% (although I will still do a longer run of this asap).
> 
> I thought I was stable before I switched to Adaptive voltage, so maybe that's the problem, but I really have no idea at this point. Would really appreciate any advice.


Guys, did I do something wrong or not provide the correct info? Keep watching the pages go by the last few days but can't seem to get a reply...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> \
> Yeah, I've seen the instructions. Main aspect is to ensure that the springs are NOT fully compressed (else why have springs at all). THe 2011-3 socket can hold several cpu skus and if you check, the IHS is not identical for each (hwe, bwe, and E-class).
> reading back thru the posts... you have set the jet plate correctly? and have the inlet and outlet correct? If yes.... yeah, try another block. I find it hard to believe an EK block "went bad".


They (any block) can get clogged...

Particularly with such fine fins, any crud in your radiator, precipitate, or biological growth in your fluid can end up gunking them up.

This is the big upside to clear tubes, blocks and fluids... You can see when this happens.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> They (any block) can get clogged...
> 
> Particularly with such fine fins, any crud in your radiator, precipitate, or biological growth in your fluid can end up gunking them up.
> 
> This is the big upside to clear tubes, blocks and fluids... You can see when this happens.


Ok, but I've just cleaned it inside and it was like new (I had to open it and change its internal insert and jetplate from the old cpu 4790K to the 2011-3 new one).
Another thing, I've just talked to an Intel chat guy and told me that temps of 15-20 degrees between the cores can occur (even if I don't like it) and now I'll only have to wait and see if the new block will give any improvement (but the core behaviours I think will remain pretty much the same).
Can I just in case set a lower (42 instead of 43) multiplier for the third and fifth core only?
Do I have to modify something else?

I mean, testing it right now with core 3 and 5 at 4200 and yeah, the temps are a bit better with 71° core (5) max.
But could I also set lower voltages for these 2 cores only (I see their vid is 1.265-1.267 instead of 1.280-1.282)?


----------



## garikfox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Guys, did I do something wrong or not provide the correct info? Keep watching the pages go by the last few days but can't seem to get a reply...


Put the Input voltage to 1.90, Try AUTO too.
VCCIO to AUTO
VCCSA to AUTO
Cache Ring to AUTO

I'd try 1.25v on the CPU first than go up from there by two notches each time if unstable. It might take awhile to find the appropriate voltage.

With your RAM id use XMP if I was you and leave the voltage at AUTO.

Basically everything at AUTO except CPU voltage.


----------



## Sentinela

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> Put the Input voltage to 1.90
> 
> VCCIO to AUTO
> VCCSA to AUTO
> Cache Ring to AUTO
> 
> I'd try 1.25v on the CPU first than go up from there by two notches each time if unstable. It might take awhile to find the appropriate voltage.
> 
> With your RAM id use XMP if I was you and leave the voltage at AUTO.


Well, dont know what board u're using, but i would not recommend AUTO values, at least if you're on an asus X99. My Sabertooth kicked high voltages on VCCSA once, getting me 1,3v. I set it on the offset and add a +0,020mv. I'm going through stability tests now. Ran OCCT for 6hrs, seens pretty stable, until I ran RealBench 2.54RC2, BSOD at 20min. So I'm really thinking RealBench gives me more stability test parameters to find out if your overclock is stable or not. So i raise the voltages (so far, vcore is at adaptive mode, input in bios at 1.250v so 1,248 ~ 1,296 max), changed LLC to 1, and like i mentioned offset VCCSA, running RealBench right now at 4,1ghz. Cache i would not bother to overclock (at least by this stage). So i leave it on auto.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Guys, did I do something wrong or not provide the correct info? Keep watching the pages go by the last few days but can't seem to get a reply...


So the system froze but did not BSOD - right? Remember, on this platform overclocking ram (anything above 2133) is also loading the IMC and cache more. Leave everything as you have it, and increase cache/uncore voltage 25mV above what it was runing at whether that value is from Auto or a value you set. You can see the uncore/cache voltyage with AID64.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *garikfox*
> 
> Put the Input voltage to 1.90, Try AUTO too.
> VCCIO to AUTO
> VCCSA to AUTO
> Cache Ring to AUTO
> 
> I'd try 1.25v on the CPU first than go up from there by two notches each time if unstable. It might take awhile to find the appropriate voltage.
> 
> With your RAM id use XMP if I was you and leave the voltage at AUTO.
> 
> Basically everything at AUTO except CPU voltage.


Hey thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I did already try slowly increasing vcore from lower values. It seemed stable with 4.0 @ ~ 1.25vcore, then 4.1 @ ~1.29, but beyond that has been very challenging. I removed my detailed "methodology" from the reply above because I figured it was probably too wordy, but just FYI, here it is again. Provides a lot more detail on what I've done up to this point:

Methodology:
1. Disabled speed step, C-states, and Turbo Boost 3.0, and set Override (constant) voltages.
2. Set RAM at default speeds (2133, no XMP, loose timings and plenty of voltage to eliminate RAM from the equation).
3. Underclocked Cache to 1.2 (minimum), also to eliminate this from the equation.
4. Set Core Clock to 4.2 (42 * 100) and slowly increased vcore + CPU Input voltage until I could run 3 loops of the custom x264 stress test which I found here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1621347/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics.
5. Reset Cache back to 2.8 (default) and slowly increased Cache/Ring voltage + CPU Input voltage until I could pass another 3 loops with the increased Cache.
6. Played around with RAM frequency, timings, DRAM voltage, CPU VCCIO, and VCCSA until I had a satisfactory memory overclock. What a nightmare! First of all, with all Auto voltages and XMP enabled, my motherboard was setting .3 VCCSA offset and then XMP was adding .3 more, so under HWMONITOR I noticed I was pushing 1.5v+ VCCSA! Furthermore, although XMP worked fine WITHOUT a CPU overclock, it wouldn't even POST with my CPU at 4.2. Even after tweaking voltages, I simply couldn't get it to run at rated speeds, so I eventually compromised with slightly lower speed and tighter timings. Ran 300% HCI memtest to test stability.
7. Re-enabled power-saver options (see #1 above), set a minor AVX negative offset, as well as a small extra single-core clock increase to go along with Turbo Boost 3.0. Ran 3 loops of the x264 stress test once again.
8. Played games for a few hours! Chose Batman Arkham Knight first, since it is a poorly optimized, CPU intensive mess. Noticed that adaptive voltage was causing freezes in ~ 5 - 15 mins, so had to go back and increase vcore a few more notches.
9. NEXT STEPS (not yet completed) will be to run a much longer x264 stress test, and have a few more gaming sessions of course.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XPredator*
> 
> Well, dont know what board u're using, but i would not recommend AUTO values, at least if you're on an asus X99. My Sabertooth kicked high voltages on VCCSA once, getting me 1,3v. I set it on the offset and add a +0,020mv. I'm going through stability tests now. Ran OCCT for 6hrs, seens pretty stable, until I ran RealBench 2.54RC2, BSOD at 20min. So I'm really thinking RealBench gives me more stability test parameters to find out if your overclock is stable or not. So i raise the voltages (so far, vcore is at adaptive mode, input in bios at 1.250v so 1,248 ~ 1,296 max), changed LLC to 1, and like i mentioned offset VCCSA, running RealBench right now at 4,1ghz. Cache i would not bother to overclock (at least by this stage). So i leave it on auto.


I'm using the ASRock x99 mini ITX board, and actually this exact same thing happened to me. Notice my #6 above, where the "Auto" VCCSA was providing a huge offset. I now set it manually to .001 instead.

Good luck on your overclock as well.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> So the system froze but did not BSOD - right? Remember, on this platform overclocking ram (anything above 2133) is also loading the IMC and cache more. Leave everything as you have it, and increase cache/uncore voltage 25mV above what it was runing at whether that value is from Auto or a value you set. You can see the uncore/cache voltyage with AID64.


That's correct, it froze rather than BSOD. Thanks for the advice, I will try what you said and add just a little more Cache voltage.

That being said, do you have any general thoughts on how high my voltages are already? I am at 4.2 core @ 1.385 and 2.8 cache @ 1.295, and still not quite stable. I keep reading that BW-E chips can usually do at least 4.2 @ 1.35v and not much on the cache, but at least maybe 3.0 - 3.2.

So my results seem pretty sub-par, although I don't know whether to blame that on the chip, the motherboard, etc.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> That's correct, it froze rather than BSOD. Thanks for the advice, I will try what you said and add just a little more Cache voltage.
> 
> That being said, do you have any general thoughts on how high my voltages are already? I am at 4.2 core @ 1.385 and 2.8 cache @ 1.295, and still not quite stable. I keep reading that BW-E chips can usually do at least 4.2 @ 1.35v and not much on the cache, but at least maybe 3.0 - 3.2.
> 
> So my results seem pretty sub-par, although I don't know whether to blame that on the chip, the motherboard, etc.


yeah - that's pretty much below average. what MB again? (fill out rig builder and add it to your sig block, make it much easier for anyone to help without scrolling around looking for the info







)


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> What to say, I can't get stable this bloody 6850k at 4.3 and you're complaining about a 6950X? 10 c/20t, all at 4.3ghz?
> You guys nuts, why in the world would you need more power?
> 
> Congrats, nice cpu anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell it somewhere after passing to the new X299 platform I may wanna buy it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers










Not complaining

BTW. I'm using the EK Supremacy elite and I've found the best way to cool was to tighten fully. Probably won't be upgrading for a while. My wife nearly killed me after I bought the TXPs.


----------



## Jpmboy

TXPs can do that.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - that's pretty much below average. what MB again? (fill out rig builder and add it to your sig block, make it much easier for anyone to help without scrolling around looking for the info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Ok it should be in my signature now.

I am out of town right now but will play around with my voltages asap, probably Thursday or Friday. Will reply back once I get it done. Thanks again.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not complaining
> 
> BTW. I'm using the EK Supremacy elite and I've found the best way to cool was to tighten fully. Probably won't be upgrading for a while. My wife nearly killed me after I bought the TXPs.


Yeah, found the fully tightening to be ok enough, I've only release the nuts pressure a couple of turns only, however I'm almost sure I have to find my cpu high core temp somewhere else, thinking about some "wrong" mb sensors (although the cpu's core Dts should be internal) or maybe the cpu has either a bad soldering or an uneven Ihs.
I'd like to lap this Ihs, not sure if is worth it.
Or simply ignore the one or two core's max temps reading?
Even because the Asus's utility Dual Intelligent Processor 5 is showing me a cpu temp that's way lower
Will decide soon what to do also my new incoming Heatkiller iv pro block will give me some small improvement (or not)
For now I've just let the 2 hot core's molty at 42 instead of 43, obviously my gaming max temp went down from 65 to 62C.
And I still have to finish the 4h realbench run (with the newer RC2 release).

Congrats once again for your nice rig, you deserved it
















Btw, have you noticed any temp improvement with your block in the 90° goofy position?


----------



## Silent Scone

Do not bother with lapping, it will invalidate your warranty and it won't be what's causing your problem.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Do not bother with lapping, it will invalidate your warranty and it won't be what's causing your problem.


OK, ok
I won't do it, even because it'll loose valour if somehow I'll decide to sell it and buy another one.
But then what is causing this problem?
And another thing, can I take the cpu temp of the Asus Dual Intelligent Processesors 5 for granted?


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> Sorry if somebody suggested that. But try to disabled Fast Boot and enable Memory Training and enhanced training?


Could you explain what is this for? I can not find any information out there.
Thanks


----------



## PowerK

[quote name="arrow0309"
Even if it's only for gaming?[/quote]

IMO, there's no such thing as stable "only for gaming".
When I try to find max 24/7 overclock, I mean simply "every test/game/application that stock CPU has no problem running must run the same (only faster) with overclocked CPU.
And from my experience, aiming for RealBench stable is not enough for this case.
Yes, I only game and browse web with my PC.


----------



## PowerK

Got bored with current loop(CPU only) and case, I decided to put both CPU and and TITANs under water in new case + external radiator. Almost done.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Got bored with current loop(CPU only) and case, I decided to put both CPU and and TITANs under water in new case + external radiator. Almost done.


+Rep
Nice solution, nice mora, lots of stuff all expensive, not bad if you can afford them all.
Btw:
What exact model is this MoRa?
And what fans are you using?

Sooner or later I'm gonna buy myself an Enthoo Evolv TG, an atx mb and switch to external ws as well


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> +Rep
> Nice solution, nice mora, lots of stuff all expensive, not bad if you can afford them all.
> Btw:
> What exact model is this MoRa?
> And what fans are you using?
> 
> Sooner or later I'm gonna buy myself an Enthoo Evolv TG, an atx mb and switch to external ws as well


Hi arrow0309,
It's Mo-Ra 3 360 Pro (9x120mm fans)
http://www.performance-pcs.com/watercool-mo-ra3-360-pro-stainless-steel.html

For fans,
I'm using Corsair HD120 kit in the case
http://www.corsair.com/en-us/hd120-rgb-led-high-performance-120mm-pwm-fan-with-controller
For Mo-Ra fan, I'm using 9x Noiseblocker NB-eLoop B12-P 120mm x 25mm Ultra Silent Bionic Blade PWM Fan 800-2000 RPM
http://www.performance-pcs.com/noiseblocker-nb-eloop-b12-p-120mm-x-25mm-ultra-silent-bionic-blade-pwm-fan-800-2000-rpm.html

I'm also using Koolance shutoff vavle for easy coonect/disconnect Mo-ra.
http://koolance.com/help-quick-disconnect-shutoff-couplings


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> +Rep
> Nice solution, nice mora, lots of stuff all expensive, not bad if you can afford them all.
> Btw:
> What exact model is this MoRa?
> And what fans are you using?
> 
> Sooner or later I'm gonna buy myself an Enthoo Evolv TG, an atx mb and switch to external ws as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi arrow0309,
> It's Mo-Ra 3 360 Pro (9x120mm fans)
> http://www.performance-pcs.com/watercool-mo-ra3-360-pro-stainless-steel.html
> 
> For fans,
> I'm using Corsair HD120 kit in the case
> http://www.corsair.com/en-us/hd120-rgb-led-high-performance-120mm-pwm-fan-with-controller
> For Mo-Ra fan, I'm using 9x Noiseblocker NB-eLoop B12-P 120mm x 25mm Ultra Silent Bionic Blade PWM Fan 800-2000 RPM
> http://www.performance-pcs.com/noiseblocker-nb-eloop-b12-p-120mm-x-25mm-ultra-silent-bionic-blade-pwm-fan-800-2000-rpm.html
> 
> I'm also using Koolance shutoff vavle for easy coonect/disconnect Mo-ra.
> http://koolance.com/help-quick-disconnect-shutoff-couplings
Click to expand...

And I thought it has to be a MoRa 3 one








I was just looking at this 420 Pro
















http://shop.watercool.de/epages/WatercooleK.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/WatercooleK/Products/25121

With 9 140mm Be Quiet SW3 (already got 3)









In case will do it this summer, after I'm moving with the job (and house) at Manchester.
Ok for the Koolance's QD3 (I prefer those silver shiny) the best in the world.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, found the fully tightening to be ok enough, I've only release the nuts pressure a couple of turns only, however I'm almost sure I have to find my cpu high core temp somewhere else, thinking about some "wrong" mb sensors (although the cpu's core Dts should be internal) or maybe the cpu has either a bad soldering or an uneven Ihs.
> I'd like to lap this Ihs, not sure if is worth it.
> Or simply ignore the one or two core's max temps reading?
> Even because the Asus's utility Dual Intelligent Processor 5 is showing me a cpu temp that's way lower
> Will decide soon what to do also my new incoming Heatkiller iv pro block will give me some small improvement (or not)
> For now I've just let the 2 hot core's molty at 42 instead of 43, obviously my gaming max temp went down from 65 to 62C.
> And I still have to finish the 4h realbench run (with the newer RC2 release).
> 
> Congrats once again for your nice rig, you deserved it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, have you noticed any temp improvement with your block in the 90° goofy position?


*Thank you for the kind remarks.*
Is my block in an odd position???? I honestly hadn't realized. I just went with the most direct position for running the tubing. As far as better temps I have no idea if it's an improvement since I've always had it oriented in that position. I can say that my temps are very cool though. I did do a minor upgrade since that pic was taken. Upgraded my M.2 SSD to a Samsung 1 TB 960 pro for my system drive, and picked up a second 512 GB SM951 NVMe which I am running in a RAID 0 config with the 1st one.

Here is a pic of my CPU temps which are in Fahrenheit. I realize that people get butt hurt because I'm not using Celsius, but that is my best frame of reference from my experience in Iraq.


----------



## arrow0309

My new wb Heatkiller IV is arriving tomorrow and I'm seriously thinking of:

- delliding the cpu (but I can't find the Der8auer's Delid Mate Extreme alluminium nowhere) or
- lapping the cpu's Ihs to mirror flat or
- simply use CLP instead of any thermal grease

And I think the last option is the simplest and less harmful









@jsutter71
There is very very little to 0 temp difference from the regular to goofy, 90 degrees oriented position of your block install
Don't worry, I was asking because they somehow advised the goofy position for the old, IB - E (older socket 2011) mount but even there was something less than 1C.


----------



## Artsan

Hey guys.

I'm new here and to overclocking in general. I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a 6900K for less than half the retail price and so bought an Asus Rampage V Ed 10 mobo to go with it. Since I'm new at overclocking I was interested in doing just a mild overclock of the 6900K. Been reading this thread for the past hours but I was unable to find such a topic within.

Can any of you point me in the right direction, either a guide or some pointers so I can start down the path of mild overclocking my 6900K?

Thanks all.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artsan*
> 
> Hey guys.
> 
> I'm new here and to overclocking in general. I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a 6900K for less than half the retail price and so bought an Asus Rampage V Ed 10 mobo to go with it. Since I'm new at overclocking I was interested in doing just a mild overclock of the 6900K. Been reading this thread for the past hours but I was unable to find such a topic within.
> 
> Can any of you point me in the right direction, either a guide or some pointers so I can start down the path of mild overclocking my 6900K?
> 
> Thanks all.


http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artsan*
> 
> Hey guys.
> 
> I'm new here and to overclocking in general. I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a 6900K for less than half the retail price and so bought an Asus Rampage V Ed 10 mobo to go with it. Since I'm new at overclocking I was interested in doing just a mild overclock of the 6900K. Been reading this thread for the past hours but I was unable to find such a topic within.
> 
> Can any of you point me in the right direction, either a guide or some pointers so I can start down the path of mild overclocking my 6900K?
> 
> Thanks all.


Hi Artsan,

I'm no expert, just a beginner like you, but maybe a few days/weeks ahead in the research process. From what I've seen, ~ 4.2 GHz with ~ 1.25 - 1.3 vcore seems to be a pretty common / fairly easy Broadwell-E overclock. It seems to be generally accepted that under heavy/long-term stressed usage, your CPU temperature shouldn't go above ~ 80C. If it is getting that high, you may need to reduce voltage, or set up a better cooling solution.

Anyway, here are some thoughts for you based on my research the last couple weeks:


Other than this thread, here is a very useful guide related specifically to Broadwell-E: http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
This thread is about Kaby Lake, but there is a useful, customized x264 stress test you can find here that will ONLY stress your CPU: http://www.overclock.net/t/1621347/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics
HCI memtest is a useful Windows-based RAM stress test: http://hcidesign.com/memtest/
Also, some general info about voltages (which are also covered in the 1st link above):


Vcore: Main thing you will be tweaking, required when increasing CPU core clock. Somewhere between 1.3 ~ 1.4 seems to be the max voltage most people feel safe using.
Uncore/Ring: Cache voltage, required when increasing Cache clock. Probably shouldn't need to raise it as high as Vcore. Cache doesn't overclock well on BW-E.
CPU Input Voltage: Total voltage being supplied to the CPU? Needs to be ~ .4 higher than your Vcore. Most people seem to settle around 1.8 ~ 1.95 for overclocking.
DRAM Voltage: RAM voltage, required when increasing RAM speed above 2133. Default is 1.2v for low speed kits, 1.35v for high speed, and may need to go as high as ~ 1.4v in some cases. Most RAM can be set to the "XMP" profile in BIOS to see the manufacturer's recommended settings.
CPU VCCIO: Used for memory overclocking. Default of 1.05. May need to go as high as ~ 1.2, but try DRAM voltage first.
VCCSA: System Agent voltage, also used for memory overclocking. They say more is not necessarily better here, and too much may cause instability. Seems to default ~ .95v, and may need to go as high as ~ 1.2v for high speed memory above ~ 3000 MHz.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artsan*
> 
> Hey guys.
> 
> I'm new here and to overclocking in general. I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a 6900K for less than half the retail price and so bought an Asus Rampage V Ed 10 mobo to go with it. Since I'm new at overclocking I was interested in doing just a mild overclock of the 6900K. Been reading this thread for the past hours but I was unable to find such a topic within.
> 
> Can any of you point me in the right direction, either a guide or some pointers so I can start down the path of mild overclocking my 6900K?
> 
> Thanks all.


Well I wrote you a long reply, and then when I tried to edit a grammar mistake it apparently got pulled for moderator review? Hopefully it will show back up soon.

Anyway, the link that Jpmboy shared is definitely a great starting point that I've also been using heavily the last few days.

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## arrow0309

I've just managed to get a small temp improvement, still on my Supremacy Evo, just "overtighten" the block's nuts











2H passed, 74C core max (yeah, that core), next step after I install the new Heatkiller is a 4H run and (hopefully) yet better temps!








Than I can finally start with the ram and uncore.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I've just managed to get a small temp improvement, still on my Supremacy Evo, just "overtighten" the block's nuts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2H passed, 74C core max (yeah, that core), next step after I install the new Heatkiller is a 4H run and (hopefully) yet better temps!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than I can finally start with the ram and uncore.


lol - break out the lug wrench.


----------



## arrow0309




----------



## inedenimadam

Overtighten?

They are designed to be bottomed out.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Overtighten?
> 
> They are designed to be bottomed out.


he knows...


----------



## ref

So what's a good voltage on a 6850k for 4.4-4.6ghz exactly?

I'm at 4.4 right now at 1.25v and ran fine for an hour of RealBench and an hour of AIDA64, but not sure if that's considered a good voltage or not.

Temps never exceeded 62...

Going to go test 4.5 now...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ref*
> 
> So what's a good voltage on a 6850k for 4.4-4.6ghz exactly?
> 
> I'm at 4.4 right now at 1.25v and ran fine for an hour of RealBench and an hour of AIDA64, but not sure if that's considered a good voltage or not.
> 
> Temps never exceeded 62...
> 
> Going to go test 4.5 now...


4.4 at 1.25v outstanding to the point of a little questionable for true stability. It happens, but would be a great chip... You might find it runs fine 99% of the time, but randomly fails...

4.5-4.6 is more doable with a 6850 than some of the other BWEs, but still not guarateed on normal cooling at any reasonable voltage.


----------



## ref

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> 4.4 at 1.25v outstanding to the point of a little questionable for true stability. It happens, but would be a great chip... You might find it runs fine 99% of the time, but randomly fails...
> 
> 4.5-4.6 is more doable with a 6850 than some of the other BWEs, but still not guarateed on normal cooling at any reasonable voltage.


Yeah, I'm going to retry it again at 1.25v at 4.4, it took all the way to 1.34 to get 4.5 to run RealBench for 15 minutes and not crash...

Again all this doesn't really matter since it be can stable in these benchmarks then crash during games which is what 99% of what I will be doing.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ref*
> 
> So what's a good voltage on a 6850k for 4.4-4.6ghz exactly?
> 
> I'm at 4.4 right now at 1.25v and ran fine for an hour of RealBench and an hour of AIDA64, but not sure if that's considered a good voltage or not.
> 
> Temps never exceeded 62...
> 
> Going to go test 4.5 now...


Definitely a good chip maybe a golden batch.
But I would run at least 4h of Realbench just to be 99% sure I'm OK (used to do 6h with my old 4790k)








Not considering the other cross-tests like OCCT or recent Prime95 many would also advise for 99.9% stability.
Btw:
A new Realbench release, RC2 is out for some days.


----------



## Silent Scone

My 6850K does 4.5 at 1.4v. That's considered fairly good by most standards.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> My 6850K does 4.5 at 1.4v. That's considered fairly good by most standards.


What's the max temp accepted for a 1.4v OC?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> What's the max temp accepted for a 1.4v OC?


You want to be keeping package temps below 80c. I use the TCT to throttle heavy workloads to 4.4Ghz 1.34v.


----------



## Martin778

Guys, can we make a list of how many 6950x's died already? I wonder what the failure rate is on this chip, mine seems to have died today.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Guys, can we make a list of how many 6950x's died already? I wonder what the failure rate is on this chip, mine seems to have died today.


I've never had an Intel CPU die in the last 20 years. That includes doing routine repairs during my youth on machines also.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> Guys, can we make a list of how many 6950x's died already? I wonder what the failure rate is on this chip, mine seems to have died today.


none that I know of.. well except yours and one other but it was running 1.7V. (replaced by intel tuning plan).
I recently had my 5960X die... in a non-elastic collision with a Corgi and a tennis ball (at least that's what I'm blaming). Again, new one from Intel via ITP.

When you were lapping that thing.... well I said, "U da man" for doing that to a $1500 cpu.


----------



## Martin778

I had tons of CPU's over the years and this is literally the first one that dies.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> none that I know of.. well except yours and one other but it was running 1.7V. (replaced by intel tuning plan).
> I recently had my 5960X die... in a non-elastic collision with a Corgi and a tennis ball (at least that's what I'm blaming). Again, new one from Intel via ITP.


I ran my 5960X at 1.7v for an unexpected few seconds


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> none that I know of.. well except yours and one other but it was running 1.7V. (replaced by intel tuning plan).
> I recently had my 5960X die... in a non-elastic collision with a Corgi and a tennis ball (at least that's what I'm blaming). Again, new one from Intel via ITP.
> 
> When you were lapping that thing.... well I said, "U da man" for doing that to a $1500 cpu.


Lol (sorry Martin, its a little funny...)

I almost lost my RVE to a dog+ball incident... He decided it was time to play ball rather than computer and knocked the water block off its OSHA and SAE approved super-safe-what-could-possibly-go-wrong temporary storage location (perched on the side of the case braced by its dangling water hoses). Water block smashed into open socket and slid across leaving a nice crop circle and trail of mangled LGA pins.

An hour, an exacto-knife and various forms of magnification later, I'm back to 5.0GHz capable MB (5.0 5930k - 4.8 5960x - 4.5/4.4 6950x)... This was pre RVE10 or I would have needed an upgraydde (with a double d for a dose of pimpin').

The only modern processor I've "killed" was flakey from day 1 without an OC (5930k). Intel replaced it.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> I ran my 5960X at 1.7v for an unexpected few seconds


My X99-Pro tried that trick... The 5960x won. It's still running happily at 4.4/1.25v adaptive 24/7 a year later. The MB, well... Asus replaced that because it released the blue smoke.

I guess that BIOS just freaked out one day. I'll never know because the last thing I saw was "cpu over temp - shutting down" and then... the smell... the smelly smell that smells smelly...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I had tons of CPU's over the years and this is literally the first one that dies.


yeah I know you have, but it happens for whatever or unknown reasons to the best of us. Anytime we "mod" a part, whether lapping or delidding (which I do a lot of) it is an eyes-wide-open risk we assume.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Lol (sorry Martin, its a little funny...)
> 
> I almost lost my RVE to a dog+ball incident... He decided it was time to play ball rather than computer and knocked the water block off its OSHA and SAE approved super-safe-what-could-possibly-go-wrong temporary storage location (perched on the side of the case braced by its dangling water hoses). Water block smashed into open socket and slid *across leaving a nice crop circle and trail of mangled LGA pins.*
> 
> An hour, an exacto-knife and various forms of magnification later, I'm back to 5.0GHz capable MB (5.0 5930k - 4.8 5960x - 4.5/4.4 6950x)... This was pre RVE10 or I would have needed an upgraydde (with a double d for a dose of pimpin').
> 
> The only modern processor I've "killed" was flakey from day 1 without an OC (5930k). Intel replaced it.


lol - now that's gotta make any overclocker laugh!


----------



## xTesla1856

I love reading you guys' stories about hardware. Luckily, I have never lost a component yet (knocks wood)


----------



## Martin778

I have to admit I got my hands on an old i7 920 with an ASUS P6T SE board and was amazed how well it ran when OC'ed to 3,5GHz+


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> I love reading you guys' stories about hardware. Luckily, I have never lost a component yet (knocks wood)


I killed my 5820k trying to dellid it. Knocked off a couple SMD


----------



## Silent Scone

Best story I have was when I was working in the shop many moons ago and an Enermax Liberty PSU decided it no longer wanted to participate, leaving shrapnel in my shoe and up the wall.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Best story I have was when I was working in the shop many moons ago and an Enermax Liberty PSU decided it no longer wanted to participate, leaving shrapnel in my shoe and up the wall.


Now that's what I call "reluctance!"

Guessing a transformer decided to go beyond resonance and into full singing voice?


----------



## djgar

He just wanted to be heard ...


----------



## djgar

Looks like RealBench 2.54 final has been posted ...


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Looks like RealBench 2.54 final has been posted ...


thanks for the heads up. I cant find a changelog, any insights?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> thanks for the heads up. I cant find a changelog, any insights?


Sorry, none - just the download.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Best story I have was when I was working in the shop many moons ago and an Enermax Liberty PSU decided it no longer wanted to participate, leaving shrapnel in my shoe and up the wall.


yeah sure... sounds to me like the evidence would be more consistent with you kicking the thing.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Looks like RealBench 2.54 final has been posted ...


Just in time for my new block install tomorrow, thanks!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah sure... sounds to me like the evidence would be more consistent with you kicking the thing.


Had two 7800GTX going full chat at the time lol, wasn't quite up to the task.


----------



## arrow0309

I've collected my new Watercool block this morning from the Royal Mail









https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLcnlIREZFMFIyLWc/view?usp=drivesdk

And so maybe I've found a reason for some 2 core higher temps (and a close to 20C difference in temperature between the core 5 and 6), look at these tim prints:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLYUROa29KbzdFN2s/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLV0hTcFBEUGo0MW8/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLY0tvcE12WkdhaUk/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLOVhsY3dJZWdQRTQ/view?usp=drivesdk

I know, maybe I've applied a little too much grease (GC Extreme this time) but I did it cause the cpu's Ihs is not even, it's convex.
Also notice the amount of uncompressed Tim on the top part.
I'm sure that's the reason, more than a faulty EK block.








And maybe even for a not 100 % perfect soldering.


----------



## Martin778

The IHS are never even, thats why I lap them...









I've been collecting more info on Asus X99 boards and i'm getting more and more a feeling to stay miles away from them. There are a lot more people reporting dead CPU's on both the Deluxe and the x99a, also the R5E seems affected.

Now I need to play it clever with RMA to get a new board and CPU not from Intel, as it's not their fault, but directly from ASUS.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The IHS are never even, thats why I lap them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been collecting more info on Asus X99 boards and i'm getting more and more a feeling to stay miles away from them. There are a lot more people reporting dead CPU's on both the Deluxe and the x99a, also the R5E seems affected.
> 
> Now I need to play it clever with RMA to get a new board and CPU not from Intel, as it's not their fault, but directly from ASUS.


Yeah, I got what you're saying, clearly
However I decided not to lap this cpu.
But, look what I've done instead, a nice CLP on both of the cpu and block









https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLdWJ0VFdNWUNFLVk/view?usp=drivesdk

Up and running (bleeding and leak test):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLVWJqZlBnTXhZbG8/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLTDV0WlVzQ2xfMVU/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLV2ctczEwVTlOdjg/view?usp=drivesdk

The pump is running on external power since 12 o'clock
Another hour or two and hopefully something's changed









And bud, I hope you can succeed with your Asus rma though I find it hard to believe they'll agree (as the matter of facts this cpu I bought from the guy here in UK also came dead to me, same 00 code like yours and it came from an Asus X99 Deluxe or Pro as well).
Hope my new cpu on this X99M WS m-atx will last.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The IHS are never even, thats why I lap them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been collecting more info on Asus X99 boards and i'm getting more and more a feeling to stay miles away from them. There are a lot more people reporting dead CPU's on both the Deluxe and the x99a, also the R5E seems affected.
> 
> Now I need to play it clever with RMA to get a new board and CPU not from Intel, as it's not their fault, but directly from ASUS.


Yeah good luck with that. Shouldn't have lapped it knowing it would void your warranty?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I've collected my new Watercool block this morning from the Royal Mail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLcnlIREZFMFIyLWc/view?usp=drivesdk
> 
> And so maybe I've found a reason for some 2 core higher temps (and a close to 20C difference in temperature between the core 5 and 6), look at these tim prints:
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLYUROa29KbzdFN2s/view?usp=drivesdk
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLV0hTcFBEUGo0MW8/view?usp=drivesdk
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLY0tvcE12WkdhaUk/view?usp=drivesdk
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLOVhsY3dJZWdQRTQ/view?usp=drivesdk
> 
> I know, maybe I've applied a little too much grease (GC Extreme this time) but I did it cause the cpu's Ihs is not even, it's convex.
> Also notice the amount of uncompressed Tim on the top part.
> I'm sure that's the reason, more than a faulty EK block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And maybe even for a not 100 % perfect soldering.


the IHS is supposed to be slightly convex. I just checked 3 different sky and kaby lake cpus with a steel straight edge. all convex. I donl;t have a BWE or HWE laying around atm, but the bow/convex is there for a reason as I understand it - it is to spread the mount pressure more to the bondline rather than straight down. (tho when I first heard this, found it hard to believe). I would not lap the cpu, and if you are seeing excess tim squeeze out past the edge of the IHS, you've put too much.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The IHS are never even, thats why I lap them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been collecting more info on Asus X99 boards and i'm getting more and more a feeling to stay miles away from them. There are a lot more people reporting dead CPU's on both the Deluxe and the x99a, also the R5E seems affected.
> 
> Now I need to play it clever with RMA to get a new board and CPU not from Intel, as it's not their fault, but directly from ASUS.


MOre than half dozen ASUS boards in the recent past here... 5 running right now. not one failure. Not sure why you are placing blame like you are.
Led Zepplin song" "nobody's fault but mine" (one of their best).


----------



## Martin778

I am placing the blame because the forums are full of broken ASUS X99 boards and people losing their CPU's and / or the motherboard.
This time not Asrock, not Gigabyte, nor MSI but ASUS.

I ran exlusively on asus boards - P5B Deluxe, P5K, P5E x38, Rampage X48, P6D/P6T X58's and even a Sabertooth 990FX. All were were 'legendary' in terms stability and durability but their X99's are plain ****, no idea who let those through the QC.

Shame on them that they don't want and probably never will issue an official statement that they are flawed because the returns would cost them tons of money.

Do you think why otherwise they'd tinker with the VRM controls as they did on the latest 3505 bios?
They know perfectly that those boards have VRM issues, probably voltage spikes destroying the CPU.

One of the few reasons the "II" versions came out, they used the moment to refresh the lineup and fix them.
The R5E10 is a younger board and probably has the VRM issue fixed too.


----------



## jsarver

Got a question for the ram experts in here. Looking at the gskill rbg ram to use on x99. Everything I'm seeing is that it's a dual channel memory configuration. I thought any ram with four sticks would be considered quad channel. What am I missing with this theory?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the IHS is supposed to be slightly convex. I just checked 3 different sky and kaby lake cpus with a steel straight edge. all convex. I donl;t have a BWE or HWE laying around atm, but the bow/convex is there for a reason as I understand it - it is to spread the mount pressure more to the bondline rather than straight down. (tho when I first heard this, found it hard to believe). I would not lap the cpu, and if you are seeing excess tim squeeze out past the edge of the IHS, you've put too much.


I know what you mean and got your point, thought the same mostly
But I'm sure that the both delidding and lapping these BWE will give a nice, real evident temp gain.
Like I said I decided not to
But (and here some of you didn't approved it) I DID use the CLP this time (and a new block)









Here ya go:



And I still have to bleed well, however I'll probably do this night (later) the famous 4h Realbench (hope I won't have to increase the vcore)








Now I'm happier than before


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I am placing the blame because the forums are full of broken ASUS X99 boards and people losing their CPU's.
> This time not Asrock, not Gigabyte, nor MSI but ASUS.
> 
> I ran exlusively on asus boards - P5B Deluxe, P5K, P5E x38, Rampage X48, P6D/P6T X58's were all were legendary stability and durability but their X99's are plain ****, no idea who let those through the QC.
> 
> Shame on them that they won't and probably never will issue an official statement that they are flawed.
> 
> Do you think why otherwise they'd tinker with the VRM controls as they did on the latest 3505 bios?
> They know perfectly that those boards have VRM issues, probably voltage spikes destroying the CPU.


I have NEVER EVER LOST A single component from a Asus motherboard in a failure. I literally had a fire a couple years ago because of a improperly connected power cable, and even then never lost a single component. That is not to say I haven't had bad boards because I have, but never anything that failed as a result of a faulty motherboard. I have had Asus motherboards since the Pentium 2 days. Back then it was easy to fry a component due to the lack of safety features found in today's designs. I will wager that that if someone had a component fail from a motherboard it was user error. Asus motherboards allow customization not found on most other boards. Even Asrock which has impeccable quality, and customer service was a spin off company from Asus. As far as QC is concerned I completely disagree that their X99 platform is lacking. I was an early adopter of X99 motherboards and they have all been Asus. In total I have owned 1 X99-E WS and 3 X99-E WS USB 3.1 motherboards, and out of those I had 2 failures. One of which was because I dropped it, and the 2nd was because I bought from Amazon which at the time received some with faulty Dimm slots. 4 out of 5 is not bad odds. Especially when your dealing with motherboards. I would also like to add that at times I have been less then gentle with my boards. I have picked up a few bad habits concerning how I handle electronic equipment. I never wear a anti static wrist strap, and about the only part of the build where I take extra special care is when installing the CPU. Don't judge. From 1996-2002 I was the Senior Switch Engineer for AT&T Wireless for the Stockton & Modesto California region. For 5 of those years I was the ONLY technician assigned for the region. I was hired because the call quality for that region was S***. In 2002 they fired me because they said that during my employment my region had the highest quality standards for the entire west coast, and because of which chose to make my central office unmanned. So basically I worked myself out of a job.


----------



## Martin778

I'm not judging ASUS as a whole company because so far it's only their x99 series. Just do a quick search on "asus X99 code 00" - tons of results will pop up

Another one, x99 Strix frying the CPU's: https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?88292-Strix-x99-Gaming-QCODE-00-over-night-after-several-small-issues

Also check out what people say about ASUS x99's on Newegg, even the Mk2's go bust.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I'm not judging ASUS as a whole company because so far it's only their x99 series. Just do a quick search on "asus X99 code 00" - tons of results will pop up.


Here you go
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Most-Reliable-PC-Hardware-of-2016-872/

And for speed
https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/mobo


----------



## Martin778

The customers beg to differ then. I never trust those mass statistics.

For the X99 Deluxe:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132260


----------



## jsutter71

Think what you want.


----------



## Martin778

I know you will defend a product you own yourself if you're happy with it, I don't have a problem with that. When my Deluxe worked it was like a dream.
Maybe the WS versions don't die so often but the others like the A, Deluxe and Strix apparently do.

+
Where I do have a problem is that now I've probably lost a $1700 chip, the first CPU I've ever seen going bad and not even due to my own error but rather because of a built in motherboard flaw I don't have any control of.
Honestly, if I can get someone to confirm it's the VRM that's gone bad and took the CPU with it then ASUS (and not Intel) should RMA both my board and the CPU even if it was lapped.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I'm not judging ASUS as a whole company because so far it's only their x99 series. Just do a quick search on "asus X99 code 00" - tons of results will pop up.


It happened to me also, yeah, I can confirm it.
Bought an OC capable cpu (100% working when it was sold to me) and it didn't ever start, only an 00 code
Then the seller (ocn user also) was kind and we managed to rma it and that's how I've got this new cpu (from the Intel)
He also had (has) a X99 Deluxe (or Deluxe II)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Here you go
> https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Most-Reliable-PC-Hardware-of-2016-872/
> 
> And for speed
> https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/mobo


However I hope they were all isolate cases and nice to see my little X99M WS there, on the Puget's Best long-term reliability motherboards


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> It happened to me also, yeah, I can confirm it.
> Bought an OC capable cpu (100% working when it was sold to me) and it didn't ever start, only an 00 code
> Then the seller (ocn user also) was kind and we managed to rma it and that's how I've got this new cpu (from the Intel)
> He also had (have) a X99 Deluxe (or Deluxe II)


I was not their so it would be hard for me to provide a factual response. In a perfect world, a motherboard SHOULD work after you finish your install and turn everything work. We do not live in a perfect world and anything built by man is subject to failure. I can also say that PC old timers like myself whose first PC was a TI-99/4, not a TI-99/4A, know a thing or 2 about troubleshooting a build. I use to troubleshoot network outages for AT&T Wireless that went before most peoples comprehension. My point is that sometimes a new build requires a little extra in order to get the ball rolling. Not judging, but many of today's generation expect instant perfection. PC builds have become easy to the point where a newby thinks their an expert after their first couple of builds. In the past I have been able to bring back corrupted BIOS's with a bit of effort. The 00 code pertains to the CPU, so either it was a faulty install, dead CPU, faulty motherboard, or faulty BIOS. Either way If I could teleport myself to your home and troubleshoot your PC I would.


----------



## Martin778

It died slow and painful death with issues getting worse and worse and it has seen 3 different BIOS versions as I always try to keep it up to date.








I am far from a newbie and already did the BIOS flashback through USB / CMOS reset / disconnecting peripherals and checking for breaks in cables.
Couple of days before it died I did a few Memtest runs, tried different GPU's, HDD's, reinstalled the OS and what not.

There is no difference whatsoever in the mainboards behaviour with or without the CPU/RAM etc - just code 00 right after pressing the power button, it's not even trying to POST.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I was not their so it would be hard for me to provide a factual response. In a perfect world, a motherboard SHOULD work after you finish your install and turn everything work. We do not live in a perfect world and anything built by man is subject to failure. I can also say that PC old timers like myself whose first PC was a TI-99/4, not a TI-99/4A, know a thing or 2 about troubleshooting a build. I use to troubleshoot network outages for AT&T Wireless that went before most peoples comprehension. My point is that sometimes a new build requires a little extra in order to get the ball rolling. Not judging, but many of today's generation expect instant perfection. PC builds have become easy to the point where a newby thinks their an expert after their first couple of builds. In the past I have been able to bring back corrupted BIOS's with a bit of effort. The 00 code pertains to the CPU, so either it was a faulty install, dead CPU, faulty motherboard, or faulty BIOS. Either way If I could teleport myself to your home and troubleshoot your PC I would.


The mainboard (I still have in sig) was brand new, the install was as it should be and the bios was (pendrive usb) flashbacked prior to the cpu installation (on the bare mainboard and a psu only), it is the latest 3005 bios and it remained unchanged till the new cpu arrived.
The new one started at once as it should
And it all happened barely one month ago
However it's a long story with some other elements (none of them one of my faults) which I wouldn't like to talk about again


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've never had an Intel CPU die in the last 20 years. That includes doing routine repairs during my youth on machines also.


So far I've killed:

Pentium 75
Pentium MMX 200
Pentium III 500
Pentium E2160
Core 2 Duo E8400
Xeon X3350
2x i7 920
i7 930
5820K

And degraded about a dozen others. Also had an essentially DOA 6800K.

Killed crap tons of AMD chips too, especially in that 1999-2006 era when I had mostly Athlons/Opterons.

"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everything drops to zero."

The only chips that I've had for my own use that were obviously defective, or that failed without being abused were an Athlon 64 3800+ and the aforemention 6800K...I killed all the rest via use and/or testing while overclocked.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the IHS is supposed to be slightly convex. I just checked 3 different sky and kaby lake cpus with a steel straight edge. all convex. I donl;t have a BWE or HWE laying around atm, but the bow/convex is there for a reason as I understand it - it is to spread the mount pressure more to the bondline rather than straight down. (tho when I first heard this, found it hard to believe). I would not lap the cpu, and if you are seeing excess tim squeeze out past the edge of the IHS, you've put too much.


Last parts I lapped were LGA-1366, and they were highly erratic. Some were flat, some were convex, at least a few were noticeably concave. Saw the same on LGA 775.

My 2011-v3s have been more consistently not concave, which is an improvement.


----------



## PowerK

New custom loop (Mo-Ra3) is complete with new case (Lian Li PC-O9). I like it so much better than previous case (Phanteks Enthoo Primo).


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Got my 6800k with a msi x99a gaming carbon pro and 32gigs of gskill ddr 3200 kinda lost overclocking this beast lol any tips or links to read up on just setting muti to 42 its semi stable with 1.30 vcore runs cool to under 50c.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> Got my 6800k with a msi x99a gaming carbon pro and 32gigs of gskill ddr 3200 kinda lost overclocking this beast lol any tips or links to read up on just setting muti to 42 its semi stable with 1.30 vcore runs cool to under 50c.


Starting with these guides?









http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz2VRRbLPrZnYjlVR2kzYkVvMFE/edit

@PowerK
Very nice and cool








A bit expensive but you don't seem to mind








What temp gain did you get over your ex Enthoo Primo setup?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> @PowerK
> Very nice and cool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit expensive but you don't seem to mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What temp gain did you get over your ex Enthoo Primo setup?


Hi arrow0309,
Previously, with Enthoo Primo, custom loop was applied to CPU only (with internal 480(top)+360(bottom)+240(front) radiators).
I think I'm seeing roughly 5~10 C temp difference in average with Mo-Ra. If you see the second picture from the top, there's a air purifier in front of Mo-Ra and above it, it's an air conditioner. When the air conditioner is turned on, it *directly* blows cold air into the Mo-Ra, making it amazingly effective. Within about 5~10 mins, coolant temp reaches about 14~16C.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi arrow0309,
> Previously, with Enthoo Primo, custom loop was applied to CPU only (with internal 480(top)+360(bottom)+240(front) radiators).
> I think I'm seeing roughly 5~10 C temp difference in average with Mo-Ra. If you see the second picture from the top, there's a air purifier in front of Mo-Ra and above it, it's an air conditioner. When the air conditioner is turned on, it *directly* blows cold air into the Mo-Ra, making it amazingly effective. Within about 5~10 mins, coolant temp reaches about 14~16C.


Holy Jesus, an entire Enthoo Primo cooling power of 3 rads of that size for the cpu only?
And how did you keep the Titan's, on air cooling?








Yeah, those air conditioners are great during the summertime especially, I'll have to get one as well on my new location in Manchester.

@Jpmboy
I've finally managed to run the (last final version of) the Realbench 4h last night stable without any vcore increase (the lower temps also helped here IMO)











Now I'm ready for the next step, will it be the ram tunning or the uncore?

BiosSettings4.3cpu.zip 1120k .zip file


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> New custom loop (Mo-Ra3) is complete with new case (Lian Li PC-O9). I like it so much better than previous case (Phanteks Enthoo Primo).


What kind of tablet are you using to display the Aida OSD?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

guess i got a poor cpu lol it wants over 1.35 for just 4.2ghz is that normal ? runs really cold tho like i havet seen it hit 60c yet even at 1.4 vcore.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> New custom loop (Mo-Ra3) is complete with new case (Lian Li PC-O9). I like it so much better than previous case (Phanteks Enthoo Primo).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of tablet are you using to display the Aida OSD?
Click to expand...

It seems an iPad and if there's an app for Android there may be one for iOS too








In fact, as soon as I finish with my oc I'm gonna re-configure aida64's osd and try this (android app) on my 9.7" Tab S2 as well









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> guess i got a poor cpu lol it wants over 1.35 for just 4.2ghz is that normal ? runs really cold tho like i havet seen it hit 60c yet even at 1.4 vcore.


Yeah, the entry BWE 6800K is known for not being such a great chip and mostly oc worse than the 6850K (somehow worse then their predecessors 5820K too) and with plenty of volts.
I'd sell it and try another one if I'd have one like that.
Did you increased the vccin?
What ram also?
You might wanna try with the lowest 2133 ram freq (no Xmp) first in order to find the cpu's overclock and then to continue with the uncore and ram


----------



## iamjanco

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> I'm not judging ASUS as a whole company because so far it's only their x99 series. Just do a quick search on "asus X99 code 00" - tons of results will pop up
> 
> Another one, x99 Strix frying the CPU's: https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?88292-Strix-x99-Gaming-QCODE-00-over-night-after-several-small-issues
> 
> Also check out what people say about ASUS x99's on Newegg, even the Mk2's go bust.





Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Here you go
> https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Most-Reliable-PC-Hardware-of-2016-872/
> 
> And for speed
> https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/mobo


Agreed, but it might be best to consider context, at least with respect to what Puget considers the most reliable boards of 2016. By that, I mean it's fairly obvious their intent is to strive for maximum performance at long-term, optimum stability, while keeping a board's original hardware design constraints in mind. Just because your UEFI and/or addons allow you to push 1.3, 1.4, or even 1.7v to your core (knowingly or not), doesn't mean you should. Unfortunately, I suspect such is often overlooked by at least some of the folks posting to boards like this, folks who are likely driven more by being in a hurry to have the "bestest" if you will.

That's somewhat apparent reading through various threads here on OCN and elsewhere. Indeed, motherboard "issues" aside, I myself both wonder about all of the variables that go into making a chip clock at a certain frequency, without imposing diminishing returns on its lifespan and/or system stability; as well as am somewhat amused by those who almost always seem to be in a desperate rush to have the latest and greatest that's being offered, proven or not, pushing these items to their limits and beyond (knowingly or not).

I do realize, of course, that this is an enthusiast's board, mind you; and that today's "enthusiasts" obviously don't mind taking risks. With such risk though comes uncertainty, which should always be kept in mind, along with the reliability of the data often presented in such boards.

Anyway, that said, some background info about why this thread peaks my interest: I have a 6850 (purchased at 4.1 via SL) that hasn't been used in a build yet, but will be in the near future. It's going into an ASRock X99 Fatality Professional Gaming i7, and if anything, it'll be mildly overclocked. I am also a baby boomer nearing retirement age, with fairly comfortable levels of knowledge/experience in rf/digital electronics/systems integration. I am also not overly crazy about being an early adopter (at least not by way of my own pocket), though do enjoy the innovative.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> guess i got a poor cpu lol it wants over 1.35 for just 4.2ghz is that normal ? runs really cold tho like i havet seen it hit 60c yet even at 1.4 vcore.


Which program do you use for stress testing? If only RealBench/x264/Aida64 then that is sadly a bit below average. If it is Prime95 28.9/OCCT 4.5.0/LinX then it is probably not that bad .
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, the entry BWE 6800K is known for not being such a great chip and mostly oc worse than the 6850K (somehow worse then their predecessors 5820K too) and with plenty of volts.


It is still silicon lottery though, Intel only guarantees stock speeds. 6850K and 6900K also both OC significantly worse than 5930K and 5960X (newer batches), talking about 200-500 MHz less headroom.
6850K/5930K only make sense to someone who wants to utilize all the 40 lanes, otherwise it is still not guaranteed to get a good clocking one.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> What kind of tablet are you using to display the Aida OSD?


It's an iPad. I'm using remote LCD feature of AIDA64 (broadcasting sensor readings theough network).


----------



## jsarver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> It's an iPad. I'm using remote LCD feature of AIDA64 (broadcasting sensor readings theough network).


mind explaining how you are sending the data? i own aida 64 but never knew this was a thing. would love to have this on my ipad as well


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsarver*
> 
> mind explaining how you are sending the data? i own aida 64 but never knew this was a thing. would love to have this on my ipad as well


It's very simple and easy.
https://forums.aida64.com/topic/2636-remotesensor-lcd-for-smartphones-and-tablets/


----------



## Bal3Wolf

whats max vcore most of you use ? my hottest core only hits 45c doing x265 encoding, and looks like i do have a crappy cpu prime 95 avx has one of the threads fail almost instantly with 1.31 vcore x264 is still going tho.


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> whats max vcore most of you use ? my hottest core only hits 45c doing x265 encoding, and looks like i do have a crappy cpu prime 95 avx has one of the threads fail almost instantly with 1.31 vcore x264 is still going tho.


What are your main uses for the cpu? Do you find prime numbers for a living? If not, I would change your stability test parameters to something more manageable.

For example, a blend of handbrake encoding via 4 hour loop of x264/265 with some realbench and hci memtest thrown in. There's no reason to over complicate things with power hungry tests such as 8 hour prime/occt runs - unless that's what's paying the bills.

To answer your question, I would use up to 1.35vcore or what my cooling solution can handle while keeping core & package temps below 80 degrees. If you're wanting to push further, set Asus TCT to help throttle the mutliplier once temps breach your limit.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jsarver*
> 
> mind explaining how you are sending the data? i own aida 64 but never knew this was a thing. would love to have this on my ipad as well
> 
> 
> 
> It's very simple and easy.
> https://forums.aida64.com/topic/2636-remotesensor-lcd-for-smartphones-and-tablets/
Click to expand...

I believe you can even use a couple different brands of the super cheap photo frame doohickey things instead of a second monitor.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> whats max vcore most of you use ? my hottest core only hits 45c doing x265 encoding, and looks like i do have a crappy cpu prime 95 avx has one of the threads fail almost instantly with 1.31 vcore x264 is still going tho.
> 
> 
> 
> What are your main uses for the cpu? Do you find prime numbers for a living? If not, I would change your stability test parameters to something more manageable.
> 
> For example, a blend of handbrake encoding via 4 hour loop of x264/265 with some realbench and hci memtest thrown in. There's no reason to over complicate things with power hungry tests such as 8 hour prime/occt runs - unless that's what's paying the bills.
> 
> To answer your question, I would use up to 1.35vcore or what my cooling solution can handle while keeping core & package temps below 80 degrees.
Click to expand...

true im just old school always used prime in the past might just use the non avx one, x264 is going strong without a error a problem, im not even hitting 50c right now with my setup my water temp is 26c and room temp is 23c cores arent breaking 50c running x264.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> true im just old school always used prime in the past might just use the non avx one, x264 is going strong without a error a problem, im not even hitting 50c right now with my setup my water temp is 26c and room temp is 23c cores arent breaking 50c running x264.


Perhaps, if you insist on using Prime95, it's a good idea to disable AVX by adding the following command in local.txt file in Prime95 directory.

Code:



Code:


CpuSupportsAVX=0
CpuSupportsFMA3=0

For AVX stability testing, I think it's better to use X264 stability test.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

yea im using real bench right now but even that having trouble to get it stable looks like 4200 will be the max still trying to get it stable.


----------



## Martin778

Don't do AVX stress testing on BW-E, it's an unnecessary strain on the system. You will get extremely high temps and may even need 0.05-08 more voltage than normal to get it stable.
My 6950X could run 8h of RB and crash within seconds on an AVX load


----------



## Bal3Wolf

yea im working with realtemp now still looks like its going to need around 1.33-1.35 to be 4.2ghz stable but super low temps real bench didnt even hit 50c.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I know what you mean and got your point, thought the same mostly
> But I'm sure that the both delidding and lapping these BWE will give a nice, real evident temp gain.
> Like I said I decided not to
> But (and here some of you didn't approved it) I DID use the CLP this time (and a new block)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I still have to bleed well, however I'll probably do this night (later) the famous 4h Realbench (hope I won't have to increase the vcore)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm happier than before


looks much better.. new block and LM.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Martin778*
> 
> The customers beg to differ then. I never trust those mass statistics.
> 
> For the X99 Deluxe:
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132260


Forums tend to distill to problems. The folks having a fine time with their gear aren't there complaining. And with ASUS' major share of the market.. well you can do the math.
Face it bro, it was a crap cpu, and you made a noble effort to whip it into line. But lapping that thing was the wrong thing to do. All the "my board killed my CPU" posts you refer to where either very near launch when there were a few (not reproducible) overvolt claims, and any later, usually begin at the keyboard side of the rig; whether by purposely running at the edge, or thru inexperience.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> My 2011-v3s have been more consistently not concave, which is an improvement.


concave? really? I'll have to check next time I pull one. (which I only do for those rigs very rarely








)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> I've finally managed to run the (last final version of) the Realbench 4h last night stable without any vcore increase (the lower temps also helped here IMO)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm ready for the next step, will it be the ram tunning or the uncore?
> 
> BiosSettings4.3cpu.zip 1120k .zip file


Before cache, set avx offset to 1 and increase core multi to 44. run realbench for 30min (RB encode uses AVX). If it is good.... benefit. If not, increase vcore 5-10mV only. Let the system operate like the E-class chip it should and down clock when AVX is in the stack. Once you get this understood, you can use the ASUS Thermal Control Tool to set 2 voltages and clocks based on temperature.
THen ram and cache... what exact kit?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> It's an iPad. I'm using remote LCD feature of AIDA64 (broadcasting sensor readings theough network).


Yeah, works great. I use a Samsung DPF as the outboard.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

what are some other voltages to tweak to help make a overclock stable ? And anyone having problems with luxmark crashing it keeps encoding but luxmark crashes i found some links where people said it happens on nvida cards.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> what are some other voltages to tweak to help make a overclock stable ? And anyone having problems with luxmark crashing it keeps encoding but luxmark crashes i found some links where people said it happens on nvida cards.


it's an SLI issue. If you have 2 cards, disable sli. If not, it's probably instability.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> looks much better.. new block and LM.


Thanks!
That's my favourite pic











I'm already loving the German brand








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Before cache, set avx offset to 1 and increase core multi to 44. run realbench for 30min (RB encode uses AVX). If it is good.... benefit. If not, increase vcore 5-10mV only. Let the system operate like the E-class chip it should and down clock when AVX is in the stack. Once you get this understood, you can use the ASUS Thermal Control Tool to set 2 voltages and clocks based on temperature.
> THen ram and cache... what exact kit?


+Rep!
Woohoo, thanks








That's a lot more than I've expected
Gonna try it out right now









Btw:
The ram kit is this:

https://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3600c17q-32gtz


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Thanks!
> That's my favourite pic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm already loving the German brand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +Rep!
> Woohoo, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot more than I've expected
> Gonna try it out right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw:
> The ram kit is this:
> 
> https://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3600c17q-32gtz


unfortunately, that's a dual channel kit, not quad channel and rated too high for xmp to work on this platform. gonna need a little Silcon luck for that kit to behave well.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> unfortunately, that's a dual channel kit, not quad channel and rated too high for xmp to work on this platform. gonna need a little Silcon luck for that kit to behave well.


Yeah, I know








At least 3200 can we manage to achieve?
At cl 15?
Tried once in xmp and it only booted to windows but got blue screen as soon as I launched an aida cachemem (also the vtt was bumped too high IMO, ~1.25v)

Btw:
Finished with the 4.4 avx, after increasing first +5mv and afterwards +10mv it completed the 30' run


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> what are some other voltages to tweak to help make a overclock stable ? And anyone having problems with luxmark crashing it keeps encoding but luxmark crashes i found some links where people said it happens on nvida cards.


I have been reading your posts and just wanted to say I am having the EXACT same experiences with my 6800k. My voltages (all of them) are much higher than everyone else suggests and I am STILL experiencing instability. Honestly it has become quite upsetting and I am near to settling at 4.1 and accepting a far below average overclock...

I also have the exact same Luxmark crashes you mentioned when using RealBench, and read the same thing that it may have to do with the graphics card. I have a factory overclocked 1060 6GB and I was/am suspicious that it may be unstable. It doesn't crash in games, but Luxmark always crashes on RB, even though the PC never freezes and the test just ends after Luxmark failure. I have reverted to using the custom x264 stability test I found on OCN instead for this reason.

My specific setup is detailed below. Maybe you want to share yours as well and we can compare? Interested how you set your cache, and also if you're using adaptive voltage, etc.?

Hardware:
CPU: i7-6800k
CPU Cooler: Corsair H105 (240mm AIO)
RAM: 1x16GB DDR4 (G.SKILL Ripjaws V) with XMP profile of 3200 16-18-18-38 2T @ 1.35v
Motherboard: ASRock X99E-ITX/ac
Case: NCASE M1 (this is an HTPC that sits in my media center)

Settings:
Core clock: 4.2 load (42 * 100), 1.2 idle, 4.1 AVX load, 4.3 single-threaded load on favorite core
Cache clock: 2.8 (default)
Vcore (adaptive): 1.39!!! in BIOS, .774 idle in Windows, 1.368 under load, 1.338 AVX load
CPU Input voltage: 1.95
LLC: Level 3
Cache/Ring voltage: 1.32!!!
CPU VCCIO: 1.2
VCCSA: 1.155 (.215 offset in BIOS)
RAM: 3000 15-17-17-35 2T @ 1.38v
TEMPERATURES: 76C is the highest I've seen, this was under AVX load WITHOUT a negative offset. After I added the -1 offset (runs at 4.1 and undervolted under AVX), the highest I saw was 68C. When gaming, the highest I noticed was ~ 57C. The motherboard (VRM?) sensors hover in the low/mid-50s under load as well.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> what are some other voltages to tweak to help make a overclock stable.


5v, 12v, 3.3v
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least 3200 can we manage to achieve?
> At cl 15?
> Tried once in xmp and it only booted to windows but got blue screen as soon as I launched an aida cachemem (also the vtt was bumped too high IMO, ~1.25v)
> 
> Btw:
> Finished with the 4.4 avx, after increasing first +5mv and afterwards +10mv it completed the 30' run


If you don't want to fuss with ram until the next platform comes out - get a 3200CAS14 or CAS15 quad kit for X99. Done...


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> So the system froze but did not BSOD - right? Remember, on this platform overclocking ram (anything above 2133) is also loading the IMC and cache more. Leave everything as you have it, and increase cache/uncore voltage 25mV above what it was runing at whether that value is from Auto or a value you set. You can see the uncore/cache voltyage with AID64.


Hi Jpmboy,

I got a chance to try this out over the weekend. I increased my cache voltage from 1.295 to 1.32 (even though I'm still at 2.8 stock speed!). First thing when I boot I get a blue screen. If I understand your post correctly, this would be indicative of the core rather than the cache this time. So along with the 1.32 cache, I go back and increase vcore from 1.385 to 1.39, but this is adaptive so loads up to 1.368 in Windows. At this point I am very close to running out of headroom in every direction (core and cache voltage, temperatures, etc.).

Wonderfully, everything seemed to be working well. I ran 600% HCI memtest overnight. The next day, I used the PC for over 2 hours and played various games. Got much further into my session without any freezes. Just an aside, note that I STREAM to a remote machine, so my CPU is processing the game engine as well as simultaneously performing software/CPU encoding, which I suspect is a more difficult load. Anyway, sadly I eventually loaded up a strategy game (typically CPU heavy), and after ~ 10 minutes it froze again.














I don't know if this was a BSOD or not though, since I was on a remote computer at the time.

Any other thoughts for me at this point? My full settings are below. Thanks for your time and help.

Settings/voltages:
Core clock: 4.2 load (42 * 100), 1.2 idle, 4.1 AVX load, 4.3 single-threaded load on favorite core
Cache clock: 2.8 (default)
Vcore (adaptive): 1.39!!! in BIOS, .774 idle in Windows, 1.368 under load, 1.338 AVX load
CPU Input voltage: 1.95
LLC: Level 3
Cache/Ring voltage: 1.32!!!
CPU VCCIO: 1.2
VCCSA: 1.155 (.215 offset in BIOS)
RAM: 3000 15-17-17-35 2T @ 1.38v
TEMPERATURES: 76C is the highest I've seen, this was under AVX load WITHOUT a negative offset. After I added the -1 offset (runs at 4.1 and undervolted under AVX), the highest I saw was 68C. When gaming, the highest I noticed was ~ 57C. The motherboard (VRM?) sensors hover in the low/mid-50s under load as well.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least 3200 can we manage to achieve?
> At cl 15?
> Tried once in xmp and it only booted to windows but got blue screen as soon as I launched an aida cachemem (also the vtt was bumped too high IMO, ~1.25v)
> 
> Btw:
> Finished with the 4.4 avx, after increasing first +5mv and afterwards +10mv it completed the 30' run


With my board and memory, XMP profile with auto voltages wanted to set VCCSA to ~ 1.5... It could boot into Windows at ~ 1.3 with my CPU at default speed, but with my overclocked CPU I was never able to get stable DDR4 3200 16-18-18-38 2T. I dialed back to 3000 15-17-17-35 and that seems to work well (600% HCI memtest passed), although I'm still having other problems with my overclock.

I'm no expert, but just wanted to add my opinion/experience in case it helps.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> If you don't want to fuss with ram until the next platform comes out - get a 3200CAS14 or CAS15 quad kit for X99. Done...


I hope you're guys right and I don't even bother with this ram kit anymore.
So I've just ordered a nice F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW (just found a bargain at ebay.uk, 2 kits only left at £363) and I'll gonna sell these dual ch sticks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least 3200 can we manage to achieve?
> At cl 15?
> Tried once in xmp and it only booted to windows but got blue screen as soon as I launched an aida cachemem (also the vtt was bumped too high IMO, ~1.25v)
> 
> Btw:
> F*inished with the 4.4 avx, after increasing first +5mv and afterwards +10mv it completed the 30' run*


nice!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Hi Jpmboy,
> 
> I got a chance to try this out over the weekend. I increased my cache voltage from 1.295 to 1.32 (even though I'm still at 2.8 stock speed!). First thing when I boot I get a blue screen. If I understand your post correctly, this would be indicative of the core rather than the cache this time. So along with the 1.32 cache, I go back and increase vcore from 1.385 to 1.39, but this is adaptive so loads up to 1.368 in Windows. At this point I am very close to running out of headroom in every direction (core and cache voltage, temperatures, etc.).
> 
> Wonderfully, everything seemed to be working well. I ran 600% HCI memtest overnight. The next day, I used the PC for over 2 hours and played various games. Got much further into my session without any freezes. Just an aside, note that I STREAM to a remote machine, s*o my CPU is processing the game engine as well as simultaneously performing* software/CPU encoding, which I suspect is a more difficult load. Anyway, sadly I eventually loaded up a strategy game (typically CPU heavy), and after ~ 10 minutes it froze again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this was a BSOD or not though, since I was on a remote computer at the time.
> 
> Any other thoughts for me at this point? My full settings are below. Thanks for your time and help.
> 
> Settings/voltages:
> Core clock: 4.2 load (42 * 100), 1.2 idle, 4.1 AVX load, 4.3 single-threaded load on favorite core
> Cache clock: 2.8 (default)
> Vcore (adaptive): 1.39!!! in BIOS, .774 idle in Windows, 1.368 under load, 1.338 AVX load
> CPU Input voltage: 1.95
> LLC: Level 3
> Cache/Ring voltage: 1.32!!!
> CPU VCCIO: 1.2
> VCCSA: 1.155 (.215 offset in BIOS)
> RAM: 3000 15-17-17-35 2T @ 1.38v
> TEMPERATURES: 76C is the highest I've seen, this was under AVX load WITHOUT a negative offset. After I added the -1 offset (runs at 4.1 and undervolted under AVX), the highest I saw was 68C. When gaming, the highest I noticed was ~ 57C. The motherboard (VRM?) sensors hover in the low/mid-50s under load as well.


that's a heavy load on th e IO. You should lower that cache voltgae below 1.3V (more in the 1.25V range). And, considering that you have the cache at stock... keep lowering it until it misbehaves. Also, DO NOT use adaptive cache voltage - it will not work on this platform. either manual or offset cache only.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I hope you're guys right and I don't even bother with this ram kit anymore.
> *So I've just ordered a nice F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW* (just found a bargain at ebay.uk, 2 kits only left at £363) and I'll gonna sell these dual ch sticks


good move. that 3600 kit is for z170/z270 platforms. A quad channel binned kit will be many fewer headaches.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice!
> that's a heavy load on th e IO. You should lower that cache voltgae below 1.3V (more in the 1.25V range). And, considering that you have the cache at stock... keep lowering it until it misbehaves. Also, DO NOT use adaptive cache voltage - it will not work on this platform. either manual or offset cache only.
> good move. that 3600 kit is for z170/z270 platforms. A quad channel binned kit will be many fewer headaches.


Thanks for your tip regarding adaptive cache voltage. Just for my understanding, can you elaborate on what the I/O does, why streaming is causing a heavy load to it, and why reducing cache voltage will help?

I will try lowering the cache voltage again, however I originally set it to 1.295 by starting at ~ 1.2 and raising it a little bit every time it froze on 15 minutes of x264 encoding. In other words, I would have already tried ~ 1.25 and froze under those conditions. But who knows, a lot has changed since then. I could have actually still been a little too low on vcore at that time and just didn't realize it, got lucky when I completed the pre-cache stress test, etc...

Would it help to increase CPU input voltage of CPU VCCIO instead? Alternately, does vcore suffer from the same problems with adaptive voltage that cache does? I was thinking to also test setting a manual 1.37 vcore and see if I experience any more issues. I had a suspicion that dips in the adaptive voltage were catching me at a bad time, thus causing the freezes.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Thanks for your tip regarding adaptive cache voltage. Just for my understanding, can you elaborate on what the I/O does, why streaming is causing a heavy load to it, and why reducing cache voltage will help?
> 
> I will try lowering the cache voltage again, however I originally set it to 1.295 by starting at ~ 1.2 and raising it a little bit every time it froze on 15 minutes of x264 encoding. In other words, I would have already tried ~ 1.25 and froze under those conditions. But who knows, a lot has changed since then. I could have actually still been a little too low on vcore at that time and just didn't realize it, got lucky when I completed the pre-cache stress test, etc...
> 
> Would it help to increase CPU input voltage of CPU VCCIO instead? Alternately, does vcore suffer from the same problems with adaptive voltage that cache does? I was thinking to also test setting a manual 1.37 vcore and see if I experience any more issues. I had a suspicion that dips in the adaptive voltage were catching me at a bad time, thus causing the freezes.


best way to go about this is for you to post bios screen shots... put a usb stick in any port, and while in bios, hit F12 on every (relevant) bios screen - scroll where needed. boot to windows, and zip the fioles. post 'em back here using the paperclip tool in the forum editor.








adaptive vcore is fine.. adaptive cache is not.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> best way to go about this is for you to post bios screen shots... put a usb stick in any port, and while in bios, hit F12 on every (relevant) bios screen - scroll where needed. boot to windows, and zip the fioles. post 'em back here using the paperclip tool in the forum editor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adaptive vcore is fine.. adaptive cache is not.


Thanks. I could get you screenshots of A-Tuning Suite or anything in Windows tonight, which would show all the basic clocks and voltages, etc. But I won't be home to capture BIOS screenshots, with all the other detailed/random options, until this weekend.

I will do it and post back asap.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Thanks. I could get you screenshots of A-Tuning Suite or anything in Windows tonight, which would show all the basic clocks and voltages, etc. But I won't be home to capture BIOS screenshots, with all the other detailed/random options, until this weekend.
> 
> I will do it and post back asap.


no rush... bios shots are preferrable.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

well i tweaked some settings vcca and vccio i believe 4200 is now stable in prime and realbench with 1.325-1.30. How many of you have pushed over 1.4vcore and how long to get 4300 or 4400 looks like im going to be in the 1.45 range temps arent a problem even in avx im only hitting low 60s on the package cores are lower.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> well i tweaked some settings vcca and vccio i believe 4200 is now stable in prime and realbench with 1.325-1.30. How many of you have pushed over 1.4vcore and how long to get 4300 or 4400 looks like im going to be in the 1.45 range temps arent a problem even in avx im only hitting low 60s on the package cores are lower.


Where did you set those voltages to get stable at 4.2?

Also, what do you have your cache set at (clock and voltage)?

Finally, what cooling do you have? I thought my temps were pretty good (H105 cooler pushing mid-70s under AVX with 1.37v+), but yours are very strong indeed.

Thanks.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

im running 3 rads 1 ek 420 1 hardware labs 360 sr2 and a xspc rx240 with dual ddc pumps with a koolance 380i on the cpu and a 1080 hydrocopper also in the loop.
cache is at 3100 on auto voltage for it was way to high working it down now.
VCCIO, VCIN, and SA voltage to 1.1v, 1.90v, and 1.0v


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least 3200 can we manage to achieve?
> At cl 15?
> Tried once in xmp and it only booted to windows but got blue screen as soon as I launched an aida cachemem (also the vtt was bumped too high IMO, ~1.25v)
> 
> Btw:
> F*inished with the 4.4 avx, after increasing first +5mv and afterwards +10mv it completed the 30' run*
> 
> 
> 
> nice!
Click to expand...

Hmm, crashed when playing Mass Effect Andromeda
I've increased some more 5mv (1.295v adaptive now)

Waiting for the ram tomorrow or Thursday.


----------



## ref

6850k still running stable 4.4 at 1.25v. Did some more RealBench and finally got around to playing some actual games, which was nice and there was no issues as of yet.

Looks like I got lucky with my CPU, at least for 4.4... 4.5 is looking like it will need 1.34+ to be stable and even though I certainly have the hardware to support that overclock and have good temperatures still, performance wise won't make much of a difference, so will probably just leave at 4.4.

On another note, I seem to have gotten unlucky with my GTX 1080's overclocks as they are slightly below average.

Can't win all the time I guess


----------



## Bal3Wolf

yea my old 2600k did 5ghz for years on low volts i been tweaking everything i can on this msi gaming pro and my 6800k got my stable voltages in avx down to 1.31 from 1.35 looks like. My evga 1080 hydro copper tops out at 2100mhz on core and 5600mhz on memory game and folding stable.


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ref*
> 
> 6850k still running stable 4.4 at 1.25v. Did some more RealBench and finally got around to playing some actual games, which was nice and there was no issues as of yet.
> 
> Looks like I got lucky with my CPU, at least for 4.4... 4.5 is looking like it will need 1.34+ to be stable and even though I certainly have the hardware to support that overclock and have good temperatures still, performance wise won't make much of a difference, so will probably just leave at 4.4.
> 
> On another note, I seem to have gotten unlucky with my GTX 1080's overclocks as they are slightly below average.
> 
> Can't win all the time I guess


Are all your cores synced? i was running 5 at 45 and 1 at 46 @1.46v and i had no issues until mass effect came along. every other game works fine. crashed on me last night. was so caught up when i first put system together to push as much as i could, that realistically should be paying attention to temps/vcore. i never went above 72 on that previous listed setup but its time to dial it back to something that can work with mass effect. have dual ti's isnt helping with heat since its one loop. i was able to load defaults and then get 4.3 @ 1.25v temp never exceeded 57briefly before i had to leave. gonna have to do this all over again







whats a reasonable vcore for broadwell e 1.35? also has anyone used the ASUS Thermal Control Toolas mentioned in the bwell e overclocking guide?


----------



## Sentinela

Well, i finally reached my stable 4.0ghz on my 6800k. The VID is at 1.230v and the actual VCORE on heavy load, 1,248v ~1,264v. Anything bellow it will not pass OCCT. My VCCSA 0.936v, VCCIN 1.856v an VCCIO 1.05. For me, 4.0ghz on all cores is more than enough for gaming. Will try to push my 2400mhz ram kit to 2666mhz, but honestly, dont know if it will pay the trouble. For ram overclocking do I have to push VCCSA and CACHE voltages? What to do next to push my ram even further guys?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XPredator*
> 
> Well, i finally reached my stable 4.0ghz on my 6800k. The VID is at 1.230v and the actual VCORE on heavy load, 1,248v ~1,264v. Anything bellow it will not pass OCCT. My VCCSA 0.936v, VCCIN 1.856v an VCCIO 1.05. For me, 4.0ghz on all cores is more than enough for gaming. Will try to push my 2400mhz ram kit to 2666mhz, but honestly, dont know if it will pay the trouble. For ram overclocking do I have to push VCCSA and CACHE voltages? What to do next to push my ram even further guys?


for me to run my ram at 3200mhz quad channel i need settings below im using xmp.

vcin 1.92 in bios 1.877 measured in hwinfo
vccio 1.1 in bios 1.088 measured in hwinfo
ring 1.0690 in bios
sa 1.150


----------



## Sentinela

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> for me to run my ram at 3200mhz quad channel i need settings below im using xmp.
> 
> vcin 1.92 in bios 1.877 measured in hwinfo
> vccio 1.1 in bios 1.088 measured in hwinfo
> ring 1.0690 in bios
> sa 1.150


Thats pretty fast ram you got there! Will push my poor cheap kingston 2400 to 2666mhz and see whats the setting i will push. I think vccsa will be the first thing to look at right?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XPredator*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> for me to run my ram at 3200mhz quad channel i need settings below im using xmp.
> 
> vcin 1.92 in bios 1.877 measured in hwinfo
> vccio 1.1 in bios 1.088 measured in hwinfo
> ring 1.0690 in bios
> sa 1.150
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty fast ram you got there! Will push my poor cheap kingston 2400 to 2666mhz and see whats the setting i will push. I think vccsa will be the first thing to look at right?
Click to expand...

Im pretty new to x99 so learning as i go been doing alot of searching and reading vccsa mght be same thing as my system agent voltage from what i read its what you need to bump for higher ram clocks more ram etc most times xmp does it for you i had to lower mine because xmp was pushing it to 1.3 and i only need 1.150 for ram to run ok at 3200mhz with quad channel 32gigs.


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> Im pretty new to x99 so learning as i go been doing alot of searching and reading vccsa mght be same thing as my system agent voltage from what i read its what you need to bump for higher ram clocks more ram etc most times xmp does it for you i had to lower mine because xmp was pushing it to 1.3 and i only need 1.150 for ram to run ok at 3200mhz with quad channel 32gigs.


You are correct, it is Vcc System Agent. Mine defaults to 1.3 on my x-99A as well, but was also perfectly stable with 32G of 3200Mhz with much lower voltage. Not all auto values are worth keeping. Keep trucking man, you probably know more about the platform based on previous gens than you care to admit


----------



## Bal3Wolf

well i got a kinda crappy chip runs cool but its hungry for volts took 1.318 to be stable at 4.2 but thats prime avx and realbench stable cache at 3500 on 1.175. WIth my waterloop iv yet to see my chip go over about 62c even with 1.4 vcore still working on it tho id like 4400 or 4500 if i can get it with under 1.45.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> well i tweaked some settings vcca and vccio i believe 4200 is now stable in prime and realbench with 1.325-1.30. How many of you have pushed over 1.4vcore and how long to get 4300 or 4400 looks like im going to be in the 1.45 range temps arent a problem even in avx im only hitting low 60s on the package cores are lower.


Probably a low leakage part (B lot in the batch number?), like mine.

Likely won't OC as well as other parts, but heat won't be an issue (I can cool mine in stress tests with an H50) before voltage is, and low leakage usually implies a fair tolerance for voltage.

I'd still be hesitant to push 1.4v+ 24/7...but i haven't killed enough BW-Es yet to get a feel for their limits.


----------



## arrow0309

Supposing I was 4h realbench stable at 4.3 @1.28v adaptive and after that even 4.4 avx offset 1 @1.29v for another 30' of RB (real vid under 4.3 avx load was 1.282v but I've increased the adaptive vcore once again due to a Mass Effect Andromeda crash to 1.295v) what would you guys use to test a 4.4ghz stability with no avx? Like prime 27.7?
Or newer versions but with the avx instructions disabled?
Is it possible to disable the avx under realbench too?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Supposing I was 4h realbench stable at 4.3 @1.28v adaptive and after that even 4.4 avx offset 1 @1.29v for another 30' of RB (real vid under 4.3 avx load was 1.282v but I've increased the adaptive vcore once again due to a Mass Effect Andromeda crash to 1.295v) what would you guys use to test a 4.4ghz stability with no avx? Like prime 27.7?
> Or newer versions but with the avx instructions disabled?
> Is it possible to disable the avx under realbench too?


loop the realbench benchmark image editing module. select only the first box and set number of times to like 20...
the non-avx p95s are okay too.


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> im running 3 rads 1 ek 420 1 hardware labs 360 sr2 and a xspc rx240 with dual ddc pumps with a koolance 380i on the cpu and a 1080 hydrocopper also in the loop.
> cache is at 3100 on auto voltage for it was way to high working it down now.
> VCCIO, VCIN, and SA voltage to 1.1v, 1.90v, and 1.0v


Thanks, sounds like a nice setup, and your overclock is looking good now that you've been tweaking. Congrats.


----------



## CptSpig

I received my 6950x yesterday coming from a 5930k. What a difference. I ran time spy with everything at stock speeds XMP, G-Sync and V-Sync enabled. 5930k overclocked to 4.6 core and 4.2 cashe G-Sync and V-Sync off. Titan XP 227 core and 675 memory on both runs. Graphic score down 300 and physics up 2500. What a beast. I have a feeling the new setup is going to crush the old one! Time to start overclocking. Totally happy so far with this chip.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> loop the realbench benchmark image editing module. select only the first box and set number of times to like 20...
> the non-avx p95s are okay too.


Great, I'll try the real benchmark then








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> I received my 6950x yesterday coming from a 5930k. What a difference. I ran time spy with everything at stock speeds XMP, G-Sync and V-Sync enabled. 5930k overclocked to 4.6 core and 4.2 cashe G-Sync and V-Sync off. Titan XP 227 core and 675 memory on both runs. Graphic score down 300 and physics up 2500. What a beast. I have a feeling the new setup is going to crush the old one! Time to start overclocking. Totally happy so far with this chip.


I bet you are (happy)!








How much?








What drivers are you using for Time Spy?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

well i settled on 4200 at 1.31 vcore with 3400 cache, 4300 just wants to much vcore was still not stable with 1.43 vcore when i stoped testing it.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Great, I'll try the real benchmark then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you are (happy)!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What drivers are you using for Time Spy?


Real Happy!
$1325.00 NIB.
378.66

I will update drives and start overclocking.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Real Happy!
> $1325.00 NIB.
> 378.66
> 
> I will update drives and start overclocking.


I have tried multiple overclocking settings, and the best STABLE clock I can achieve is 4300GHz. That is with every benchmark, stress test, game, and practical application I've thrown at it. Still 4300 is VERY good for that chip. When I first installed it I tried to use Asus's AI Suite which has a auto mode for overclocking. I tried that first, and it pushed it to 4700GHz which lasted until the first benchmark. The last thing I noticed is that my benchmark scores are higher with all cores synced. Your results may vary.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I have tried multiple overclocking settings, and the best STABLE clock I can achieve is 4300GHz. That is with every benchmark, stress test, game, and practical application I've thrown at it. Still 4300 is VERY good for that chip. When I first installed it I tried to use Asus's AI Suite which has a auto mode for overclocking. I tried that first, and it pushed it to 4700GHz which lasted until the first benchmark. The last thing I noticed is that my benchmark scores are higher with all cores synced. Your results may vary.


Time to see if this MSI board is GODLIKE? I will probably do 4.0 to 4.2 for a stable everyday OC. Push the CPU hard for short burst bench marking. I will go as high as 1.4v on the core depending on temperatures. I purchased the Intel tuning plan so I am not worried.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> loop the realbench benchmark image editing module. select only the first box and set number of times to like 20...
> the non-avx p95s are okay too.


About 1h in loop (infinite mode) with max (10) on image editing:











Niiiice temps for a 4.4Ghz









And also tested (above) with my new ram kit F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW











At their defaults Jedec 2133 obviously
But I'm ready for the next step


----------



## cekim

Revisit of 6950x idle temp "issues" (more like curiosity, nothing bad):

Short version:
4.4 all-core OC, 3.6 cache 128G 3200 CAS14 (EK full-board block VRM+CPU+PCH)

Load Temps in 24/7 trim:
max core = 69C
max package = 69C
Average 60-65C

Issue:
Cores idle at 22-24C
"Package" idles at 45C+

I had thought what was happening was the VRMs were keeping the "package" temp high at idle through the mono-block. Then I watched closely and the VRM idled down well below "Package" temp. Through process of elimination - lowering all settings to stock and then adding back in core, cache, memory OC one at a time... wait for it...

2 major drivers of idle package temp:
1. DDR "eventual" voltage that I set to 1.35 to prevent BIOS from going nuts (over the various bios revs, I've booted to 1.5 DDR voltage in "auto" - ***?)
2. (distant second - as in ~2C) VCCin lowered to 1.82 from 1.88 (auto = 1.87 typical). So far 1.82 seems stable, but longer tests ongoing.

Little surprised by #1. I expect cache/uncore offsets to do this, but they turned out not to matter. +0.250 cache offset @3.6GHz with memory at [email protected] still idled down to 34-35C package temp.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Revisit of 6950x idle temp "issues" (more like curiosity, nothing bad):
> 
> Short version:
> 4.4 all-core OC, 3.6 cache 128G 3000 CAS14 (EK full-board block VRM+CPU+PCH)
> 
> Load Temps in 24/7 trim:
> max core = 69C
> max package = 69C
> Average 60-65C
> 
> Issue:
> Cores idle at 22-24C
> "Package" idles at 45C+
> 
> I had thought what was happening was the VRMs were keeping the "package" temp high at idle through the mono-block. Then I watched closely and the VRM idled down well below "Package" temp. Through process of elimination - lowering all settings to stock and then adding back in core, cache, memory OC one at a time... wait for it...
> 
> 2 major drivers of idle package temp:
> 1. DDR "eventual" voltage that I set to 1.35 to prevent BIOS from going nuts (over the various bios revs, I've booted to 1.5 DDR voltage in "auto" - ***?)
> 2. (distant second - as in ~2C) VCCin lowered to 1.82 from 1.88 (auto = 1.87 typical). So far 1.82 seems stable, but longer tests ongoing.
> 
> Little surprised by #1. I expect cache/uncore offsets to do this, but they turned out not to matter. +0.250 cache offset @3.6GHz with memory at [email protected] still idled down to 34-35C package temp.


what ram speed? 3000? Cache will idle at 1/2 ddr4 speed and this will heat things up more than lower ram speeds. for instance. running this 64GB at 3200 vs 3400 lowers package a couple of degrees. I wrote this off to idle cache being 1.137V for 3400 and 1.05-ish for 3200. (eg 1600 cache vs 1700 cache at idle). I suspect just having 128GB in there will run hotter.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what ram speed? 3000? Cache will idle at 1/2 ddr4 speed and this will heat things up more than lower ram speeds. for instance. running this 64GB at 3200 vs 3400 lowers package a couple of degrees. I wrote this off to idle cache being 1.137V for 3400 and 1.05-ish for 3200. (eg 1600 cache vs 1700 cache at idle). I suspect just having 128GB in there will run hotter.


oops, make that 3200 now, forgot I added the TridentZ kit 3200Cas14

but yes, it seems to be exactly that.

Again nothing fatal, just as much as I tinker around and customize, I thought maybe I had botched TIM, had a loose bolt or lost my mind when I could not find anything on the system warm enough to explain that number.


----------



## Sentinela

Ok guys, so I started bumping up my DDR4. First, 2666mhz. What is the best stability test for RAM on X99? THX!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XPredator*
> 
> Ok guys, so I started bumping up my DDR4. First, 2666mhz. What is the best stability test for RAM on X99? THX!


see the OP in *this thread*


----------



## curseddiamond

run my 6850 at 4.5 at 1.29v on my godlike carbon but couldn't hit 4.4 at all on my ASUS TUF Sabertooth board

can't hit higher than 4.6 even at 1.4 volts though


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *curseddiamond*
> 
> run my 6850 at 4.5 at 1.29v on my godlike carbon but couldn't hit 4.4 at all on my ASUS TUF Sabertooth board
> 
> can't hit higher than 4.6 even at 1.4 volts though


should have measured the voltage on the MSi board, it likely runs high.


----------



## PowerK

^^ I agree.
I maybe mistaken but stability of 4.4 at 1.29 is questionable.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> ^^ I agree.
> I maybe mistaken but stability of 4.4 at 1.29 is questionable.


4.4 @ avx offset 1


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *curseddiamond*
> 
> run my 6850 at 4.5 at 1.29v on my godlike carbon but couldn't hit 4.4 at all on my ASUS TUF Sabertooth board
> 
> can't hit higher than 4.6 even at 1.4 volts though


My Godlike Carbon also uses less voltage than my EVGA Classified. The MSI is a great overclocking board.


----------



## Praz

Hello

Unless the voltage has been measured at the back side of the CPU socket comparison between boards are irrelevant. Trickery with more obscure or non-user accessible settings can also influence these observed results.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> 
> Unless the voltage has been measured at the back side of the CPU socket comparison between boards are irrelevant. Trickery with more obscure or non-user accessible settings can also influence these observed results.


^^ This is SOOOO true!


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This is SOOOO true!


@jpmboy Would avx2 be good? What setting do you use for avx instruction and why?
Thanks


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> @jpmboy Would avx2 be good? What setting do you use for avx instruction and why?
> Thanks


AVX2 is a version if the AVX instruxction set.. I assume that's not what you are asking. The AVX offset I use on this 10-core rig depends on the OC it's running. usually it's at 1, for 43 and 1.28V (avx loads are fine at 42 and that voltage). Other times it is set to Auto (=0) depending on what the rig is doing.
50% of the time this is set at 4.4core, avx 4.3 with 1.35V.
You should look into the AsUS thermal control tool - allows you to set 2 clocks and 2 voltages depending on temperature.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> AVX2 is a version if the AVX instruxction set.. I assume that's not what you are asking. The AVX offset I use on this 10-core rig depends on the OC it's running. usually it's at 1, for 43 and 1.28V (avx loads are fine at 42 and that voltage). Other times it is set to Auto (=0) depending on what the rig is doing.
> 50% of the time this is set at 4.4core, avx 4.3 with 1.35V.
> You should look into the AsUS thermal control tool - allows you to set 2 clocks and 2 voltages depending on temperature.


Thanks for the clarification! Can I use the ASUS thermal control on my MSI board?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Thanks for the clarification! Can I use the ASUS thermal control on my MSI board?


oh... I forgot. I don't know really. Just use the avx offset so that the offset is stable to the avx load you use.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

For those with msi x99 board any tweaks you can think of to get higher overclocks i have 4.2ghz stable with 1.32 with 3400 cache and memory at 3200 but i cant get any higher i have tried tweaking every voltage even using 1.45 4300 is still unstable figured id ask see if theirs something i missed.


----------



## cg4200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> For those with msi x99 board any tweaks you can think of to get higher overclocks i have 4.2ghz stable with 1.32 with 3400 cache and memory at 3200 but i cant get any higher i have tried tweaking every voltage even using 1.45 4300 is still unstable figured id ask see if theirs something i missed.


hey man I am running 4.6 / 34 cache..These are my settings msi pro carbon 6850k..every chip is not same though .good luck
vccin 1.910
cpu ring 1.120
cpu vccu 1.170
cpu sa 1.160
cpu vccio 1.090
vdroop ultra 75%
phase control optimized
cpu 1.390
ram voltage 1.37


----------



## Bal3Wolf

thanks i will take any help i can get im used to asus boards but i really liked the look of this one and newegg had a combo with it taking 40 bucks off the 6800k and board then board and cpu was also on sale so got a pretty good deal. What mode are you using for volts and are you using xmp what speed ram ?


----------



## arrow0309

I can't get Real Bench stable any longer with the ram set at the XMP speed (manually) at 3200 cl 14-14-14-34-1T @1.35-1.37v, I've had the cpu running 4h with 2133 ram @ 1.280v (and later raised it to 4.4 avx offset 1 @1.295v).
Previously, this new ram F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW seemed quite stable, I used the default CR2 and 1.35v for the ram, also 1.0875 vtt and +0.010v sa:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-ddr4-z170-z270-and-x99-24-7-memory-stability-thread/4190#post_25991941

Then I went for the CR1, 1.37v for the ram (is actually higher or at least it shows) and did 1h of Gsat (under an usb Linux Puppy though I'm not 100% convinced yet), no errors.
But the game crashes (Mass Effect Andromeda) made me starting with another Realbench session of 4h.
Obviously it crashed in minutes
Then I gradually did increase some voltages to:
- first 1.10v to the vtt (crashed after ~ 1/2h)
- then 1.1275v vtt and 1.01v sa and it still crashes
Now I don't know if to try with CR 2T (maybe right now) or add even more vdram or add some more juice (vtt, sa, vcore and/or even some cache voltage, even at 3000 cache freq)


----------



## moonbogg

Yo,

Got a new 6800K here with MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon and 16GB 3200. Tried 4.3ghz with 1.34v adaptive under load and it was stable. Temps are low under a Supremacy EVO. Should I be scared of the 1.34v? I backed it off to 4.2 at 1.287 under load and I'm more comfortable with that voltage, but some of you seem brave with 1.35+. I've read about some people's chips dying and I was wondering what your opinion was of 1.34v. All other voltages are default.


----------



## arrow0309

I've gone back with the CR2 just for testing this Realbench, slightly increased also the adaptive vcore (to 1.300) and the vccio (1.880 to 1.900)
30' passed:



Lets see if I'm OK this time

@moonbogg
You should be fine at only 4.3 and low temps with 1.34v
If you're keeping the package max temp under 80C

Edit:
After 1h of realbench I got the pc restarted
Jpmboy, where are you?








A clue might be useful


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Well sence my cpu tops out at 4.2Ghz on 1.32 vcore i decided to work on unicore/cache it wont go higher then 3400 i was able to get my timings down to 15-16-16 1t on my memory tho at 3200Mhz stock is 16-18-18 havet tried tweaking other timings yet.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I can't get Real Bench stable any longer with the ram set at the XMP speed (manually) at 3200 cl 14-14-14-34-1T @1.35-1.37v, I've had the cpu running 4h with 2133 ram @ 1.280v (and later raised it to 4.4 avx offset 1 @1.295v).
> Previously, this new ram F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW seemed quite stable, I used the default CR2 and 1.35v for the ram, also 1.0875 vtt and +0.010v sa:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-ddr4-z170-z270-and-x99-24-7-memory-stability-thread/4190#post_25991941
> 
> Then I went for the CR1, 1.37v for the ram (is actually higher or at least it shows) and did 1h of Gsat (under an usb Linux Puppy though I'm not 100% convinced yet), no errors.
> But the game crashes (Mass Effect Andromeda) made me starting with another Realbench session of 4h.
> Obviously it crashed in minutes
> Then I gradually did increase some voltages to:
> - first 1.10v to the vtt (crashed after ~ 1/2h)
> - then 1.1275v vtt and 1.01v sa and it still crashes
> Now I don't know if to try with CR 2T (maybe right now) or add even more vdram or add some more juice (vtt, sa, vcore and/or even some cache voltage, even at 3000 cache freq)


if the ram passes gsat, but the system fails in windows, it is probably your cache settings. if you OC the ram, stock cache settings may not be good enough.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if the ram passes gsat, but the system fails in windows, it is probably your cache settings. if you OC the ram, stock cache settings may not be good enough.


Thanks, I wanted to leave the cache for the last part (not sure if I did well however)
Right now I've set the cache back to its defaults at 2800 (def. volt), got back to the 4.3 adaptive @1.285v (without avx offset since I'll be OK with 4.3, better make some room for the cache oc as well), increased the sa to 1.050v and the vtt to 1.13v (and ram in 2T, 1.35v) and running RealBench, seems ok:



95' passed right now

Btw: those rtl's are at 57 right now and no more 55.
Shouldn't they better be some different between the 4 channels (like the old X58 triple channel as I remember)?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Thanks, I wanted to leave the cache for the last part (not sure if I did well however)
> Right now I've set the cache back to its defaults at 2800 (def. volt), got back to the 4.3 adaptive @1.285v (without avx offset since I'll be OK with 4.3, better make some room for the cache oc as well), increased the sa to 1.050v and the vtt to 1.13v (and ram in 2T, 1.35v) and running RealBench, seems ok:
> 
> 
> 
> 95' passed right now
> 
> Btw: *those rtl's are at 57 right now and no more 55.*
> Shouldn't they better be some different between the 4 channels (like the old X58 triple channel as I remember)?


they change with frequency and tCWL (tWL)


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> they change with frequency and tCWL (tWL)


So, they're OK at 57 supposing will remain (for now) at 4.3?
4H run OK (even if it's a sunny afternoon ad is getting warmer here in London):



What cache voltage would you suggest for 3600?


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> So, they're OK at 57 supposing will remain (for now) at 4.3?
> 4H run OK (even if it's a sunny afternoon ad is getting warmer here in London):
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cache voltage would you suggest for 3600?


Hello
Why is RealBench set to use 16GB of memory when 32GB is installed?


----------



## chibi

1.20 ~ 1.25v for 3600 cache. Give that a try and see where you end up.

I would suggest to stay below 1.30v cache though.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Hello
> Why is RealBench set to use 16GB of memory when 32GB is installed?


I don't know, the other (older) version of Realbench I remember didn't work with all of the ram and I used the 16gb setting ever since.
You think could not be enough?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> 1.20 ~ 1.25v for 3600 cache. Give that a try and see where you end up.
> 
> I would suggest to stay below 1.30v cache though.


I'll keep that in mind, thanks


----------



## coccosoids

Possible future owner of 6900k contemplating a few things:

1. what is the equivalent frequency of 6900k for a 5960x clocked at 4.4?
2. what is considered a good voltage for the frequency given as the answer to the above question?
3. what is the expected temperature in the conditions defined by the answers to the questions above?

That is all for now... I guess though, I would ask for one more thing: does anyone know of any lists compiled with OC statistic for broadwell?
Thanks.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coccosoids*
> 
> Possible future owner of 6900k contemplating a few things:
> 
> 1. what is the equivalent frequency of 6900k for a 5960x clocked at 4.4?
> 2. what is considered a good voltage for the frequency given as the answer to the above question?
> 3. what is the expected temperature in the conditions defined by the answers to the questions above?
> 
> That is all for now... I guess though, I would ask for one more thing: does anyone know of any lists compiled with OC statistic for broadwell?
> Thanks.


Circa 4.2 depending on the benchmark and other aspects of the overclock.

Good samples can achieve 4.4 at 1.3-1.35v, lower than that can be considered very good - temps also help.

Depends on the cooling.


----------



## Aenra

Hello again, need some advice please 

Am on a 6900k, 125 strap, cache currently at 3250MHz with VRING of 1.100volts (default is 1.050).

Now you'd think that since it only needs 1.1 for 3250, i could at the least run it at 3375 right? One notch up? Nope, won't even boot, not even with 1.290; that's 0.190 up!

(my input voltage is at 1.950, LLC extreme, as high as i'm willing to take it).

Does this seem logical?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> Hello again, need some advice please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am on a 6900k, 125 strap, cache currently at 3250MHz with VRING of 1.100volts (default is 1.050).
> Now you'd think that since it only needs 1.1 for 3250, i could at the least run it at 3375 right? One notch up? Nope, won't even boot, not even with 1.290; that's 0.190 up!
> (my input voltage is at 1.950, LLC extreme, as high as i'm willing to take it).
> 
> Does this seem logical?


sounds like my 6800k 4.2ghz takes 1.32 but 4.3ghz is still not remotely stable with 1.45 seems some broadwell-e chips just wont move past a certain clock no matter the voltage.


----------



## Aenra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> Hello again, need some advice please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am on a 6900k, 125 strap, cache currently at 3250MHz with VRING of 1.100volts (default is 1.050).
> Now you'd think that since it only needs 1.1 for 3250, i could at the least run it at 3375 right? One notch up? Nope, won't even boot, not even with 1.290; that's 0.190 up!
> (my input voltage is at 1.950, LLC extreme, as high as i'm willing to take it).
> 
> Does this seem logical?
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like my 6800k 4.2ghz takes 1.32 but 4.3ghz is still not remotely stable with 1.45 seems some broadwell-e chips just wont move past a certain clock no matter the voltage.
Click to expand...

Thank you 

Was (am admittedly) hoping it's something i'm missing, you know? Doing it all from scratch with a new BIOS. Voltages are so low now, i thought..


----------



## inedenimadam

^

I have one bum core. Try the per core overclocking. I have a single dog core that doesn't like anything past 4.2.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> ^
> 
> I have one bum core. Try the per core overclocking. I have a single dog core that doesn't like anything past 4.2.


Hmm how would you go about finding that out.


----------



## 1033ruben

well my 6800k can only get 4.2 stable and at 1.255 volts anything above 4.2 is unstable no matter how much voltage i give it i agree some brodawell-e chips are not stable after a certain point.if i would have known this i would have gotten a 5820k instead.
RUBEN


----------



## Jbravo33

i was good at 4.6 @ 1.46 until mass effect came around. had to drop to 4.4 @1.399. such a big jump as i can get away with 1.299 @ 4.2


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> well my 6800k can only get 4.2 stable and at 1.255 volts anything above 4.2 is unstable no matter how much voltage i give it i agree some brodawell-e chips are not stable after a certain point.if i would have known this i would have gotten a 5820k instead.
> RUBEN


yea me too my only reason for getting the 6800k was it was on sale on newegg then bundled with the msi board i got saved another 40 and the board was also on sale for 20 off with a 20 mail in rebate. But id try per core clocking like a user above mentiond im testing out overclocking 5 cores at 4300 and 1 at 4200 and made it longer in realbench then i have ever made it.


----------



## Aenra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> I have one bum core. Try the per core overclocking. I have a single dog core that doesn't like anything past 4.2.


Didn't think of that.. will sound stupid (is most likely?), but i thought this was only a scenario to consider for core frequency. Didn't know it applied for uncore as well 

Thank you for pointing it out, lol, though to be honest this isn't a route i was ever willing to take.

edit: To add to the irony, disregard the previous value; uncore stable at 3,250 with 1.080 vring so far, apparently it could get even lower. Can't believe that i can't get it to 3,375 with a 0.220 margin available to me


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> yea me too my only reason for getting the 6800k was it was on sale on newegg then bundled with the msi board i got saved another 40 and the board was also on sale for 20 off with a 20 mail in rebate. But id try per core clocking like a user above mentiond im testing out overclocking 5 cores at 4300 and 1 at 4200 and made it longer in realbench then i have ever made it.


i hear u , i see that u even have the same mobo i have. man if i would have known the shi*** oc'ingthat the 6800k was capable of i would have defiantly had gone with the 5820k , in my scenario i just bought it because my previous xeon 2680 v4 cpu clock speed was too low to run some games, didnt matter if it had 14 cores or not. so i sold my xeon on ebay and bought my new 6800k on amazon for 400$. but it was the same exact price for a 5820k. so i just couldnt see myself buying the older architecture for the same exact price. but in hindsight now i wish i would have.
RUBEN


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> yea me too my only reason for getting the 6800k was it was on sale on newegg then bundled with the msi board i got saved another 40 and the board was also on sale for 20 off with a 20 mail in rebate. But id try per core clocking like a user above mentiond im testing out overclocking 5 cores at 4300 and 1 at 4200 and made it longer in realbench then i have ever made it.
> 
> 
> 
> i hear u , i see that u even have the same mobo i have. man if i would have known the shi*** oc'ingthat the 6800k was capable of i would have defiantly had gone with the 5820k , in my scenario i just bought it because my previous xeon 2680 v4 cpu clock speed was too low to run some games, didnt matter if it had 14 cores or not. so i sold my xeon on ebay and bought my new 6800k on amazon for 400$. but it was the same exact price for a 5820k. so i just couldnt see myself buying the older architecture for the same exact price. but in hindsight now i wish i would have.
> RUBEN
Click to expand...

yea same i was hoping for some luck with overclocking but looks like my cpu has 1 bum core im pretty close to getting a stable overclock using 43x on 4 cores 42x on 1 core and 44x on one 1 core with 1.35 vcore still tweaking it.


----------



## arrow0309

Do you guys use different (min / max) freq for the cache (and offset voltage)?
I've set a 28 min and 36 max (with an offset like 1.23v in full load) and I still need to work with it to stabilise (the pc freezed after ~90 min of Realbench).
But I can only see the freq going down in idle, the cache voltage remains higher.
I mean, is there any reason not to do a cache setup like that and go for the fixed frequency / manual voltage instead?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Do you guys use different (min / max) freq for the cache (and offset voltage)?
> I've set a 28 min and 36 max (with an offset like 1.23v in full load) and I still need to work with it to stabilise (the pc freezed after ~90 min of Realbench).
> But I can only see the freq going down in idle, the cache voltage remains higher.
> I mean, is there any reason not to do a cache setup like that and go for the fixed frequency / manual voltage instead?


my board only lets me set a fixed cache in bios but watching hwinfo64 it does go up and down depending on the load.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> my board only lets me set a fixed cache in bios but watching hwinfo64 it does go up and down depending on the load.


Interesting
My board (or its latest bios 3005) is acting strange sometimes and not only with this cache, my ram two sets of channels are showing (under hwinfo64) a little higher voltages (even higher for the channels C/D) always, the system agent offset value is not working well all the times (I've just tried to increase the offset and was showing me less, 1.000v only)
Hell maybe I should try with the fixed cache


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> yea same i was hoping for some luck with overclocking but looks like my cpu has 1 bum core im pretty close to getting a stable overclock using 43x on 4 cores 42x on 1 core and 44x on one 1 core with 1.35 vcore still tweaking it.


cool man make sure to let us/me know how it ends up okay?(mainly me since i have the same exact mobo) as far as for me, im not too worried about it all i use my rig for is gaming never do any sort of editing or live streaming or any of the sorts. So i in once again hindsight wish i would have gone with a z-170 platform, which what was out at the time of my purchase upgrade. Just because all i do is game and the z-170 platform is the better platform for FPS.
RUBEN


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i settled with settings below with my memory at 16 17 17 1t alot of testing and tweaking lol.


----------



## djgar

I run min cache at the lowest I can get it (17) and max @ 37


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I run min cache at the lowest I can get it (17) and max @ 37


Good, how much voltage? Manual or offset?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Good, how much voltage? Manual or offset?


You should really look at the sigs ...


----------



## arrow0309

Yeah, I saw it later, sorry.
Testing right now mine with x18-x36, offset +0.235 (~1.25v in full load)


----------



## Bal3Wolf

is it safe to run ring around 1.250 if i want faster then 3600 im going to need to push around 1.250 or 1.30 i think


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> is it safe to run ring around 1.250 if i want faster then 3600 im going to need to push around 1.250 or 1.30 i think


Naaah, for me 3600 is plenty enough for gaming, I prefer to reserve some more cooling power to the gpu OC (I don't have such big rads for now) at least until I'll finally switch to an external water station (MoRa 3).
And it seemes there's enough memory bandwidth to even more than gaming at 3600









https://www.nexthardware.com/repository/recensioni/1162/immagini/G.SKILL_Trident_Z_3200MHz_32GB_Test_OC_CPU_Cache.jpg

Btw:
Right now is working on my system as well lowering the both freq and voltage in idle, before I did set the min to 28 and it wasn't low enough for the ring voltage to go down.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Do you guys use different (min / max) freq for the cache (and offset voltage)?
> I've set a 28 min and 36 max (with an offset like 1.23v in full load) and I still need to work with it to stabilise (the pc freezed after ~90 min of Realbench).
> But I can only see the freq going down in idle, the cache voltage remains higher.
> I mean, is there any reason not to do a cache setup like that and go for the fixed frequency / manual voltage instead?


I run min at Auto and max at 3.7 or 3.8. TGhe thing with min cache is that id must be 50% of dram speed (or = dram frequency else the system fouls). so for 3200 ram, is will automatically up the min to 1600, 3400 ram... 1700 min cache. Sooo.. the cache voltage need to be set accordingly with ram frequency.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I run min at Auto and max at 3.7 or 3.8. TGhe thing with min cache is that id must be 50% of dram speed (or = dram frequency else the system fouls). so for 3200 ram, is will automatically up the min to 1600, 3400 ram... 1700 min cache. Sooo.. the cache voltage need to be set accordingly with ram frequency.


I didn't know it
But now, if I've just set the cache min to 1800, will that be wrong?
It idles and the cache voltage too:


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> ^
> 
> I have one bum core. Try the per core overclocking. I have a single dog core that doesn't like anything past 4.2.


Man you saved me being stuck at 4.2ghz and spending more days fighting with my cpu so far i if i leave my core 1 at 4200 i can push rest to 4300 stable and right now testing 4400 on them looking promising at 1.4 voltages so not sure if i could push for 4.5 if this is stable that would likely need 1.45.


----------



## PowerK

Just bought 32GB G.SKILL DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34 quad channel kit.
https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16820232348
I hope it works well with X99 system.
Don't ask me why I bought it.







. I know DDR4, be it 2400 or 3200 doesn't provide tangible performance improvements.
Maybe 3200 CL14 perform worse than 2400 CL10.

The G.SKILL will replace my Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28
http://www.corsair.com/en-gb/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10
I will move the Corsair to Z170 system.

My only gripe is that I have to spend tedious time again with GSAT and HCI MemTest to make sure the new G.SKILL sets are stable, especially with 1T command rate.








If any of you are already using that kit, a good starting point with VCCSA, VCCIO and vDIMM (for 1T) would be appreciated.


----------



## qazplm5089

Has Broadwell E overclocking improved similar to how Haswell E overclocking improved as the process matured? What is a good overclock for a 6900k


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Just bought 32GB G.SKILL DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34 quad channel kit.
> https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16820232348
> I hope it works well with X99 system.
> Don't ask me why I bought it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I know DDR4, be it 2400 or 3200 doesn't provide tangible performance improvements.
> Maybe 3200 CL14 perform worse than 2400 CL10.
> 
> The G.SKILL will replace my Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28
> http://www.corsair.com/en-gb/dominator-platinum-series-32gb-4-x-8gb-ddr4-dram-2400mhz-c10-memory-kit-cmd32gx4m4b2400c10
> I will move the Corsair to Z170 system.
> 
> My only gripe is that I have to spend tedious time again with GSAT and HCI MemTest to make sure the new G.SKILL sets are stable, especially with 1T command rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If any of you are already using that kit, a good starting point with VCCSA, VCCIO and vDIMM (for 1T) would be appreciated.


Hi, there's gonna be a nice comparison between our systems (since I also have this ram kit) and how they react and handle with different voltages.
After 1h of Gsat (on puppy Linux) I've quit testing the ram only (for a while, will re-test it on a new dedicated drive Linux Mint) and since I wasn't stable during Mass Effect Andromeda I started to stress test with Realbench avx (4h, 16gb) once again.
I ended up with these voltages for 4.3ghz, 3.6 cache and default speed ram 3200 cl14, 2T (maybe they will still be revisited): offset +235mv cache (~1.25v in full), +100mv system agent (~1.04v), 1.135v vccio and 1.35v for the ram (even if it keeps showing me more quite always).
Did a couple of hours RB yesterday evening and then I played another couple oh h MEA, all good).
This morning I'll take advantage of the chilly weather to set the pc for another 4h RB run (while I'm at work).
Will this one finish flawlessly too, then I'll start to come back to the CR 1T (without changing any voltages)









Let me know how is your performing OK?


----------



## arrow0309

Well, my system is acting weird on the sa voltage once again this morning
I didn't change anything from the yesterday's last setting and now is showing me less, default voltage once again, 0.975-0.987v, and also the cache is showing less, 1.228-1.235v this time.
The temps are real cool after 20' but like I said it's chilly outside (opened up the windows)
I don't understand anymore, it can't be temp related
I'm gonna let it finish the 4h RB run at any cost (and I'll see that when I'm back this afternoon), maybe some hwinfo64 reading glitches?

@Jmpboy, could this be related to some of the two "tweakers paradise" settings you pointed me out before?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, there's gonna be a nice comparison between our systems (since I also have this ram kit) and how they react and handle with different voltages.
> After 1h of Gsat (on puppy Linux) I've quit testing the ram only (for a while, will re-test it on a new dedicated drive Linux Mint) and since I wasn't stable during Mass Effect Andromeda I started to stress test with Realbench avx (4h, 16gb) once again.
> I ended up with these voltages for 4.3ghz, 3.6 cache and default speed ram 3200 cl14, 2T (maybe they will still be revisited): offset +235mv cache (~1.25v in full), +100mv system agent (~1.04v), *1.135v vccio* and 1.35v for the ram (even if it keeps showing me more quite always).
> Did a couple of hours RB yesterday evening and then I played another couple oh h MEA, all good).
> This morning I'll take advantage of the chilly weather to set the pc for another 4h RB run (while I'm at work).
> Will this one finish flawlessly too, then I'll start to come back to the CR 1T (without changing any voltages)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know how is your performing OK?


Hi arrow,
Definitely, I'll share the progress on the G.Skill memory stability when I get a chance to install them. (This weekend, I need to spend time on new Titan Xps.







)
One question. Is 1.35V VCCIO necessary? Seems very high to me.
It took me awhile to find stable settings with my 6950X + Corsair DDR4 @ 2400 10-12-12-28 1T but it needed 1.05V VCCIO. (I have not tried to lower it but I think VCCIO doesn't really affect memory stability).
What voltages does AUTO give you for VCCSA and VCCIO with this memory set ?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi arrow,
> Definitely, I'll share the progress on the G.Skill memory stability when I get a chance to install them. (This weekend, I need to spend time on new Titan Xps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> One question. Is 1.35V VCCIO necessary? Seems very high to me.
> It took me awhile to find stable settings with my 6950X + Corsair DDR4 @ 2400 10-12-12-28 1T but it needed 1.05V VCCIO. (I have not tried to lower it but I think VCCIO doesn't really affect memory stability).
> What voltages does AUTO give you for VCCSA and VCCIO with this memory set ?


Hi, it's 1.13v (1.135) not 1.35v








Also the Auto for the Xmp with this ram kit (and the same with my old 3600 cl17 dual channel kit) are way higher, 1.25v vccio but incredibly 1.39v for the system agent.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, it's 1.13v (1.135) not 1.35v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the Auto for the Xmp with this ram kit (and the same with my old 3600 cl17 dual channel kit) are way higher, 1.25v vccio but incredibly 1.39v for the system agent.


Ah... sorry. My bad. 1.13V for VCCIO seems ok.
With that being said, if you specifically aim for RealBench stability, you might find your system unstable in other scenarios, in my humble opinion.
When your system BSOD'ed while playing the Mass Effect, what was the code?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, it's 1.13v (1.135) not 1.35v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the Auto for the Xmp with this ram kit (and the same with my old 3600 cl17 dual channel kit) are way higher, 1.25v vccio but incredibly 1.39v for the system agent.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah... sorry. My bad. 1.13V for VCCIO seems ok.
> With that being said, if you specifically aim for RealBench stability, you might find your system unstable in other scenarios, in my humble opinion.
> When your system BSOD'ed while playing the Mass Effect, what was the code?
Click to expand...

It never bsod'ed with code and never during gaming.
Under MEA it only restarted the pc once and crashed forcing me to log out twice.
Yesterday evening all good


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> It never bsod'ed with code and never during gaming.
> Under MEA it only restarted the pc once and crashed forcing me to log out twice.
> Yesterday evening all good


Did you verify the memory stability with Google Stress App test? I would do so if not. Run the test for 2 hours.


----------



## arrow0309

I have this issue with my main-board (in sig), latest bios 3005:
With the offset mode for these two voltages: cache and system agent it doesn't overvolt well (enough) or at all (sa).
The system agent I noticed (with hwinfo64 last version but also the AI Suite's DIP has confirmed it) is the weirdest of the two:

My last example, set up yesterday to +235mv for the cache and +100mv for the system agent.
Did a quick (2 h) realbench stress @half of the ram and I've had:

- 1.244 to 1.259v for the cache (in full load)
- 1.056 to 1.064v (1.048 min) for the sa



This morning I wanted to set the pc for a 4h RealBench run and just leave it running while I was going to work.
But then I've noticed since I've opened hwinfo64 that the above voltages were not as good as before, having ~1.225v for the cache and lower than 1.000v (default value, 0.975-0.99v) for the cache.
I've left it running but eventually got restarted and I've found it on the logon screen and also found the same (low) voltages.

Now I've restarted and entering the bios I've seen the correct voltages and so load windows and now they are:



Notice this time I have the exact same voltage 1.064v (all current, min and max) for the system agent and some different (yet OK) for the cache.

Also idle voltages:



Any clue?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Did you verify the memory stability with Google Stress App test? I would do so if not. Run the test for 2 hours.


I did once, 1h only but I'll definitely do it some more times (2h each) in this current formula (3200, cl 14-14-14-34-2T) and also when I'll switch to CR 1T.
I'm installing the Linux Mint on a dedicated ssd, maybe even tonight.


----------



## arrow0309

Unbelievable









Shut down the pc and then powered it up, same lousy voltages:



Did a restart, same stupid volt.

If I'd go for fixed voltages instead of these offset is there anything I can go wrong or something?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Unbelievable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut down the pc and then powered it up, same lousy voltages:
> 
> 
> 
> Did a restart, same stupid volt.
> 
> If I'd go for fixed voltages instead of these offset is there anything I can go wrong or something?


do you have AID64? double check that it's not a HWi problem.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> do you have AID64? double check that it's not a HWi problem.


No it's not cause I can see the very same voltages on the bios page
You see?



Tried everything, even manual cache voltage and it isn't working.
Then I did a clear cmos and simply set those "original" offset values, +0.235 cache and +0.100 sa and they got back now to the "good" values, cache 1.248-1.256 (idling at 1.075v) and vccsa 1.064
And yes, they're the same on aida64 also
Do you think they'll last now?


----------



## Jbravo33

i got the itch so thinking about upgrading to 6900k or 6950x i see all these comparisons between broadwell and kaby lake for instance in gaming and 7700 is always ahead but all these comparisons are for 1080. any links to something higher when comparing? like 4k? and also would it makes sense to just wait for lga 2066? thx


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> i got the itch so thinking about upgrading to 6900k or 6950x i see all these comparisons between broadwell and kaby lake for instance in gaming and 7700 is always ahead but all these comparisons are for 1080. any links to something higher when comparing? like 4k? and also would it makes sense to just wait for lga 2066? thx


If you have a 6850k, the 6900k isn't going to help with FPS @ 4K, super constrained to GPU at that point. Best to hold off for 2066 imho.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> No it's not cause I can see the very same voltages on the bios page
> You see?
> 
> 
> 
> Tried everything, even manual cache voltage and it isn't working.
> Then I did a clear cmos and simply set those "original" offset values, +0.235 cache and +0.100 sa and they got back now to the "good" values, cache 1.248-1.256 (idling at 1.075v) and vccsa 1.064
> And yes, they're the same on aida64 also
> Do you think they'll last now?


Hi arrow.
Perhaps, I'm asking obvious. Please check if you're running the latest version of BIOS.
If I were you, I would start OC from the clean state again.

Put core, cache and RAM to *stock*. (clear CMOS)

1. Work on RAM first.
- GSAT (2-4 hours) if passed, move on.

2. Work on core.
- OCCT large data set (2~4 hours) if passed, move on.

3. Work on cache.
- AIDA64 cache stress test (2~4 hours)
- HCI MemTest (for both RAM and RAM-cache interaction). (400~600% coverage)

4. Overall system stress
- RealBench Stress Test (8 hours)


----------



## jsutter71

I'm upgrading my ram and looking at these 2 options. Which options to speed up my system. The faster memory with CAS 16 or slightly slower at CAS 14? Upgrading from 2400MHz. Running a 6950x with dual TXP's

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232260
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232349

Opinions?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I'm upgrading my ram and looking at these 2 options. Which options to speed up my system. The faster memory with CAS 16 or slightly slower at CAS 14? Upgrading from 2400MHz. Running a 6950x with dual TXP's
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232260
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232349
> 
> Opinions?


The 3400C16 modules in the first link are not X99 quad channel certified.

That being said, to put things into perspective,

1/1700000000*10^9*16 = 9.41ns
*DDR4-3400 CL16 = 9.41ns*

1/1600000000*10^9*14 = 8.75ns
*DDR4-3200 CL14 = 8.75ns*

3200 CL14 looks better to me.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi arrow.
> Perhaps, I'm asking obvious. Please check if you're running the latest version of BIOS.
> If I were you, I would start OC from the clean state again.
> 
> Put core, cache and RAM to *stock*. (clear CMOS)
> 
> 1. Work on RAM first.
> - GSAT (2-4 hours) if passed, move on.
> 
> 2. Work on core.
> - OCCT large data set (2~4 hours) if passed, move on.
> 
> 3. Work on cache.
> - AIDA64 cache stress test (2~4 hours)
> - HCI MemTest (for both RAM and RAM-cache interaction). (400~600% coverage)
> 
> 4. Overall system stress
> - RealBench Stress Test (8 hours)


Starting over is a pain in the arse
But I'll try your way too, in the end maybe that's better for my system
How am I supposed to set the power / vrm features?
Leave them to auto (since is a mild oc only)?
LLC?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Starting over is a pain in the arse
> But I'll try your way too, in the end maybe that's better for my system
> How am I supposed to set the power / vrm features?
> Leave them to auto (since is a mild oc only)?
> LLC?


Hi arrow.
I understand the pain.








Starting from the scratch (clean state) might actually save your time, IMHO.
I prefer LLC in the middle (5 or 6)
VRM related features... I use "optimized" for CPU and DRAM.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi arrow.
> I understand the pain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting from the scratch (clean state) might actually save your time, IMHO.
> I prefer LLC in the middle (5 or 6)
> VRM related features... I use "optimized" for CPU and DRAM.


Hi, thanks for your replying (and for the helpful hand)








Yeah, I've also used optimised and LLC 6 as well.
We'll see how's gonna be this time
About the Gsat, did you manage to install the Mint on a dedicated drive?
Cause I've tried a couple of times yesterday evening and the installation ended up with an error near the finish, installing grub (it was a dvd uefi install of the Mint 18.1 Cinnamon x64, I burned the dvd at 8x). The second time got me till the same error.
Did you use an uefi usb, it's working or I just have to burn another dvd?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, thanks for your replying (and for the helpful hand)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've also used optimised and LLC 6 as well.
> We'll see how's gonna be this time
> About the Gsat, did you manage to install the Mint on a dedicated drive?
> Cause I've tried a couple of times yesterday evening and the installation ended up with an error near the finish, installing grub (it was a dvd uefi install of the Mint 18.1 Cinnamon x64, I burned the dvd at 8x). The second time got me till the same error.
> Did you use an uefi usb, it's working or I just have to burn another dvd?


Hi arrow.
I made a bootable USB thumb drive with Mint and ran GSAT directly from it.
With Pascal SLI system, I had to do the following procedure when booting with Mint bootable USB.

Code:



Code:


1. Choose UEFI USB drive boot option.

2. From GRUB selection screen, press 'e' on keyboard.

3. Replace 'quiet.splash' with 'nomodeset' (delete -- in the end as well).

4. Press F10 to boot into Mint Linux desktop.

Error in GSAT (with core and cache at stock) is almost 100% RAM instability.
Focus and work on RAM OC stability first. IMHO, this is the key to save time.

EDIT: I also should add that since you're running RAM at 3200MHz (overclocked from Broadwell-E's stock 2400MHz memory support), you might need to bump cache voltage a notch or two even though your cache is at stock frequency.
Cache voltage, VCCSA and VCCIO (not so much it seems) are all linked from what I've seen. This is one of main reason why I think HCI MemTest is important for cache-RAM interaction test.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi arrow.
> I made a bootable USB thumb drive with Mint and ran GSAT directly from it.
> With Pascal SLI system, I had to do the following procedure when booting with Mint bootable USB.
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 1. Choose UEFI USB drive boot option.
> 
> 2. From GRUB selection screen, press 'e' on keyboard.
> 
> 3. Replace 'quiet.splash' with 'nomodeset' (delete -- in the end as well).
> 
> 4. Press F10 to boot into Mint Linux desktop.
> 
> Error in GSAT (with core and cache at stock) is almost 100% RAM instability.
> Focus and work on RAM OC stability first. IMHO, this is the key to save time.
> 
> EDIT: I also should add that since you're running RAM at 3200MHz (overclocked from Broadwell-E's stock 2400MHz memory support), you might need to bump cache voltage a notch or two even though your cache is at stock frequency.
> Cache voltage, VCCSA and VCCIO (not so much it seems) are all linked from what I've seen. This is one of main reason why I think HCI MemTest is important for cache-RAM interaction test.


I wanna do exactly this kind of a Linux Mint installation (well, with bigger partitions, 8gb swap, 40gb root and the rest of the 180gb ssd for the home partition):

http://www.tecmint.com/install-linux-mint-18-alongside-windows-10-or-8-in-dual-boot-uefi-mode/

Gonna remain for other uses (purposes) as well.
Agree about the cache, vtt and sa voltages, what would you start with for vccsa and vccio?
Are you gonna use offset or fixed for the cache and vccsa?


----------



## PowerK

VCCSA and VCCIO starting point? I don't know.
I guess I'll start around 0.90V and work my way up. (I currently have them at 1.06V VCCSA and 1.05V VCCIO for 32GB 2400 10-12-12-28 1T)
Offset for both cache and VCCSA.


----------



## arrow0309

0.9 is less than default for the vccsa, you meant +0.090 offset?
The Auto settings in Xmp will bump the vccio to ~1.25v and the vccsa to 1.39v (pretty high voltages)
So I think I'll start with ~1.06v vccsa and 1.1v vccio (also add 0.02v to the default cache)
And given the reverse order I'll also start with ram at default Xmp speed but in CR1


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> 0.9 is less than default for the vccsa, you meant +0.090 offset?
> The Auto settings in Xmp will bump the vccio to ~1.25v and the vccsa to 1.39v (pretty high voltages)
> So I think I'll start with ~1.06v vccsa and 1.1v vccio (also add 0.02v to the default cache)
> And given the reverse order I'll also start with ram at default Xmp speed but in CR1


I meant 0.9 VSA with -(minus) offset.
Do not trust Auto voltages.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> The 3400C16 modules in the first link are not X99 quad channel certified.
> 
> That being said, to put things into perspective,
> 
> 1/1700000000*10^9*16 = 9.41ns
> *DDR4-3400 CL16 = 9.41ns*
> 
> 1/1600000000*10^9*14 = 8.75ns
> *DDR4-3200 CL14 = 8.75ns*
> 
> 3200 CL14 looks better to me.


We shall see...I took your advice and ordered next business day from Newegg so hopefully I'll receive them tomorrow. Now I have 64GB Ripjaws 4 DDR42400 to sell.


----------



## Jpmboy

BUt 3400 is quite possible on x99. this is my 24/7 ram settings with 64GB 3200c14 kit..


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi arrow.
> Perhaps, I'm asking obvious. Please check if you're running the latest version of BIOS.
> If I were you, I would start OC from the clean state again.
> 
> Put core, cache and RAM to *stock*. (clear CMOS)
> 
> 1. Work on RAM first.
> - GSAT (2-4 hours) if passed, move on.
> 
> 2. Work on core.
> - OCCT large data set (2~4 hours) if passed, move on.
> 
> 3. Work on cache.
> - AIDA64 cache stress test (2~4 hours)
> - HCI MemTest (for both RAM and RAM-cache interaction). (400~600% coverage)
> 
> 4. Overall system stress
> - RealBench Stress Test (8 hours)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I meant 0.9 VSA with -(minus) offset.
> Do not trust Auto voltages.


Hi, I've reflashed the bios (to the same latest 3005) and noticed the default vccsa is lower than I thought, only 0.880v.
So I've set the ram to 3200 cl 14-14-14-34-1T @1.35v and only increased by 0.020 offset for the vccsa (now is 0.97v) and cache (now is ~1.04v from 1.0v), also the vccio from 1.05 to 1.075v.
Linux installed, updated, nvidia drivers, all up and running a 4h Gsat:











The first step is initiated


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> We shall see...I took your advice and ordered next business day from Newegg so hopefully I'll receive them tomorrow. Now I have 64GB Ripjaws 4 DDR42400 to sell.


https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232349
After I purchased this memory Newegg listed it as out of stock. Bought the last one. This afternoon I checked again and it was back in stock and price went from $668 to $759. Newegg already sent it out and Fedex tracking says it will be delivered tomorrow. Racers start your engines. Looking forward to some new overclocking and benchmarking.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232349
> After I purchased this memory Newegg listed it as out of stock. Bought the last one. This afternoon I checked again and it was back in stock and price went from $668 to $759. Newegg already sent it out and Fedex tracking says it will be delivered tomorrow. Racers start your engines. Looking forward to some new overclocking and benchmarking.


"Ugrade" from DDR4-2400 to 3200 ? Nah...
What kind of sticks are your current 2400 ?

I'm only trying 3200 CL14 out of boredom. Hehe. I don't consider it an upgrade from 2400 CL10. (I've done a few "sidegrade" recently. Titan X Pascal to Titan Xp full chip, and this DDR4 memory lol)


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, I've reflashed the bios (to the same latest 3005) and noticed the default vccsa is lower than I thought, only 0.880v.
> So I've set the ram to 3200 cl 14-14-14-34-1T @1.35v and only increased by 0.020 offset for the vccsa (now is 0.97v) and cache (now is ~1.04v from 1.0v), also the vccio from 1.05 to 1.075v.
> Linux installed, updated, nvidia drivers, all up and running a 4h Gsat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first step is initiated


Good luck buddy. Keep us posted how it goes.


----------



## jsutter71

Getting some excellent runs with some updated drivers and software today. 17929 on Time spy

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1550036


----------



## iamjanco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232349
> After I purchased this memory Newegg listed it as out of stock. Bought the last one. This afternoon I checked again and it was back in stock and price went from $668 to $759. Newegg already sent it out and Fedex tracking says it will be delivered tomorrow. Racers start your engines. Looking forward to some new overclocking and benchmarking.


Yeah, ram prices have definitely gone up since I bought what amounts to *a similar version of that ram*, back in August. The 8x8 pieces I bought were $459.99 at the time.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232349
> After I purchased this memory Newegg listed it as out of stock. Bought the last one. This afternoon I checked again and it was back in stock and price went from $668 to $759. Newegg already sent it out and Fedex tracking says it will be delivered tomorrow. Racers start your engines. Looking forward to some new overclocking and benchmarking.


Hmmm - I just checked New Egg out of curiosity. It is listed as Out of Stock but the price is coming up at $668.00 Weird. I guess they mark it down when you can't order it?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232349
> After I purchased this memory Newegg listed it as out of stock. Bought the last one. This afternoon I checked again and it was back in stock and price went from $668 to $759. Newegg already sent it out and Fedex tracking says it will be delivered tomorrow. Racers start your engines. Looking forward to some new overclocking and benchmarking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm - I just checked New Egg out of curiosity. It is listed as Out of Stock but the price is coming up at $668.00 Weird. I guess they mark it down when you can't order it?
Click to expand...

might be seeing some of the 3rd party vendors showing higher prices.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> might be seeing some of the 3rd party vendors showing higher prices.


Yeah, their prices go all over the places when they don't have things in stock.


----------



## iamjanco

The higher prices you see displayed when an item isn't stocked by Newegg are items available 3rd party vendors, a good number of whom price gouge. Essentially the same practice often experienced on Amazon when an item isn't available via Prime; hence, one of the reasons new, highly popular items like the 1080ti sell out when they're first introduced.

Such sellers know there are buyers out there who'll throw caution to the wind.

Four away from 100.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iamjanco*
> 
> The higher prices you see displayed when an item isn't stocked by Newegg are items available 3rd party vendors, a good number of whom price gouge. Essentially the same practice often experienced on Amazon when an item isn't available via Prime; hence, one of the reasons new, highly popular items like the 1080ti sell out when they're first introduced.
> 
> Such sellers know there are buyers out there who'll throw caution to the wind.
> 
> Four away from 100.


Yep but sometimes they do have cheaper prices then newegg but gota watch their location, shipping time and cost some of the 3rd party say ships in 10-14 days. I did get my ek vardar fans off newegg they were sold by ekwb with free shipping compared buying direct from ekwb like 25 usd cheaper.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Good luck buddy. Keep us posted how it goes.


Hi, found one hw incident (on thread 4) it may be related to the cpu (I've changed from Auto to Sync all cores and they were all running at 4000 this way at default voltage):



Will try to lower the cpu speed and test again.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i been doing alot of research and stumbled on a article talking about cpu pll offset so tried it and it seems to helped me get closer to 4.3ghz stable then i have befor, link below its more for benchmarking but i found some info that has helped me out. Also found that my cpu likes low vccio right around .980 has helped me get 4.3ghz stable on 1.41 vcore where befor it waset stable with 1.45+ still playing with settings also.

http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2016/06/gigabyte-x99-soc-champion-6950x.html


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i been doing alot of research and stumbled on a article talking about cpu pll offset so tried it and it seems to helped me get closer to 4.3ghz stable then i have befor, link below its more for benchmarking but i found some info that has helped me out. Also found that my cpu likes low vccio right around .980 has helped me get 4.3ghz stable on 1.41 vcore where befor it waset stable with 1.45+ still playing with settings also.
> 
> http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2016/06/gigabyte-x99-soc-champion-6950x.html


Have you read this article too?









https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?89748-6850K-Overclocking-My-Experience


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i been doing alot of research and stumbled on a article talking about cpu pll offset so tried it and it seems to helped me get closer to 4.3ghz stable then i have befor, link below its more for benchmarking but i found some info that has helped me out. Also found that my cpu likes low vccio right around .980 has helped me get 4.3ghz stable on 1.41 vcore where befor it waset stable with 1.45+ still playing with settings also.
> 
> http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2016/06/gigabyte-x99-soc-champion-6950x.html
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read this article too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?89748-6850K-Overclocking-My-Experience
Click to expand...

haha have now i passed 2 hrs of realbench at 4.3ghz so far previous i couldnt pass 30mins without luxmark crashing or a full on bsod my cpu hates having vccio over 1.0 it seems more testing when i wake back up but its a start in right direction now hoping to get 4.4ghz stable with 1.45-1.47.


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, found one hw incident (on thread 4) it may be related to the cpu (I've changed from Auto to Sync all cores and they were all running at 4000 this way at default voltage):
> 
> 
> 
> Will try to lower the cpu speed and test again.


I would bump that ram voltage up to 1.375 if you're trying for 3200 C14 1T.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, found one hw incident (on thread 4) it may be related to the cpu (I've changed from Auto to Sync all cores and they were all running at 4000 this way at default voltage):
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will try to lower the cpu speed and test again.
> 
> 
> 
> I would bump that ram voltage up to 1.375 if you're trying for 3200 C14 1T.
Click to expand...

Hi, like I said it wasn't the ram but the cpu at 4000 @ default vcore.
I did the same test again with the default (3700) cpu and same voltages (only small increase to the vtt, sa and ring, same as before) and 1.35 vdram, all good after 4h:



Now I'll start overclocking the cpu to 4.3 and test it first with the ram 3200 c14 1T at 1.35v too.
Do you think I still need 1.375?


----------



## jsutter71

New G.skill DDR4 3200 C14 memory installed and stable @ 3400Mhz.



Benchmarks TS & FS
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19255422
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12313870


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> New G.skill DDR4 3200 C14 memory installed and stable @ 3400Mhz.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benchmarks TS & FS
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19255422
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12313870


What dram voltage?
You've tested stability so fast


----------



## arrow0309

So, in the end I've managed to achieve even OCCT 4h large data stability at 4.3 @1.285v adaptive / 1.890v vccin (LLC6), all other voltages unchanged:



Better than before, thanks to PowerK is all going as scheduled









Next (and last step), cache (and total system) stability.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

After alot of tweaking got [email protected] or less,[email protected] and [email protected] stable but honestly for gaming i see like .5 to 2fps to differnt in the 3 clocks, just crazy how much smoother stuff plays compared to my [email protected]


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> So, in the end I've managed to achieve even OCCT 4h large data stability at 4.3 @1.285v adaptive / 1.890v vccin (LLC6), all other voltages unchanged:
> 
> 
> 
> Better than before, thanks to PowerK is all going as scheduled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next (and last step), cache (and total system) stability.


That's great, arrow.








4 hours of OCCT definitely ensures core OC stability.

Roll on AIDA64 cache test and HCI MemTest.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> So, in the end I've managed to achieve even OCCT 4h large data stability at 4.3 @1.285v adaptive / 1.890v vccin (LLC6), all other voltages unchanged:
> 
> 
> 
> Better than before, thanks to PowerK is all going as scheduled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next (and last step), cache (and total system) stability.
> 
> 
> 
> That's great, arrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 hours of OCCT definitely ensures core OC stability.
> 
> Roll on AIDA64 cache test and HCI MemTest.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I got it straight, right now (well, in a couple of h) I'm gonna increase the max cache (x36) and the cache voltage (offset) only, starting with 1.20v, right?
All other voltages will remain unchanged.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Let me see if I got it straight, right now (well, in a couple of h) I'm gonna increase the max cache (x36) and the cache voltage (offset) only, starting with 1.20v, right?
> All other voltages will remain unchanged.


Cache at 3600MHz with 1.20V looks like a good starting point.
However, you may need to adjust and fine tune VCCSA (and perhaps VCCIO, too) with cache OC even though you passed GSAT previously.

So, you currently passed GSAT (4 hours?) with 3200 14-14-14-34 1T at what VCCSA and VCCIO ?


----------



## arrow0309

Yeah, 4h Gsat at the abvove spec with vccsa 0.960v and vccio 1.075v


----------



## arrow0309

Ok, I've increased the cache to 3600 and cache offset to 0.180 (~1.20v) and also the system agent from 0.020 to 0.040 (0.984v). Left the vccio at 1.075v.
I'm testing with aida64's both stress cache and stress system memory, ok?
For how long, 2h?


----------



## Kimir

when using aida for cache, tick cache alone, no need to stress the memory if you did GSAT. The idea is to isolate the test here.


----------



## PowerK

Indeed. Cache only for AIDA64.
Minimum 2 hours should do it.
And make sure to go through HCI MemTest after that. Very important for RAM-cache interaction stability test.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> when using aida for cache, tick cache alone, no need to stress the memory if you did GSAT. The idea is to isolate the test here.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Indeed. Cache only for AIDA64.
> Minimum 2 hours should do it.
> And make sure to go through HCI MemTest after that. Very important for RAM-cache interaction stability test.




Now what, start over with cache only or just continue?
Edit:
Restarted for 2h in cache stress only


----------



## arrow0309

How am I doing?


----------



## Kimir

You're good to go, now use the thing.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

curious what are you guys idle wattages in hwinfo64 mine seems rather high at 50watts when under 5-10 cpu usage ?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> You're good to go, now use the thing.


OK, but I will also do a Hci and a 6h Realbench (this night), hopefully I'm still good to go after all without any voltage increase









Btw:
Is this memory bandwidth OK for my settings?



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> curious what are you guys idle wattages in hwinfo64 mine seems rather high at 50watts when under 5-10 cpu usage ?


56 to 58W in idle on my system right now (all cpu and cache downclocked), you're OK


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> You're good to go, now use the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but I will also do a Hci and a 6h Realbench (this night), hopefully I'm still good to go after all without any voltage increase
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw:
> Is this memory bandwidth OK for my settings?
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> curious what are you guys idle wattages in hwinfo64 mine seems rather high at 50watts when under 5-10 cpu usage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 56 to 58W in idle on my system right now (all cpu and cache downclocked), you're OK
Click to expand...

cool saw some reviews saying 20watts idle at desktop so was wondering lol.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Indeed. Cache only for AIDA64.
> Minimum 2 hours should do it.
> And make sure to go through HCI MemTest after that. Very important for RAM-cache interaction stability test.


Hci for how long?
I'm close to 400% coverage


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hci for how long?
> I'm close to 400% coverage


Personally always aim for 1000%


----------



## jsutter71

I dialed my memory settings back to 3200 but here are my AIDA scores


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Personally always aim for 1000%


For now I've stopped it at 500 to 550% coverage



Hope will be good enough (as a part of all other testings), later I'll do a 8h realbench.
And that's it (for the 4.3)









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I dialed my memory settings back to 3200 but here are my AIDA scores


Nice copy but pretty high latency IMHO


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I dialed my memory settings back to 3200 but here are my AIDA scores


Those seem low for 6950 + 3200CL14

Your cache speed may be holding you back by a lot:


I have nothing in the way of excitement in my memory timings - 128G CAS14 CR2, pretty much Auto everything (eventual voltage 1.35 so the RvE doesn't cook my dimms with 1.5 randomly grrr)


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Those seem low for 6950 + 3200CL14
> 
> Your cache speed may be holding you back by a lot:
> 
> 
> I have nothing in the way of excitement in my memory timings - 128G CAS14 CR2, pretty much Auto everything (eventual voltage 1.35 so the RvE doesn't cook my dimms with 1.5 randomly grrr)


You CPU multiplier is set higher then mine which makes a difference.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> You CPU multiplier is set higher then mine which makes a difference.


Just a smidge, I would not expect 100MHz to make that sort of difference... 43/44 vs 66/82?

My max cache ratio is 36 (which isn't fully reflected there). I see yours at 28... That's a bigger issue I suspect.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> You CPU multiplier is set higher then mine which makes a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a smidge, I would not expect 100MHz to make that sort of difference... 43/44 vs 66/82?
Click to expand...

Yeah, me neither
So, what else could it be responsible for our low scores?
Can you post an AsRock Timing Configurator?


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Just a smidge, I would not expect 100MHz to make that sort of difference... 100/4000 vs 66/82?


I have not been able to get my CPU to go stable beyond 43 no matter how cool I it is. My system runs very chilly thanks to my 4 rads in push/pull and for whatever reason my CPU will not go to 44. You wouldn't think it but that 100MGz speed difference is a huge factor when it comes to benchmarks. I know because of the difference I see between 42 and 43. Regardless I have not attempted 44 since installing my new memory so perhaps I'll try 44 again later but not today.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I have not been able to get my CPU to go stable beyond 43 no matter how cool I it is. My system runs very chilly thanks to my 4 rads in push/pull and for whatever reason my CPU will not go to 44. You wouldn't think it but that 100MGz speed difference is a huge factor when it comes to benchmarks. I know because of the difference I see between 42 and 43. Regardless I have not attempted 44 since installing my new memory so perhaps I'll try 44 again later but not today.


Sadly not all CPU will manage those speeds, it is what it is


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> You CPU multiplier is set higher then mine which makes a difference.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I have not been able to get my CPU to go stable beyond 43 no matter how cool I it is. My system runs very chilly thanks to my 4 rads in push/pull and for whatever reason my CPU will not go to 44. You wouldn't think it but that 100MGz speed difference is a huge factor when it comes to benchmarks. I know because of the difference I see between 42 and 43. Regardless I have not attempted 44 since installing my new memory so perhaps I'll try 44 again later but not today.


Just doesn't seem like it could have that much of an impact... I'll lower mine to 43 and re-run for giggles...

asrock memory tuner is confused... Not sure what to make of this hot mess? I thought there was an Asus ROG version, but I can't find it yet...



here's CPUZ - asrock's tool seems more out-to-lunch than Rosie..


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Just doesn't seem like it could have that much of an impact... I'll lower mine to 43 and re-run for giggles...
> 
> asrock memory tuner is confused... Not sure what to make of this hot mess? I thought there was an Asus ROG version, but I can't find it yet...
> 
> 
> 
> here's CPUZ - asrock's tool seems more out-to-lunch than Rosie..


Strange, have you installed it?

Here's mine:



Can I ask you what vccio and vccsa are you using?

Edit:
You have to use an X99 mb utility
Like the one found on the X99 OC Formula's download page


----------



## cekim

I'll check again on the asrock thing...

I used asus thermal tool to run at 4.3 - I've not tested at 4.3 in a while, so I just picked a voltage I was sure would work:

As you can see, its still cranking out the GB/s:


----------



## cekim

Downloaded the Asrock timing configurator again this time from the X99 OC page and same result - out to lunch...


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Downloaded the Asrock timing configurator again this time from the X99 OC page and same result - out to lunch...


Well, life is strange, but your results are ... ...
Damn good


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Just a smidge, I would not expect 100MHz to make that sort of difference... 100/4000 vs 66/82?
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been able to get my CPU to go stable beyond 43 no matter how cool I it is. My system runs very chilly thanks to my 4 rads in push/pull and for whatever reason my CPU will not go to 44. You wouldn't think it but that 100MGz speed difference is a huge factor when it comes to benchmarks. I know because of the difference I see between 42 and 43. Regardless I have not attempted 44 since installing my new memory so perhaps I'll try 44 again later but not today.
Click to expand...

have you tried per core overclockinng and playing with the cpu pll i can get 4400 stable on my crappy 6800k but it needs 1.5 vcore so i went back to 4200 and trying to get my fav cores up to higher clocks while leaving the others at 4200.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I'll check again on the asrock thing...
> 
> I used asus thermal tool to run at 4.3 - I've not tested at 4.3 in a while, so I just picked a voltage I was sure would work:
> 
> As you can see, its still cranking out the GB/s:


What?








It's even running with both cpu and cache downclocked?
It can't be real (at those numbers), there's something unclear
Are you sure you're using a recent aida64?

Edit:
It's the same version as mine


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even running with both cpu and cache downclocked?
> It can't be real (at those numbers), there's something unclear
> Are you sure you're using a recent aida64?
> 
> Edit:
> It's the same version as mine


Aida64 seems to capture cpu/nb clocks at launch time so they are garbage... look at cpuz in that pic

Or look here, I just ran it again, launching aida on a loaded system. Can't get asrock or memtweak to show me numbers, there must be something else I don't have installed.

These numbers bear out what I see on dual xeon boards with 2400 as well as other chips I have at 3000. I really think there must be something going on in your system - either cache speed or high rate of crc errors.

BTW - my memory settings are 14-14-14-34-2T- AUTO-everything else Even Rampage Tweak is "auto" for memory. Other than "eventual voltage"

SA is +0.350 for 1.2v because of 128G


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> have you tried per core overclockinng and playing with the cpu pll i can get 4400 stable on my crappy 6800k but it needs 1.5 vcore so i went back to 4200 and trying to get my fav cores up to higher clocks while leaving the others at 4200.


Yes I have tried per core, individual core and core sync. After everything discovered that I get the best results when I sync the core. My benchmark results are good. Not the best but good enough to be happy.

total score of 34381 in FS
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12328939

total score of 18947 in TS
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1563686


----------



## Bal3Wolf

yea i just noticed my scores at 4300x3 and 4400x3 are lower then all 6 at 4300 but overall perf might be better with 3 at 4400.


----------



## djgar

With memory speed constant, cache clock makes a big difference in memory benchmarks ...


----------



## PowerK

FWIW, This is my AIDA64 mem benchmark.
2400MHz 10-12-12-28 1T


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> FWIW, This is my AIDA64 mem benchmark.
> 2400MHz 10-12-12-28 1T


Yeah, that's more what I'd expect and very nice!


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> With memory speed constant, cache clock makes a big difference in memory benchmarks ...


I know but he's also at 3600 cache as I am
There's gotta be something else
Btw:
On my second run of oc since yesterday I've achieved pretty much stable results but with lower voltages than before, 1.20v vs 1.25v cache, 0.98v vs 1.05-1.06v vccsa (though unstable before at higher volts) and 1.075v vs 1.135 vccio.
I'm gonna test right away with a 8h of RealBench just to seal the deal and see if it still holds well.
Otherwise (or in any case however) I'd try to just increase a bit more one (or more) of these 3 voltages in order to see if there's a memory performance gain.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> FWIW, This is my AIDA64 mem benchmark.
> 2400MHz 10-12-12-28 1T


Pretty nice numbers as well even if you had the cache at 3.7








Didn't you install the new one yet?


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I know but he's also at 3600 cache as I am
> There's gotta be something else
> Btw:
> On my second run of oc since yesterday I've achieved pretty much stable results but with lower voltages than before, 1.20v vs 1.25v cache, 0.98v vs 1.05-1.06v vccsa (though unstable before at higher volts) and 1.075v vs 1.135 vccio.
> I'm gonna test right away with a 8h of RealBench just to seal the deal and see if it still holds well.
> Otherwise (or in any case however) I'd try to just increase a bit more one (or more) of these 3 voltages in order to see if there's a memory performance gain.
> Pretty nice numbers as well even if you had the cache at 3.7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you install the new one yet?


Very nice but as you increase the speed of the Ram you decrease the latency. Just the nature of the game.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Whats the max system agent voltage most are running i was playing with my ram see if i could get it to 3400 xmp sets it to 1.37 for 3200 and if i set the ram to 3400 it sets to 1.45 seems crazy high.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Didn't you install the new one yet?


Not yet.








I think I'll get around to installing the new GSKILL set sometime next week.

You GSKILL set is also this model, right?
I hope it's Samsung B-die. Anyway, we'll see how it compares with 2400 10-12-12-28 1T next week. Heh.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Just doesn't seem like it could have that much of an impact... I'll lower mine to 43 and re-run for giggles...
> 
> asrock memory tuner is confused... Not sure what to make of this hot mess? I thought there was an Asus ROG version, but I can't find it yet...
> 
> 
> 
> here's CPUZ - asrock's tool seems more out-to-lunch than Rosie..


did you use version 3.0.6?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> did you use version 3.0.6?


Well, obviously not.







So, 3.0.6 is the secret sauce?


----------



## cekim

Ok, that works - here's my 14-14-14-34-CR2 everything else auto setup that is producing 82-85GB/s @3200
"works for me"


----------



## Sentinela

so far, so good...going to push cache even more, and try get 2800mhz ram!


----------



## jsutter71

I just downloaded a copy of the memory tuner V 3.06 and the 4.03 version. My wife has returned home so I won't be able to try it out until later but I'll post my progress when I can.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Not yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'll get around to installing the new GSKILL set sometime next week.
> 
> You GSKILL set is also this model, right?
> I hope it's Samsung B-die. Anyway, we'll see how it compares with 2400 10-12-12-28 1T next week. Heh.


That is correct, don't know what memory ic's are (on my kit) though, how can we see without removing the heatspreaders?

BTW:
Finished this morning even the (last) RealBench 8H run:



I'm gonna save this profile








Even if I feel like I have to work some more on the ram and / or some voltages


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Ok, that works - here's my 14-14-14-34-CR2 everything else auto setup that is producing 82-85GB/s @3200
> "works for me"


OK, so looking to my timings:



You have some lower tRRD, tWTR, tRTP and also the RTL's are in "dual mode".
About these last RTL I've noticed that before on some other users results and I wonder what could be the difference cause my mb is always setting them all at the same value








However mine (55) are better (I suppose) and I've had them at 55 when I was at 4.4 (@avx1) before on my previous oc setup an at 57 for the 4.3 OC (same 3.6 cache) like the one I have right now.
Do you use a 100mhz strap, right?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> That is correct, don't know what memory ic's are (on my kit) though, how can we see without removing the heatspreaders?
> 
> BTW:
> Finished this morning even the (last) RealBench 8H run:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna save this profile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I feel like I have to work some more on the ram and / or some voltages


Congrats.







Make sure to go through minimum 400~600% coverage of HCI MemTest as well if you haven't.
As for the ICs... I think the best way is to check with AIDA64. (under mainboard or RAM). If model number ends with B.. then it's B-die. If it ends with E, then it's E-die.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> For now I've stopped it at 500 to 550% coverage
> 
> 
> 
> Hope will be good enough (as a part of all other testings), later I'll do a 8h realbench.
> And that's it (for the 4.3)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure to go through minimum 400~600% coverage of HCI MemTest as well if you haven't.
> As for the ICs... I think the best way is to check with AIDA64. (under mainboard or RAM). If model number ends with B.. then it's B-die. If it ends with E, then it's E-die.


I did it before, 500 to 550% coverage

About the ram, I can only find this number (under Samsung), dram stepping 00h:



I'm noticing under the 1600 spd info that there are 3 tRFC's, RFC1 (very close to the one using right now), RFC2 (lower) and RFC4 (way lower).
What are they (the other two)?
Invisible timings or you can just try to lower them cause the one I'm using (561) seems pretty high for me


----------



## arrow0309

Just to be 100% sure I'm OK I also did another 4H Gsat:



Profile saved


----------



## Ragsters

Ok so recently Windows 10 had an automatic update that installed Intel Turbo boost Max technology 3.0. I tried uninstalling it but everytime I reboot and reinstalled. It kinda sucks because ever since the update I have been getting crashes in Tomb Raider. Any idea what to do?


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ragsters*
> 
> Ok so recently Windows 10 had an automatic update that installed Intel Turbo boost Max technology 3.0. I tried uninstalling it but everytime I reboot and reinstalled. It kinda sucks because ever since the update I have been getting crashes in Tomb Raider. Any idea what to do?


Leave it installed and disabled

Same issue here, different game.


----------



## Ragsters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Leave it installed and disabled
> 
> Same issue here, different game.


Thanks!


----------



## arrow0309

Guys I don't really understand a thing, after all these tests all comprehensive and all passed without errors now I've only started the integrated benchmark of The Division game and didn't finished it, crashed and the pc got instantly restarted (like it happened before in some occasions).
I've increased a bit the three vccio, vccsa and vcache (like ~20mv) and instead of seeing them any higher they are a bit lower now (except for the vccio that's working)








What the heck's wrong with my system?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Guys I don't really understand a thing, after all these tests all comprehensive and all passed without errors now I've only started the integrated benchmark of The Division game and didn't finished it, crashed and the pc got instantly restarted (like it happened before in some occasions).
> I've increased a bit the three vccio, vccsa and vcache (like ~20mv) and instead of seeing them any higher they are a bit lower now (except for the vccio that's working)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck's wrong with my system?


This is why i dont spend as much time stress testing i get something a hr stable then try what i normaly would do game or encode something, photoshop etc whatever you normaly use your pc for, might even need less volts for what you normaly use your system for. The new Mass effect for me and a few others iv seen post is very demanding and can make a system that looks stable crash.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Guys I don't really understand a thing, after all these tests all comprehensive and all passed without errors now I've only started the integrated benchmark of The Division game and didn't finished it, crashed and the pc got instantly restarted (like it happened before in some occasions).
> I've increased a bit the three vccio, vccsa and vcache (like ~20mv) and instead of seeing them any higher they are a bit lower now (except for the vccio that's working)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck's wrong with my system?


Just out of curiosity, what did you use for stress testing? Because there are many opinions on the correct method...


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> This is why i dont spend as much time stress testing i get something a hr stable then try what i normaly would do game or encode something, photoshop etc whatever you normaly use your pc for, might even need less volts for what you normaly use your system for. The new Mass effect for me and a few others iv seen post is very demanding and can make a system that looks stable crash.


Agreed but I just wanted to do the things "by the book" in order to avoid those crashes but they're like a curse
After increasing some more the cache and vccsa the game (The Division) keeps crashing to the desktop









I've had the previous 4790K system and no game ever crashed, yeah it was on fixed freq, fixed vcore and Extreme LLC
On X99 I wanted to take advantage of these new (and nice looking) power savings and adaptive vcore but I just can't get rid of some instabilities


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> This is why i dont spend as much time stress testing i get something a hr stable then try what i normaly would do game or encode something, photoshop etc whatever you normaly use your pc for, might even need less volts for what you normaly use your system for. The new Mass effect for me and a few others iv seen post is very demanding and can make a system that looks stable crash.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed but I just wanted to do the things "by the book" in order to avoid those crashes but they're like a curse
> After increasing some more the cache and vccsa the game (The Division) keeps crashing to the desktop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've had the previous 4790K system and no game ever crashed, yeah it was on fixed freq, fixed vcore and Extreme LLC
> On X99 I wanted to take advantage of these new (and nice looking) power savings and adaptive vcore but I just can't get rid of some instabilities
Click to expand...

are you using adaptive with offset i know their is a bug that some voltages wont raise when not set with a offset.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what did you use for stress testing? Because there are many opinions on the correct method...


Hi, on my second run of overclocking this 6850K (had some similar instability) I've used this method (being advised by PowerK):
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi arrow.
> Perhaps, I'm asking obvious. Please check if you're running the latest version of BIOS.
> If I were you, I would start OC from the clean state again.
> 
> Put core, cache and RAM to *stock*. (clear CMOS)
> 
> 1. Work on RAM first.
> - GSAT (2-4 hours) if passed, move on.
> 
> 2. Work on core.
> - OCCT large data set (2~4 hours) if passed, move on.
> 
> 3. Work on cache.
> - AIDA64 cache stress test (2~4 hours)
> - HCI MemTest (for both RAM and RAM-cache interaction). (400~600% coverage)
> 
> 4. Overall system stress
> - RealBench Stress Test (8 hours)


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> are you using adaptive with offset i know their is a bug that some voltages wont raise when not set with a offset.


No, only adaptive for the vcore.
And offset for the ring voltage and vccsa.
Fixed freq for the vccio.
What bugs exactly (cause they did work like crap before, not raising properly and proportionally with the offset %)?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Voltages not raising like they should. Also check your load line settings.


----------



## PowerK

Hi arrow.
That is very strange, indeed.
What's your VCCIN and LLC at ?

You numbers are all buried through several posts in previous pages. I think it's better if you list them in a single post and keep track of changes so that people can comfortably advise if needed.
Core clock = ?
Cache clock = ?
Highest CPU package temp during stress test = ?
VCCIN = ?
LLC = ?
vCore = ?
vCache = ?
VCCSA = ?
VCCIO ?
RAM clock & timings = 32GB 3200 14-14-14-24 1T
vDIMM = 1.350V

Also, it may not be directly related to the symptom you're experiencing.. but it seems to me that you raised VCCSA (and VCCIO as well?) in the middle of stress test procedure ? Did you raise because you were prompted with instability during the stress test ? I only ask because when it comes to VCCSA (and perhaps VCCIO as well), more is not necessarily better. In fact, I think more can make thing worse.

The last but not least, see the readings on 12V rail under idle and under load.


----------



## arrow0309

Hi, I didn't change any voltage during the whole tests, in fact I was wondering how come I didn't have to (due to any kind of instability).
But I did increase them a little bit this night, a couple of hours ago (like I said I've had some The Division issues and I've even stopped playing it).
So, the values are (including the modified ones):

Core clock = 4.3
Cache clock = 3.6
Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 66C on OCCT
VCCIN = 1.890v
LLC = 6
vCore = 1.285 > 1.295 (added offset + adaptive 1.285)
vCache = 1.200 > 1.220 (offset)
VCCSA = 0.976 > 0.984 (weirdest, from 0.020 to 0.090 offset and such a small increment only)
VCCIO = 1.075 > 1.095
RAM clock & timings = 32GB 3200 14-14-14-24 1T
vDIMM = 1.350V

Played a couple of h with the increased voltages at Mass Effect Andromeda and there was no issue this time (but I've played MEA yesterday evening with the previous voltages as well, all good)


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, I didn't change any voltage during the whole tests, in fact I was wondering how come I didn't have to (due to any kind of instability).
> But I did increase them a little bit this night, a couple of hours ago (like I said I've had some The Division issues and I've even stopped playing it).
> So, the values are (including the modified ones):
> 
> Core clock = 4.3
> Cache clock = 3.6
> Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 66C on OCCT
> VCCIN = 1.890v
> LLC = 6
> vCore = 1.285 > 1.295 (added offset + adaptive 1.285)
> vCache = 1.200 > 1.220 (offset)
> VCCSA = 0.976 > 0.984 (weirdest, from 0.020 to 0.090 offset and such a small increment only)
> VCCIO = 1.075 > 1.095
> RAM clock & timings = 32GB 3200 14-14-14-24 1T
> vDIMM = 1.350V
> 
> Played a couple of h with the increased voltages at Mass Effect Andromeda and there was no issue this time (but I've played MEA yesterday evening with the previous voltages as well, all good)


how much ram do you have dual channel ? quad channel ? i ask because your sa voltage seems pretty low.


----------



## PowerK

VCCSA looks fine to me. I run it at 0.960V


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> VCCSA looks fine to me. I run it at 0.960V


seems low to me if hes running 4 chips at ddr3000+ but not same board as me but i need 1.2 to be stable at ddr3200 with quad channel.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> seems low to me if hes running 4 chips at ddr3000+ but not same board as me but i need 1.2 to be stable at ddr3200 with quad channel.


I'd generally agree, but I've been playing around this weekend and I'm pretty baffled at the result - I know I've tried this setup before and had it fail (SA really low - < 1.0)

Seems to be working so far and very well:


Been playing BF1 this way... 8 Dimms 128G 3200 CL14

Strange readings all around at idle, but great temps and stable so far...


----------



## arrow0309

@cekim
Has your memory bandwidth performance remained unchanged with a lower vccsa?
How high was it before?


----------



## Driller au

First up G'day from Australia







fist time poster here although i have been following this thread for a while.
I have a problem with my i7 6850k OC , first i did a OC in manual mode and all seemed good and have ran it for about 2 months no worries so i decided to give adaptive mode a go and it seems to stress test ok but i haven't done a lot of testing so far because of this problem which is when i put windows into balanced mode and the voltages and frequencies drop windows will lock up especially if i open chrome but also just on desktop just with HWinfo64 open. If i put windows in performance mode all is good
My settings :
Core clock = x 43 on 100 strap
Cache clock = min 16 max 30 < dropped the min to see if that was the problem
Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 70 deg C
VCCIN = 1.90 V in bios 1.872 in HWinfo64
LLC = LvL4
vCore = 1.280 V adaptive< I tried adding a 0.040 offset to up the idle voltages to no effect, currently no offset
vCache = 0.140 offset 1.128 V at idle in HWinfo
VCCSA = 1.000 V offset in bios 0.960 in HWinfo
VCCIO= 1.144 V had this set at this always
RAM clock & timings = 16GB 3200 17-18-18-36- 2T
vDIMM = 1.350V
With the RAM timings i copied these from the xmp settings @ 3333 MHz, xmp set the strap and blk to 125 which i changed to 3200 with 100 strap
Thanks in advance for any ideas


----------



## erukian

Hey all, is 1.26v @ 4.3 a decent sample of a 6900k? My issue is with my Noctua NH-D15 i'm hitting 80C in Aida with everything stress tested for >1hr, so I think i'll need water cooling if I want to go any higher. The reason I ask, is investing in custom loop is kind of a commitment.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> First up G'day from Australia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fist time poster here although i have been following this thread for a while.
> I have a problem with my i7 6850k OC , first i did a OC in manual mode and all seemed good and have ran it for about 2 months no worries so i decided to give adaptive mode a go and it seems to stress test ok but i haven't done a lot of testing so far because of this problem which is when i put windows into balanced mode and the voltages and frequencies drop windows will lock up especially if i open chrome but also just on desktop just with HWinfo64 open. If i put windows in performance mode all is good
> My settings :
> Core clock = x 43 on 100 strap
> Cache clock = min 16 max 30 < dropped the min to see if that was the problem
> Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 70 deg C
> VCCIN = 1.90 V in bios 1.872 in HWinfo64
> LLC = LvL4
> vCore = 1.280 V adaptive< I tried adding a 0.040 offset to up the idle voltages to no effect, currently no offset
> vCache = 0.140 offset 1.128 V at idle in HWinfo
> VCCSA = 1.000 V offset in bios 0.960 in HWinfo
> VCCIO= 1.144 V had this set at this always
> RAM clock & timings = 16GB 3200 17-18-18-36- 2T
> vDIMM = 1.350V
> With the RAM timings i copied these from the xmp settings @ 3333 MHz, xmp set the strap and blk to 125 which i changed to 3200 with 100 strap
> Thanks in advance for any ideas


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erukian*
> 
> 
> 
> Hey all, is 1.26v @ 4.3 a decent sample of a 6900k? My issue is with my Noctua NH-D15 i'm hitting 80C in Aida with everything stress tested for >1hr, so I think i'll need water cooling if I want to go any higher. The reason I ask, is investing in custom loop is kind of a commitment.


Hi guys and welcome to ocn!









@Driller au
You have a similar system to mine.
I'd just try a higher LLC (5 or 6)
And in case a bit of more vcore.
Those ram at 3333 are quad channel (X99 certified) or dual channel?
Agree about the vccsa, is a value where you really have to spend time for fine tunning, also in gaming with different titles (if possible)

@erukian
Nice cpu mate, wanna sell it?








In case let me know








However I wouldn't push it any further on air cooling, even better going down to 4200 at these temps.
On wc it's a different story


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> @cekim
> Has your memory bandwidth performance remained unchanged with a lower vccsa?
> How high was it before?


Looks roughly the same - I just stopped playing BF1, so I'm sure it was a less than ideal "pre-condition", but its in the same ballpark (see below)

1.2 was what I seemed to need to get stable. going down in small increments produced memory errors.

Frankly, I'm wondering if I am mis-remembering issues with the old memory kit that I now know to have had significant correctable CRC errors. That's why I re-tested. I changed memory kits a month or so ago.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erukian*
> 
> 
> 
> Hey all, is 1.26v @ 4.3 a decent sample of a 6900k? My issue is with my Noctua NH-D15 i'm hitting 80C in Aida with everything stress tested for >1hr, so I think i'll need water cooling if I want to go any higher. The reason I ask, is investing in custom loop is kind of a commitment.


1.26 for 4.3 is fantastic to the point of questionable (as in, I bet you could find a non-prime95 use case that could crash it, but if you haven't seen it crash yet, then go with it).

As for whether you are guaranteed big "gainz" by adding water, the answer, I'm afraid is very much no (guarantee). At or above 4.3 these chips go exponential in their requirements for voltage and some just won't do it.

You will get lower temps and potentially less noise as a result with the right setup, but don't go into this expecting the only thing between you and 4.5 is water.

1.26v/4.3 80C on a D15 sounds a little odd though too... 1.26v 6900 should be pretty tame heat-wise unless your fans are set to silent. Is that adaptive or fixed? If adaptive, then VID might be overriding and you are actually running at higher voltages than set in the bios (check aida or hwinfo).

Unless of course, that's AUS w/o A/C, so your ambients are high?


----------



## cekim

p.s. a few people around here swear by high Vin (1.9+) including Asus in their original OC guide for BWE, but I have to say that I've yet to see it do anything to my particular 6950x other than make it run a few to 10C warmer depending... I've been driving that value down over the last month (since changing memory kits) and I've seen no benefit to high or detriment to low. It just doesn't seem to matter.


----------



## erukian

The
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> 1.26v/4.3 80C on a D15 sounds a little odd though too... 1.26v 6900 should be pretty tame heat-wise unless your fans are set to silent. Is that adaptive or fixed? If adaptive, then VID might be overriding and you are actually running at higher voltages than set in the bios (check aida or hwinfo).


I used the Asus overclock guide to get me started, and other than having all cores at 4.3, I enabled adaptive core voltage and set it to 1.2v per this guide. (last screenshot)

http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/7/

But I don't see any additional voltage going through the CPU when stress testing it with either CPU-Z or Aida64 monitoring the CPU core voltage. Am I missing something?

As for the CPU temps, i'm only looking at package temp, which seems to be always ~10C hotter than the actual cores.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erukian*
> 
> The
> I used the Asus overclock guide to get me started, and other than having all cores at 4.3, I enabled adaptive core voltage and set it to 1.2v per this guide. (last screenshot)
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/7/
> 
> But I don't see any additional voltage going through the CPU when stress testing it with either CPU-Z or Aida64 monitoring the CPU core voltage. Am I missing something?
> 
> As for the CPU temps, i'm only looking at package temp, which seems to be always ~10C hotter than the actual cores.


Adaptive voltage with SVID enabled will override your setting if your chosen voltage is lower than the VID table for a given frequency.

You should see that in Aida though and it sounds like you set 1.2 and it went to 1.26 on its own? If so, you aren't missing anything.

So, you might just have a really good chip. Have you tried cranking the fan(s) on the D15 to 100% and see what you can do?

Yes, package temps on my system seem to be largely a function of the IMC and cache voltages as the dominating factor. Though at peaks, my core and package track each other (a core 68 peak will be reflected in a package 68 peak). At idle and mid-load, the package is 10C higher when I'm running at 3200 memory. Lowering Vin to 1.80-1.82 doesn't seem to reduce my stability, but does drop package temp a little. As does lowering the cache offset if you can get away with it.


----------



## erukian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Adaptive voltage with SVID enabled will override your setting if your chosen voltage is lower than the VID table for a given frequency.
> 
> You should see that in Aida though and it sounds like you set 1.2 and it went to 1.26 on its own? If so, you aren't missing anything.
> 
> So, you might just have a really good chip. Have you tried cranking the fan(s) on the D15 to 100% and see what you can do?
> 
> Yes, package temps on my system seem to be largely a function of the IMC and cache voltages as the dominating factor. Though at peaks, my core and package track each other (a core 68 peak will be reflected in a package 68 peak). At idle and mid-load, the package is 10C higher when I'm running at 3200 memory. Lowering Vin to 1.80-1.82 doesn't seem to reduce my stability, but does drop package temp a little. As does lowering the cache offset if you can get away with it.


Yeah, I'm not showing the package temp as tracking any peaking cores during load.

Here's the results of 20 mins of stress w/ the fans at 100%.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> p.s. a few people around here swear by high Vin (1.9+) including Asus in their original OC guide for BWE, but I have to say that I've yet to see it do anything to my particular 6950x other than make it run a few to 10C warmer depending... I've been driving that value down over the last month (since changing memory kits) and I've seen no benefit to high or detriment to low. It just doesn't seem to matter.


I think people are basing their opinion on VCCIN from HW X265 becnmark tool.
http://hwbot.org/benchmark/hwbot_x265_benchmark_-_4k/
I think this is the only tool available for us to fine tune VCCIN.

VCCIN has always been at 1.92 ~1.95V (with LLC at 5) for me. I have not tried to lower it though.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

I don't see how some of you can run such low SA volts with 3000+ memory and 4 dimms my cpu takes 1.22 to be stable anything under 1.20 wont even post with all 32gigs.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> I don't see how some of you can run such low SA volts with 3000+ memory and 4 dimms my cpu takes 1.22 to be stable anything under 1.20 wont even post with all 32gigs.


It depends on IMC. There are several people in this thread running VCCSA at sub 1.0V.
And it's not just MHz alone. It's frequency combined with latency.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> I don't see how some of you can run such low SA volts with 3000+ memory and 4 dimms my cpu takes 1.22 to be stable anything under 1.20 wont even post with all 32gigs.
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on IMC. There are several people in this thread running VCCSA at sub 1.0V.
> And it's not just MHz alone. It's frequency combined with latency.
Click to expand...

lol well i lost the luck of all the draws on my cpu if i wanted to run 3400Mhz on my ram i need 1.45 VCCSA even with super loose timings it needs that.


----------



## chibi

1.45sa is asking for trouble. Have you tried bumping dram voltage up? If venture into the 1.45v range for dram first before going over 1.15sa.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

For 3200 I need 1.22sa even 1.45 dram didn't help.


----------



## Driller au

Thanks for the suggestions arrow0309 i tried them and it didn't solve the problem at idle, what i have done is go back to the 125 strap that xmp sets and added a Vcore offset because adaptive voltages don't apply properly with a 125 stap/blk and it seems ok now when in a low voltage state the core sits at a higher frequency now 1500 MHz instead of 1200 MHZ with a higher Vcore. Why i went away from the 125 strap is because of the different voltages per core,if anyone has an idea if this is harmful on not i would like to hear them.
The below table is taken from HWinfo with the bios showing 1.284 Vcore, it's the max Vcore i am worried about cpu @ 4375 MHz uncore @ 3125 and 1.084
MIN MAX
core 0 0.953 1.284
core 1 0.993 1.283
core 2 0.977 1.268
core 3 0.972 1.279
core 4 1.028 1.272
core 5 0.960 1.275
I just gave it a quick run in aida64 with no AVX offset temps where ok but it crashed at 20 minutes with a invalid work queue BSOD i think probably because of the low system agent/cache voltage could be wrong though.

To answer your question arrow0309 my memory is quad channel now running @ 3333MHz again and is X99 approved it is Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (4x4GB), PC4-26600 (3333MHz) DDR4, 16-16-16-36, 1.35v, Quad Channel Kit


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions arrow0309 i tried them and it didn't solve the problem at idle, what i have done is go back to the 125 strap that xmp sets and added a Vcore offset because adaptive voltages don't apply properly with a 125 stap/blk and it seems ok now when in a low voltage state the core sits at a higher frequency now 1500 MHz instead of 1200 MHZ with a higher Vcore. Why i went away from the 125 strap is because of the different voltages per core,if anyone has an idea if this is harmful on not i would like to hear them.
> The below table is taken from HWinfo with the bios showing 1.284 Vcore, it's the max Vcore i am worried about cpu @ 4375 MHz uncore @ 3125 and 1.084
> MIN MAX
> core 0 0.953 1.284
> core 1 0.993 1.283
> core 2 0.977 1.268
> core 3 0.972 1.279
> core 4 1.028 1.272
> core 5 0.960 1.275
> I just gave it a quick run in aida64 with no AVX offset temps where ok but it crashed at 20 minutes with a invalid work queue BSOD i think probably because of the low system agent/cache voltage could be wrong though.
> 
> To answer your question arrow0309 my memory is quad channel now running @ 3333MHz again and is X99 approved it is Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (4x4GB), PC4-26600 (3333MHz) DDR4, 16-16-16-36, 1.35v, Quad Channel Kit


If running 3333 it would be wise to test memory stability properly, see the link in my sig for details


----------



## Driller au

Thanks for tip Silent Scone i ran memtest overnight early on with this build, i think it was like 5000% coverage and no errors . I didn't keep a screen shot

Edit : thinking about this i haven't done a long run with these new settings so i will put it into my to do list


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I think people are basing their opinion on VCCIN from HW X265 becnmark tool.
> http://hwbot.org/benchmark/hwbot_x265_benchmark_-_4k/
> I think this is the only tool available for us to fine tune VCCIN.
> 
> VCCIN has always been at 1.92 ~1.95V (with LLC at 5) for me. I have not tried to lower it though.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> I don't see how some of you can run such low SA volts with 3000+ memory and 4 dimms my cpu takes 1.22 to be stable anything under 1.20 wont even post with all 32gigs.


Good info's
I'll keep in mind, even for my next step of overclocking the ram to either 3200 cl 13 or 3400 cl14 (I have to see which one would be "lighter")








And the cache to x37


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Ok, that works - here's my 14-14-14-34-CR2 everything else auto setup that is producing 82-85GB/s @3200
> "works for me"


that's pretty incredible for that much ram... nice!


----------



## arrow0309

Jpmboy, just a curiosity
Having two different RTL's (one smaller by 2) on channel A, C different from B, D will add any improvement or stability?


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Those seem low for 6950 + 3200CL14
> 
> Your cache speed may be holding you back by a lot:
> 
> 
> I have nothing in the way of excitement in my memory timings - 128G CAS14 CR2, pretty much Auto everything (eventual voltage 1.35 so the RvE doesn't cook my dimms with 1.5 randomly grrr)


What do you have your cache voltage set to. My current settings


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> What do you have your cache voltage set to. My current settings


I believe I have a 0.250 offset in the BIOS - as you can see in Aida, its reading 1.237 max and 1.2-1.237 under load for 3.6GHz

This chip can do 3.7 but it adds a lot heat for very little gain.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> I don't see how some of you can run such low SA volts with 3000+ memory and 4 dimms my cpu takes 1.22 to be stable anything under 1.20 wont even post with all 32gigs.


I'm a little surprised myself. My prior [email protected] 128G set would not tolerate it. I tried. It needed every mV of 1.2v anything less and I'd get stressapptest or application (segfaut) errors eventually.

Again though, I realized after the fact, that this [email protected] kit was producing recoverable crc errors (and corresponding retries) even when it was "working" (thanks to Praz pointing out crc/retry was enabled on DDR4, I knew it existed, I did not realize it was being used on non-ECC systems), so, it shouldn't be surprising that such a kit would require higher voltage.

This fact of the prior [email protected] kit became clear when performance jumped accross the board with the new [email protected] kit (as in 15-20% real-world compute application performance jump in some cases). Clearly that's beyond what you should expect for 3000->3200 in the best case.

So far so good and in every way - temps are lower, able to take some core and VCCin off as well - all of which go to overall package temp dropping.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Jpmboy, just a curiosity
> Having two different RTL's (one smaller by 2) on channel A, C different from B, D will add any improvement or stability?


a lot depends on the sticks being used, but generally the values you see in AST up to 64GB are normally different by 1 for SS sticks. The 16GB hi density DS sticks in cekim's screenine may require something else.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> a lot depends on the sticks being used, but generally the values you see in AST up to 64GB are normally different by 1 for SS sticks. The 16GB hi density DS sticks in cekim's screenine may require something else.


and those values are entirely the BIOS' doing, not mine.


----------



## arrow0309

OK, got it
Mine are 55 most of the times, once they were 57 (on the previous oc) but they're always the same all four (I have 4 ram slots).
4x8Gb, F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW, not sure exactly if they're single or double sided.


----------



## Medusa666

I'm considering upgrading and futureproofing my system with a 6950X, maximizing the potential of the X99 platform.

What are the conclusions on this CPU after it being out for awhile now, is it a good overclocker? Any known issues?

Thank you for any replies, user experiences, or insights : )


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> I'm considering upgrading and futureproofing my system with a 6950X, maximizing the potential of the X99 platform.
> 
> What are the conclusions on this CPU after it being out for awhile now, is it a good overclocker? Any known issues?
> 
> Thank you for any replies, user experiences, or insights : )


1. Not a "good overclocker" 4.3 is a typical limit for core and 3.7-3.8 for cache
- though it has a wide range of "good enough" settings... it doesn't take much to get 4.2-4.3, but may not be possible to go beyond without "cooling heroics"

2. Definitely a "good performer" - @ 4.3-4.4 it matches or exceeds core-for-fore performance of a 5960x @4.7-4.8GHz (with 5960x cache at ~4.2-4.4)
- IF (big IF) you have software that scales beyond 8 cores, well, then you get 2 more cores and 4 more threads. Such things are few and far between.

3. Better memory controller than 5960x - 3200CL14 is as close to "plug and play" as you should expect for any 3000+ setup. In fact, my current kit was literally a "boot up out of the box" scenario with BCLK=100 3200CL14.

4. No regrets, but I'd have a very, very hard time buying one right now with the June-ish timeline rumored for the next platform. If for no other reason than to get 6950x or 6900 cheaper. Take that with a grain of salt though - rumors are rumors and timelines are often longer than the whisper.

5. You have software that scales to 10 threads? or to 8 + butter smooth surfing and other on 2 cores while you wait for your computes on the other 8?
- if not, then 6900 is a good chip too that sometimes has more OC headroom.


----------



## bondibro

Hey guys,

I am in need of some advice. My first 6950x was replaced as it died. Now I am trying to overclock to what I had before with the old one.

Right now I am stable at 4.3 @ 1.32v and cache min/max 36
My mem is 3200, but I can only get it to 3000mhz? Previously it was XMP at 3200 @ 1.35v

A couple of questions -
1. Is running 1.32v ok?
2. How can I get this mem to run at its XMP profile of 3200mhz?

Thanks advance


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bondibro*
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I am in need of some advice. My first 6950x was replaced as it died. Now I am trying to overclock to what I had before with the old one.
> 
> Right now I am stable at 4.3 @ 1.32v and cache min/max 36
> My mem is 3200, but I can only get it to 3000mhz? Previously it was XMP at 3200 @ 1.35v
> 
> A couple of questions -
> 1. Is running 1.32v ok?
> 2. How can I get this mem to run at its XMP profile of 3200mhz?
> 
> Thanks advance


1.32 Vcore seems ok provided that you have an enough cooling system. What kind of cooling are you using? (1.32V at 4.3 sounds like an AIO?). Max. package temp?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> and those values are entirely the BIOS' doing, not mine.


well trained critters those high density sticks are.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> OK, got it
> Mine are 55 most of the times, once they were 57 (on the previous oc) but they're always the same all four (I have 4 ram slots).
> 4x8Gb, F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW, not sure exactly if they're single or double sided.


8GB, single sided sticks.


----------



## bondibro

Xo
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> 1.32 Vcore seems ok provided that you have an enough cooling system. What kind of cooling are you using? (1.32V at 4.3 sounds like an AIO?). Max. package temp?


yep, I am using a Corsair h115i cooler in an inwin909 case with 5 other fans. Idle temp for package is around 39-40, individual cores range from 32-35 (room temp is 27ish) and I think max I've seen it go to is around 75 under heavy load.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I think people are basing their opinion on VCCIN from HW X265 becnmark tool.
> http://hwbot.org/benchmark/hwbot_x265_benchmark_-_4k/
> I think this is the only tool available for us to fine tune VCCIN.
> 
> VCCIN has always been at 1.92 ~1.95V (with LLC at 5) for me. I have not tried to lower it though.


FWIW - ran this benchmark without issue.

Running AVX-4 (so 4GHz AVX) and 4.4/3.7 on core/cache otherwise. So, its possible I'd need to reduce the AVX offset to see any problems related to SA = 0.9/VCCIN=1.80?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> FWIW - ran this benchmark without issue.
> 
> Running AVX-4 (so 4GHz AVX) and 4.4/3.7 on core/cache otherwise. So, its possible I'd need to reduce the AVX offset to see any problems related to SA = 0.9/VCCIN=1.80?


Not sure what you meant by running benchmark without any issue. But my understanding is that you want to have a correction factor as close to 1.0 as possible (above 0.95) in 2x overkill and 4x overkill mode.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Not sure what you meant by running benchmark without any issue. But my understanding is that you want to have a correction factor as close to 1.0 as possible (above 0.95) in 2x overkill and 4x overkill mode.


^^ this.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

hello everyone

can someone tell me what is VCCU voltage? and what the values on your board? on auto I am at 1.232V
I have 6900K (replaced my 6800K)

Thank u


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> hello everyone
> 
> can someone tell me what is VCCU voltage? and what the values on your board? on auto I am at 1.232V
> I have 6900K (replaced my 6800K)
> 
> Thank u


Not sure tbh, can you fill out the rig builder or provide details of which mobo you're using?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Thank u for your reply

X99A pro carbon
6900k 4.2 1.27v adaptive
32 gb ddr4 2933 c14

I oc the cache x35
Cache voltage 1.08 (using offset with auto voltage, i cannot change cache voltage without offset )
But vccu automatically will go to 1.232V.


----------



## chibi

Vccu looks to be an extension of Cache/Ring voltage in MSI land. I'm not sure how exactly that effects one another as you do have a separate ring voltage control.
Sorry, can't say much else as I've only worked with ASUS bios's


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Ok thank u
Someone with msi board can help me?
I feel it is a high voltage


----------



## Madness11

Guys hello. Please hekp me . I got 6900k and i have some quastion.
http://imgur.com/a/dG8nL
Its ok (only 2 Cores load 100% Witcher 3 )its ok ? or i need to go RMA ??? Please help


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i have a x99a gaming carbon and keep my vccu around 1.10 volts seems ot be fine at 3400 cache


----------



## coccosoids

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> 2. Definitely a "good performer" - @ 4.3-4.4 it matches or exceeds core-for-fore performance of a 5960x @4.7-4.8GHz (with 5960x cache at ~4.2-4.4)
> - IF (big IF) you have software that scales beyond 8 cores, well, then you get 2 more cores and 4 more threads. Such things are few and far between.


Do you know of any real benchmarks that can verify this? As far as I know it was between 5-8%...


----------



## Madness11

please please help ))


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> Guys hello. Please hekp me . I got 6900k and i have some quastion.
> http://imgur.com/a/dG8nL
> Its ok (only 2 Cores load 100% Witcher 3 )its ok ? or i need to go RMA ??? Please help


Try another game and see, BF1/4 can utilize more than 4 cores.
Alternatively, run a benchmark such as RealBench and check your cpu core utilization.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Be sure that intel turbo boost 3.0 is disabled; it will install automatically after windows 10 creator.


----------



## Madness11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Try another game and see, BF1/4 can utilize more than 4 cores.
> Alternatively, run a benchmark such as RealBench and check your cpu core utilization.


This one on CPU test (Time spy )
http://imgur.com/a/0LOnv
But why in games only 1-2 cores 100% , and its not dangerous ?


----------



## Madness11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Be sure that intel turbo boost 3.0 is disabled; it will install automatically after windows 10 creator.


You think its turbo boost 3.0?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i have a x99a gaming carbon and keep my vccu around 1.10 volts seems ot be fine at 3400 cache


Thank u
Can you give me a screenahot of your bios please.
Now myvccu 1.144v set manually, and cache 1.08v using offset, till now realbench didn't crash, hope it passed the stress test and i think i am at safe voltages. Cache x35


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> You think its turbo boost 3.0?


This is how turbo boost 3 works, put all the load on the fastest core. It cause to me stutter especially in BF1.


----------



## djgar

Can somebody confirm that using "Sync all cores" will avoid Turbo Boost Max being used since it appears to be uninstallable (keeps getting re-installed automatically no matter what device settings)?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Can somebody confirm that using "Sync all cores" will avoid Turbo Boost Max being used since it appears to be uninstallable (keeps getting re-installed automatically no matter what device settings)?


Windows will install it if you remove it every time automatically after windows 10 creator, just disable it, it is useless and cause stutter in games


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys, it is normal during realbench stress test that the mouse will feeeze for 2-3 second randomly then back to normal without crash? But stress test passed. Or it is a sign of instability ?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coccosoids*
> 
> Do you know of any real benchmarks that can verify this? As far as I know it was between 5-8%...


Well, you can use anything you like by disabling cores in the 6950x if you want a 1:1 comparison.

Many benchmarks have a single core/thread measurement. 5-8% is a reasonable ball-park.

I've crunched through a lot of data in custom applications on the 5960x, 6950x, 2696v3 and 2690v4, so I can also pull from those in my assessment. There's not a lot of mystery between HW and BW architectural performance. It's a question of clocks and application scaling as to which is better.

There's no question the 6950x clock for clock, core for core had some IPC gains (in the 5-8% range). Hence a 4.7GHz 5960x ability to match a 4.3 6950x with both running 8 cores.

A google of "5960x vs 6950x single thread" should get you results to chew on...

Passmark for example shows 5960x @ 1990 6950x @ 2139
1990/2130 = ~7%


----------



## Madness11

I need go to RMA or no ?)


----------



## chibi

You just showed a picture of your CPU running with all cores utilized. Not sure what the reason to RMA a working cpu would be.








You need to figure out if the reason you're being locked to two cores is due to:

Poorly threaded game? A quick google shows that Witcher 3 can utilize more than 2-cores - so that's out of the question
Try disabling Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 as mentioned earlier.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> I need go to RMA or no ?)


Almost undoubtedly a configuration issue - not a hardware issue.

Either
a. windows is "parking" your cores. google will help you with that. search for "unpark cores"
OR
b. you've disabled cores in the BIOS - don't know your BIOS.
OR
c. your game stinks and only uses 1 or 2 cores (it happens), not dangerous.

Is this overclock.net or techsupport.net?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I never saw a
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Almost undoubtedly a configuration issue - not a hardware issue.
> 
> Either
> a. windows is "parking" your cores. google will help you with that. search for "unpark cores"
> OR
> b. you've disabled cores in the BIOS - don't know your BIOS.
> OR
> c. your game stinks and only uses 1 or 2 cores (it happens), not dangerous.
> 
> Is this overclock.net or techsupport.net?


"Is this overclock.net or techsupport.net?" nice


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I never saw a
> "Is this overclock.net or techsupport.net?" nice


ah while ago, it was "safevoltage.net"


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> ah while ago, it was "safevoltage.net"


If i am asking about vccu this doesn't mean i am on safevoltage.net
I don't want to kill my 1100$ cpu ?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> This one on CPU test (Time spy )
> http://imgur.com/a/0LOnv
> But why in games only 1-2 cores 100% , and its not dangerous ?


because those games work with the OS to load "preferred" cores. disable TB3, or set synch cores in bios.
Also disable MultiCore Enhancement if you leave your CPU at stock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> You think its turbo boost 3.0?


TB3 is doing what it is designed to do. If you do not like it, disable it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Can somebody confirm that using "Sync all cores" will avoid Turbo Boost Max being used since it appears to be uninstallable (keeps getting re-installed automatically no matter what device settings)?


synch all cores runs all 10 of mine at the same clock and distributed load.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> I need go to RMA or no ?)


no.. CALM DOWN.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> ah while ago, it was "safevoltage.net"


oh.. it still is. But that's a good thing. Fewer folks turning their new CPU into a flash bulb.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> If i am asking about vccu this doesn't mean i am on safevoltage.net
> I don't want to kill my 1100$ cpu ?


and why are you adjusting VCCU voltage and not using Auto? Fill out rigbuilder and add it to your sig block. no idea what you are working with.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> If i am asking about vccu this doesn't mean i am on safevoltage.net
> I don't want to kill my 1100$ cpu ?


All in good fun.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Windows will install it if you remove it every time automatically after windows 10 creator, just disable it, it is useless and cause stutter in games


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> synch all cores runs all 10 of mine at the same clock and distributed load.


Funny, I've been running Creators for over a week and never had it active, just saw it in the system devices but not in the task manager. Now it finally came up in the task bar and task manager - I must have rubbed its ear. I disabled it in the app, then disabled the service so now no app.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Funny, I've been running Creators for over a week and never had it active, just saw it in the system devices but not in the task manager. Now it finally came up in the task bar and task manager - I must have rubbed its ear. I disabled it in the app, then disabled the service so now no app.


I mean, TB3 has been loaded in my BWE rig since the last bios and Chipset/ ME update (all cores folding atm). Not active here... been on creators update for a few days. (build 14393.1066?)


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I mean, TB3 has been loaded in my BWE rig since the last bios and Chipset/ ME update (all cores folding atm). Not active here... been on creators update for a few days. (build 14393.1066?)


Hmmm - my build is 15063.138 - updated on the 1512th.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Can somebody confirm that using "Sync all cores" will avoid Turbo Boost Max being used since it appears to be uninstallable (keeps getting re-installed automatically no matter what device settings)?


Intel's Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 application (with built-in driver) was initially designed for Windows 10 pre-Redstone 1 update, it seems.

Here's a proper way to disable the application (with device driver intact).
1. RIght-click on the tray icon, and disable it.
2. Open Task Scheduler and disable Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0
3. Open Command Prompt and type "sc config ITBMService start= disabled"
4. Reboot.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i have a x99a gaming carbon and keep my vccu around 1.10 volts seems ot be fine at 3400 cache
> 
> 
> 
> Thank u
> Can you give me a screenahot of your bios please.
> Now myvccu 1.144v set manually, and cache 1.08v using offset, till now realbench didn't crash, hope it passed the stress test and i think i am at safe voltages. Cache x35
Click to expand...

Heres settings im using for my 6800k 4.2Ghz on my cpu and 3.4Ghz on cache each cpu is differnt tho so might not help you much but worth a try.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Hmmm - my build is 15063.138 - updated on the 1512th.


IDK... these 4 were "updated" on the 15th... one "home" 3 Pro.









Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!










did you get the version from "winver" in the run command?


----------



## qazplm5089

I'm looking to buy a Broadwell E chip for content creation but don't know if I should wait out the 2 months for Skylake X. Realistically, how much improvement would there be considering Skylake IPC is only a few percent better? Are there other things that would make Skylake X a bigger (10-15%) improvement over Broadwell E? Thanks


----------



## Seus

I've been running this overclock for 3 months. Everything was solid on *extensive* stability testing. I started noticing weird little things in Windows and now after restarting my PC I got Qcode CC. Seems the overclocked failed. What should I do?

i7 6800k 4.2ghz 1.29v
Gskillz Tridentz 3200 4x8gb kit
Gtx 1080 strix
Strix X99 Bios 1401

XMP enabled 3200mhz 16-18-18-38 at 1.40v (it wouldn't work with lower voltage)
CPUcache 35
CPUcacheV 1.25
VSAA 1.10
VCCIO 1.05


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Intel's Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 application (with built-in driver) was initially designed for Windows 10 pre-Redstone 1 update, it seems.
> 
> Here's a proper way to disable the application (with device driver intact).
> 1. RIght-click on the tray icon, and disable it.
> 2. Open Task Scheduler and disable Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0
> 3. Open Command Prompt and type "sc config ITBMService start= disabled"
> 4. Reboot.


Thanks, but as I mentioned above I just disabled the service - much easier


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> IDK... these 4 were "updated" on the 15th... one "home" 3 Pro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you get the version from "winver" in the run command?


No, from the About in the Settings / System in the task bar. Also I'm in version 1703 Creators, not 1607, updated from the media creation tool.


----------



## Driller au

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> I've been running this overclock for 3 months. Everything was solid on *extensive* stability testing. I started noticing weird little things in Windows and now after restarting my PC I got Qcode CC. Seems the overclocked failed. What should I do?
> 
> i7 6800k 4.2ghz 1.29v
> Gskillz Tridentz 3200 4x8gb kit
> Gtx 1080 strix
> Strix X99 Bios 1401
> 
> XMP enabled 3200mhz 16-18-18-38 at 1.40v (it wouldn't work with lower voltage)
> CPUcache 35
> CPUcacheV 1.25
> VSAA 1.10
> VCCIO 1.05


The 1504 bios might be a good place to start, it seems better to me


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> Heres settings im using for my 6800k 4.2Ghz on my cpu and 3.4Ghz on cache each cpu is differnt tho so might not help you much but worth a try.
> 
> thank u so much.
> appreciated.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> No, from the About in the Settings / System in the task bar. Also I'm in version 1703 Creators, not 1607, updated from the media creation tool.


would be the same... I didn't do a manual update and let the pushed update occur on two of these (which took a long tome and many auto restarts too). Looks like I've not been blessed with the creators update.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> would be the same... I didn't do a manual update and let the pushed update occur on two of these (which took a long tome and many auto restarts too). Looks like I've not been blessed with the creators update.


I'll have to look at my version number, I just had some largish updates a few days ago but the Windows Update page says something like "Creators Edition Available - Want to Upgrade Now?" so I got W10 (pro) updates without getting pushed to Creators - even though the systems recognize that it's there.


----------



## mus1mus

Hi guys.

Currently binning these. But first, questions.

What's the recommended max Voltage on these?
I am starting at 1.35 Core
1.96 VCCIN @LL6 on the RVE.

Found 2 that did 4.5 using those parameters in HWBOT X265 4K @ 4X Overkill. Are they good?


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> I'll have to look at my version number, I just had some largish updates a few days ago but the Windows Update page says something like "Creators Edition Available - Want to Upgrade Now?" so I got W10 (pro) updates without getting pushed to Creators - even though the systems recognize that it's there.


You will get notification in the next few days.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> would be the same... I didn't do a manual update and let the pushed update occur on two of these (which took a long tome and many auto restarts too). Looks like I've not been blessed with the creators update.


You have gone through the first step you will be notified in the next few days. This is a very good update.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Hi guys.
> 
> Currently binning these. But first, questions.
> 
> What's the recommended max Voltage on these?
> I am starting at 1.35 Core
> 1.96 VCCIN @LL6 on the RVE.
> 
> Found 2 that did 4.5 using those parameters in HWBOT X265 4K @ 4X Overkill. Are they good?


I didn't need to bin to find a 6850K that does 4.6 bench stable, so I don't know...

Why are you binning so many? Looks like a monumental waste of money unless aiming to break world records.


----------



## mus1mus

No it's not that kind of binning and not for that purpose.

I have to build all these. So by binning - testing each.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> I'll have to look at my version number, I just had some largish updates a few days ago but the Windows Update page says something like "Creators Edition Available - Want to Upgrade Now?" so I got W10 (pro) updates without getting pushed to Creators - even though the systems recognize that it's there.


lol - when ever I asee that "Wanna Update" question, my reflex is to click .. NO!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> You have gone through the first step you will be notified in the next few days. This is a very good update.


yeah, I knew it was staged, but thought it it had completed (after commandeering the rig for 30 min). Frankly, I really hate "in-place" upgrades.
Oh well, Win 10 _Shall_ be updated.


----------



## bondibro

[removed]


----------



## bondibro

?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> Guys hello. Please hekp me . I got 6900k and i have some quastion.
> http://imgur.com/a/dG8nL
> Its ok (only 2 Cores load 100% Witcher 3 )its ok ? or i need to go RMA ??? Please help


?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - when ever I asee that "Wanna Update" question, my reflex is to click .. NO!
> yeah, I knew it was staged, but thought it it had completed (after commandeering the rig for 30 min). Frankly, I really hate "in-place" upgrades.
> Oh well, Win 10 _Shall_ be updated.


So do I - that's why I went with the Media Creation Tool, with an image backup before doing the thing. Plus mounting the ISO on a virtual drive makes it a nicer experience (or less traumatic?) ... three reboots


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> No it's not that kind of binning and not for that purpose.
> 
> I have to build all these. So by binning - testing each.


4.5 is good for that workload, but it's not as strenuous as RB. I can pass the overkill mode on x265 all day long, and fail RB in 2 hours. RB stable at 4.5 is a good CPU under 1.4v


----------



## mus1mus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> 4.5 is good for that workload, but it's not as strenuous as RB. I can pass the overkill mode on x265 all day long, and fail RB in 2 hours. RB stable at 4.5 is a good CPU under 1.4v


RB it is.









Just want to get a quick idea on each one's OC capabilities.


----------



## Madness11

Hey guys. Please help me Overclock my 6900k to 4.2 ))) i dont know how







(Only know LLC Vcore ) please


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> Hey guys. Please help me Overclock my 6900k to 4.2 ))) i dont know how
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Only know LLC Vcore ) please


Have you read this before? It's got some decent info on Broadwell. http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## ELIAS-EH

So finally my OC RAM 3200Mhz C16 are stable using memory try it! (passed 1500% HCI memtest, left google stress test will try it today 2 hours (under Linux using virtualbox under windows))
VCCSA : 1.232V( Auto value when enable XMP1 even at 2400 MHz)
VCCIO : 1.18 V, 0.05V less than VCCSA according to Asus guide (Less than that I am not stable)

I think it is good.

6900K 4.2 Ghz 1.271V

I think my System is ready for the VOLTA GPU (to replace my GTX 780)
btw volta gpu will be released Q3 2017 instead of 2018, this what I read on some news.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> Hey guys. Please help me Overclock my 6900k to 4.2 ))) i dont know how
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Only know LLC Vcore ) please


First, using adaptive mode, you cannot go under 1.271V (I read somewhere that this is normal concerning intel architecture for the 6900K)
Example if you put 1.2V with adaptive mode, CPU-Z will shows 1.271V, higher than 1.271V, it will be the same in CPU-Z.
I recommend using adaptive mode for daily use.

6900K, should do easily 4.2 GHZ.
back all your settings in bios to default and keep them auto.
-> sync all core : 42
-> change voltage mode to adaptive.
-> set it: 1.271V

The only software I trust for stability for the CPU is the OCCT large data set.
if you pass OCCT:CPU large data set for 3 hours with report without error, it is stable. (keep your eyes on temperature, OCCT with 6900K generate a lot of heat)

if not, increase the voltage, don't go over 1.3V, 6900K generate huge heat comparing to 6800K (15 Degree C average more than 6800K)
I didn't touch the LLC or VCCIN (all on auto, and VCCIN 1.91V on auto)
hope I helped you.


----------



## djgar

^^^

@Madness11: When setting adaptive to 1.271 make sure it's the Turbo volts that are set to 1.271 and leave offset in Auto. You should fill your rig and have it in your sig - what's your cooling? That determines a great extent of your OC life.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> ^^^
> 
> @Madness11: When setting adaptive to 1.271 make sure it's the Turbo volts that are set to 1.271 and leave offset in Auto. You should fill your rig and have it in your sig - what's your cooling? That determines a great extent of your OC life.


Exacly, only adaptive and nott adaptive+ offset, don't touch the offset, you will damage your cpu within seconds, please use only adaptive not adaptive +offset, anything written in offset don't touch it, offset 1.271 means you will add + 1.271v, you will burn it, please be careful, 6900k needs at least a water cooler 240mm with good thermal paste like mx-4, don't go above 80. Degree with stress test


----------



## Madness11

I m scare with offset )) i try with Manual and 1.25-1.27V and 4.2 or 4.3 ))) i m using Kraken X62 its enough ?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Exacly, only adaptive and nott adaptive+ offset, don't touch the offset, you will damage your cpu within seconds, please use only adaptive not adaptive +offset, anything written in offset don't touch it, offset 1.271 means you will add + 1.271v, you will burn it, please be careful, 6900k needs at least a water cooler 240mm with good thermal paste like mx-4, don't go above 80. Degree with stress test


offset means offset and additional means additional unless they don't.









To say that some of the verbiage is confusing there is an understatement. Many of us have become numb to it, but to any and all BIOS UI writers - that little box saying "target maximum voltage" (or some equivalent) is really helpful/essential in this context to ensure people aren't adding 1.2 + 1.2.

Yes please, more of those.

Of course the BIOS often does other checking (producing yellow, red or purple values that are "dangerous", but these are sometimes hit-or-miss and don't allow you to compare the value to an Intel spec or other guidelines that says "don't use more than 1.3v on the cache or the current could cook it under extreme load".

Ok, so I am adding an offset, what is the base? What is my VID in the case of core? There's still room for improvement to be sure.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> I m scare with offset )) i try with Manual and 1.25-1.27V and 4.2 or 4.3 ))) i m using Kraken X62 its enough ?


BTW, if you are speaking of core voltage, 4.2/4.3 at 1.27 would be a surprisingly good chip. I'd expect you are going to need more than that by the time you've run some longer more stressful tests.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, I didn't change any voltage during the whole tests, in fact I was wondering how come I didn't have to (due to any kind of instability).
> But I did increase them a little bit this night, a couple of hours ago (like I said I've had some The Division issues and I've even stopped playing it).
> So, the values are (including the modified ones):
> 
> Core clock = 4.3
> Cache clock = 3.6
> Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 66C on OCCT
> VCCIN = 1.890v
> LLC = 6
> vCore = 1.285 > 1.295 (added offset + adaptive 1.285)
> vCache = 1.200 > 1.220 (offset)
> VCCSA = 0.976 > 0.984 (weirdest, from 0.020 to 0.090 offset and such a small increment only)
> VCCIO = 1.075 > 1.095
> RAM clock & timings = 32GB 3200 14-14-14-24 1T
> vDIMM = 1.350V
> 
> Played a couple of h with the increased voltages at Mass Effect Andromeda and there was no issue this time (but I've played MEA yesterday evening with the previous voltages as well, all good)


Hi, it's me again








After I was "kinda stable" for about a week, playing some games once in a while this evening it didn't wanna load into windows anymore.
I mean the Windows was loading but then, just before the logon page the video signal went off, tried 3 times.
The Linux Mint however was working (dual boot).
But in the end I've just loaded the optimised defaults and windows 10 it's working.
What could it be, what do you suggest me to do?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, it's me again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I was "kinda stable" for about a week, playing some games once in a while this evening it didn't wanna load into windows anymore.
> I mean the Windows was loading but then, just before the logon page the video signal went off, tried 3 times.
> The Linux Mint however was working (dual boot).
> But in the end I've just loaded the optimised defaults and windows 10 it's working.
> What could it be, what do you suggest me to do?


No blue screen message?

Can be anything, but when you are "close to stable" you start seeing watchdog timeouts or kernel sync complaints in the blue screen.

black screen for me usually means memory corruption.

That said, your core voltage is on the low side of what I would need for 4.3 and I have a chip running at 4.4 (1.34 adaptive - hits 1.36 now and then according to Aida).

Same tedious advice as always - try to isolate your OC and get stable with core, or cache or memory and then restore the other ones... They will interact of course, but sometimes you find something you didn't see OCing one at a time.

FWIW - "memory corruption" can mean cache corruption. Mine requires .250 offset on cache reach rock-solid, survive anything stability at 3.6.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, it's me again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I was "kinda stable" for about a week, playing some games once in a while this evening it didn't wanna load into windows anymore.
> I mean the Windows was loading but then, just before the logon page the video signal went off, tried 3 times.
> The Linux Mint however was working (dual boot).
> But in the end I've just loaded the optimised defaults and windows 10 it's working.
> What could it be, what do you suggest me to do?
> 
> 
> 
> No blue screen message?
> 
> Can be anything, but when you are "close to stable" you start seeing watchdog timeouts or kernel sync complaints in the blue screen.
> 
> black screen for me usually means memory corruption.
> 
> That said, your core voltage is on the low side of what I would need for 4.3 and I have a chip running at 4.4 (1.34 adaptive - hits 1.36 now and then according to Aida).
> 
> Same tedious advice as always - try to isolate your OC and get stable with core, or cache or memory and then restore the other ones... They will interact of course, but sometimes you find something you didn't see OCing one at a time.
> 
> FWIW - "memory corruption" can mean cache corruption. Mine requires .250 offset on cache reach rock-solid, survive anything stability at 3.6.
Click to expand...

But I did, 4h of OCCT large data for the core
And it was even lower, 1.285v, now it's 1.295v (1.285 adaptive + offset)
Hmm, might be the cache volt then (but even this one I've tested it with 2h of Aida cache and 500-550% coverage of Hci with even lower voltage)
And no, it was only a black screen (lack of video signal), no watchdog or blue screen, it even shut down when I pushed the power button (twice).
The Linux mint booted but the windows not.

Edit:
But it could be the vccsa as well as it handles the pcie devices also, right?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> But I did, 4h of OCCT large data for the core
> And it was even lower, 1.285v, now it's 1.295v (1.285 adaptive + offset)
> Hmm, might be the cache volt then (but even this one I've tested it with 2h of Aida cache and 500-550% coverage of Hci with even lower voltage)
> And no, it was only a black screen (lack of video signal), no watchdog or blue screen, it even shut down when I pushed the power button (twice).
> The Linux mint booted but the windows not.
> 
> Edit:
> But it could be the vccsa as well as it handles the pcie devices also, right?


I've never found anything in windows that finds cache/memory issues as quickly as stressapp in linux. Issues that show up in minutes to an hour or so of stressapp show up in days or more in windows as random crashes or corruption (eventually). I don't bother trying to find memory issues in windows.

unresponsive power button just confirms what you already knew - its locked up... As far as why, it can be either memory/cache or core.

regarding PCIe, in theory the System Agent definitely interacts with PCIe, but (and maybe someone who's read more specifics on BW can correct me if I am wrong), empirically, I've not seen any interaction with lower or higher SA and PCIe devices.

I have, in my RVE system, 2 1080ti, 10GbE (540T2 significant power hog) and m.2.

I've had issues with the prior memory kit (128G 3000CL14) and needing more SA, but not the current kit (3200CL14). Prior kit required 1.2 and current has been running 0.92 SA for the last week under punishing compute load and less punishing, but still harsh BF1 load without issue.

At no point did I find that SA was causing me issues with any of those PCIe devices. At all points stressapp showed me what was stable and not within 10 minutes usually, but I'd run them for an hour and occasionally have to add 10mV here or there in response to a correctable error detected.


----------



## arrow0309

Ok, so I won't bother that much for the sa anymore since it was stable at 0.976 > 0.984
The cache yes, I may increase it a little more.
About the vcore do you recommend the one and only adaptive (1.295v) set and no offset or it doesn't matter?
About the Gsat, I did 14400 s (4h) in two run.
First one before I was starting with the core (I did the ram before all, at 3200 cl14, 1T and 1.35v)

And then, when I've finished with these (original) voltages:

Core clock = 4.3
Cache clock = 3.6
Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 66C on OCCT
VCCIN = 1.880v
LLC = 6
vCore = 1.285
vCache = 1.200
VCCSA = 0.976, 0.020 offset
VCCIO = 1.075
RAM clock & timings = 32GB 3200 14-14-14-24 1T
vDIMM = 1.350V

I first did 8h realbench and then another 4H of Gsat.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Ok, so I won't bother that much for the sa anymore since it was stable at 0.976 > 0.984
> The cache yes, I may increase it a little more.
> About the vcore do you recommend the one and only adaptive (1.295v) set and no offset or it doesn't matter?
> About the Gsat, I did 14400 s (4h) in two run.
> First one before I was starting with the core (I did the ram before all, at 3200 cl14, 1T and 1.35v)
> 
> And then, when I've finished with these (original) voltages:
> 
> Core clock = 4.3
> Cache clock = 3.6
> Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 66C on OCCT
> VCCIN = 1.880v
> LLC = 6
> vCore = 1.285
> vCache = 1.200
> VCCSA = 0.976, 0.020 offset
> VCCIO = 1.075
> RAM clock & timings = 32GB 3200 14-14-14-24 1T
> vDIMM = 1.350V
> 
> I first did 8h realbench and then another 4H of Gsat.


I've just reloaded the above voltages and clocks (those I've tested before) and windows is booting fine now.
The linux's grub boot selector however disappeared since I've reset the bios


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I've just reloaded the above voltages and clocks (those I've tested before) and windows is booting fine now.
> The linux's grub boot selector however disappeared since I've reset the bios


Later this night I'll try a long Hci run (more than 1000%) with these settings that worked for 500%
Then will see


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I've just reloaded the above voltages and clocks (those I've tested before) and windows is booting fine now.
> The linux's grub boot selector however disappeared since I've reset the bios


bios will lose boot device randomly I've found when you are changing the setup - I frequently have to go back to the boot priority and re-select the UEFI partition to get to the grub partition that allows me to get to windows or linux.

UEFI is full of "features" like that. Very powerful, but still "buggy" as far as I am concerned.


----------



## arrow0309

Yeah, I'd imagine something similar
Right now I'm gonna do a little Battlefront @150% resolution and later the Hci run
Let's see

The easiest way to set the Hci (without a lot of windows and exe's)?


----------



## chibi

You can try the long way and OC one parameter at a time. Test for a period of time, then move onto next if no further issues occur.


----------



## PowerK

I'm going to install GSkill 3200 14-14-14-34 and go through some stress testing over this weekend.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

I just found a new issue with my board/cpu when i first got it i had problems running coretemp my screen would go off i formated but that didnt fix it but it was the only app had any problems stock or overclocked, i was just trying to run SiSoftware Sandra and just saw it do it again. I thought svid was causing it but just had it happen again when i opened coretemp.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I'm going to install GSkill 3200 14-14-14-34 and go through some stress testing over this weekend.


Good, don't forget to share your every result.
Yesterday (evening) I played a couple of hours (Battlefront) and then run the Hci with the previous (lower) voltages.
I saw the cache was as low as 1.18v in full load.
But somehow I forgot to put the windows to high performance so I've just found the pc in standby this morning.
The test (multiple) runs were somewhere over 600%
Will gonna try again this night.


----------



## mus1mus

Just one of the good chips on a lot of 7.


----------



## Silent Scone

No 4.5 ones then.


----------



## mus1mus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No 4.5 ones then.


Got stuck with this one while comparing it with Ryzen.









4.5 @ 1.37 on this exact same chip.









And for those interested:


Spoiler: Not that everyone will be


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Just one of the good chips on a lot of 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you pass 3 hours OCCT without error on large data set, it will be a gold chip and stable, I don't trust real bench.


----------



## Silent Scone

I meant more RB as we spoke about before. Super Position is very much GPU bound, so a Ryzen comparison is a little fruitless


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> if you pass 3 hours OCCT without error on large data set, it will be a gold chip and stable, I don't trust real bench.


Not trusting RB is normally PEBCAK


----------



## mus1mus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I meant more RB as we spoke about before. Super Position is very much GPU bound, so a Ryzen comparison is a little fruitless


Give me an hour.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> if you pass 3 hours OCCT without error on large data set, it will be a *gold chip* and stable, I don't trust real bench.


Not saying it is.

EDIT:

Yeah, it took more than an hour. COZ, something did show up.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> if you pass 3 hours OCCT without error on large data set, it will be a gold chip and stable, I don't trust real bench.


Yeah, 4h is what I'm gonna test it always
As for the RB it could work in the end to confirm your stable OC, 8h though.

@mus1mus
Why don't you use the latest RB version?
Btw:
How much ram voltage and cache voltage for your setup?


----------



## mus1mus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, 4h is what I'm gonna test it always
> As for the RB it could work in the end to confirm your stable OC, 8h though.
> 
> @mus1mus
> Why don't you use the latest RB version?


I find it more stressfull. Or am I wrong?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, 4h is what I'm gonna test it always
> As for the RB it could work in the end to confirm your stable OC, 8h though.
> 
> @mus1mus
> Why don't you use the latest RB version?


before I sold my 6800k and buy the 6900k, I used only Real Bench, IBT, P95 to test the stability

I have my CPU (6800K) at 4.2 GHz at 1.32 V and passed 8 hours RB, 20 runs very high IBT, 8 hours P95

But failed in OCCT large data set within 15 min.

I ignored OCCT, and begin playing Battlefield 1, randomly crash freeze my PC within 10-30min , sometimes after 40 min.

I increased the voltage to be able to pass 3 hours on OCCT large data set without a report with error detected, and when passed it, my PC did not freeze or crash anymore, for 2 months in any games or any application, even 5 hours non stop in Battlefield 1.

my conclusion is that people are afraid from OCCT because it gives them the reality about their CPU OC capability.
OCCT large data set 3 hours (according to OCCT website) without error -> CPU OC perfect stable (I am talking only about CPU, not ram or cache OC).

this is my opinion.

With my 6900k i didn't run any software.
I put occt large data set 3 hours 1.271v 4.2 ghz, i passed without error, cpu oc done.
1 month didn't have any crash or freeze in any games or application, occt is the king


----------



## mus1mus

Depends on how you test your system. With X99, I am not skipping each subsystem. You have to test the Core, Cache and Memory individually. After that, pretty easy to pass OCCT.

These will be doing Video Editing works 24/7 just to give you an idea.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, 4h is what I'm gonna test it always
> As for the RB it could work in the end to confirm your stable OC, 8h though.
> 
> @mus1mus
> Why don't you use the latest RB version?
> 
> 
> 
> before I sold my 6800k and buy the 6900k, I used only Real Bench, IBT, P95 to test the stability
> 
> I have my CPU (6800K) at 4.2 GHz at 1.32 V and passed 8 hours RB, 20 runs very high IBT, 8 hours P95
> 
> But failed in OCCT large data set within 15 min.
> 
> I ignored OCCT, and begin playing Battlefield 1, randomly crash freeze my PC within 10-30min , sometimes after 40 min.
> 
> I increased the voltage to be able to pass 3 hours on OCCT large data set without a report with error detected, and when passed it, my PC did not freeze or crash anymore, for 2 months in any games or any application, even 5 hours non stop in Battlefield 1.
> 
> my conclusion is that people are afraid from OCCT because it gives them the reality about their CPU OC capability.
> OCCT large data set 3 hours (according to OCCT website) without error -> CPU OC perfect stable (I am talking only about CPU, not ram or cache OC).
> 
> this is my opinion.
> 
> With my 6900k i didn't run any software.
> I put occt large data set 3 hours 1.271v 4.2 ghz, i passed without error, cpu oc done.
> 1 month didn't have any crash or freeze in any games or application, occt is the king
Click to expand...

you know occt only uses about 2600megs of memory where you use prime95 do the same test and use much more memory to make sure its much more stable.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> before I sold my 6800k and buy the 6900k, I used only Real Bench, IBT, P95 to test the stability
> 
> I have my CPU (6800K) at 4.2 GHz at 1.32 V and passed 8 hours RB, 20 runs very high IBT, 8 hours P95
> 
> But failed in OCCT large data set within 15 min.
> 
> I ignored OCCT, and begin playing Battlefield 1, randomly crash freeze my PC within 10-30min , sometimes after 40 min.
> 
> I increased the voltage to be able to pass 3 hours on OCCT large data set without a report with error detected, and when passed it, my PC did not freeze or crash anymore, for 2 months in any games or any application, even 5 hours non stop in Battlefield 1.
> 
> my conclusion is that people are afraid from OCCT because it gives them the reality about their CPU OC capability.
> OCCT large data set 3 hours (according to OCCT website) without error -> CPU OC perfect stable (I am talking only about CPU, not ram or cache OC).
> 
> this is my opinion.
> 
> With my 6900k i didn't run any software.
> I put occt large data set 3 hours 1.271v 4.2 ghz, i passed without error, cpu oc done.
> 1 month didn't have any crash or freeze in any games or application, occt is the king


I don't have any issues with stability, nor have I ever used OCCT. Sounds like more a case of not knowing where and why to apply additional voltage. I also have 130 hours in BF1 on record with CPU stability tested in RB.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Ok, so I won't bother that much for the sa anymore since it was stable at 0.976 > 0.984
> The cache yes, I may increase it a little more.
> About the vcore do you recommend the one and only adaptive (1.295v) set and no offset or it doesn't matter?
> About the Gsat, I did 14400 s (4h) in two run.
> First one before I was starting with the core (I did the ram before all, at 3200 cl14, 1T and 1.35v)
> 
> And then, when I've finished with these (original) voltages:
> 
> Core clock = 4.3
> Cache clock = 3.6
> Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 66C on OCCT
> VCCIN = 1.880v
> LLC = 6
> vCore = 1.285
> vCache = 1.200
> VCCSA = 0.976, 0.020 offset
> VCCIO = 1.075
> RAM clock & timings = 32GB 3200 14-14-14-24 1T
> vDIMM = 1.350V
> 
> I first did 8h realbench and then another 4H of Gsat.


Starting from these values & voltages I wanna try to OC to 4.4ghz, 3400 ram (same timings cl14) and 3700 uncore.
What order do you advise me to start with and eventually what vcore, ram and cache voltage?


----------



## arrow0309

Trying right now with OCCT for the 4.4
After a few adjustments I have now 1.92v vccin, 1.1 vccio, 1.24v cache and 1.364 vcore..
Tried with less but I've had errors (no blue screen), with 1.348 I got an error on core 3 after 18'.
Now it's been 40' and running, max package 73C.


----------



## PowerK

Finished stress testing with VCCSA = 0.960V and VCCIO = 1.024V for new memory. 4 hours of GSAT and 700% of HCI MemTest passed.

A quick comparison with previous memory. FireStrike score was slightly increased as well.

*2400 10-12-12-28 1T*


*3200 14-14-14-34 1T*


*2400 10-12-12-28 1T*


*3200 14-14-14-34 1T*


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Finished stress testing with VCCSA = 0.960V and VCCIO = 1.024V for new memory. 4 hours of GSAT and 700% of HCI MemTest passed.


Did 1T require additional voltage or tuning?

I've not been able to get there, but I've only tried a few times. Eventually, I get a GSAT error.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Did 1T require additional voltage or tuning?
> 
> I've not been able to get there, but I've only tried a few times. Eventually, I get a GSAT error.


Hi cekim
When I installed these new memory, I set 1T from the very beginning. 0.960V VCCSA and 1.024V VCCIO values were what I thought good as a starting point. And it just worked and saved me many hours of trial & error. These Gskills are plug & play. Heh








If I'm not mistaken, are you not running 128GB set of memory ? If correct, tuning those modules would be quite different from small ones like mine (32GB).


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Trying right now with OCCT for the 4.4
> After a few adjustments I have now 1.92v vccin, 1.1 vccio, 1.24v cache and 1.364 vcore..
> Tried with less but I've had errors (no blue screen), with 1.348 I got an error on core 3 after 18'.
> Now it's been 40' and running, max package 73C.


In the end I got an error after 2h 21'



Any tip without increasing the vcore?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Finished stress testing with VCCSA = 0.960V and VCCIO = 1.024V for new memory. 4 hours of GSAT and 700% of HCI MemTest passed.
> 
> A quick comparison with previous memory. FireStrike score was slightly increased as well.
> 
> *2400 10-12-12-28 1T*
> 
> 
> *3200 14-14-14-34 1T*
> 
> 
> *2400 10-12-12-28 1T*
> 
> 
> *3200 14-14-14-34 1T*


Nice score, what cpu & cache clock?
My memory will always reach a higher write above all but I can see yours is better in write
And I still don't get how come your (expensive) 6950K's always shows a significant memory bandwidth improvement (well, some of them)
Still need to figure if it's just a better IMC or some settings / voltages also can make a difference.









Edit:
See the clocks, my bad
Will try with the same clocks soon


----------



## chibi

6950X with extra cores and increased cache help to score higher in Aida's memory benchmark.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi cekim
> When I installed these new memory, I set 1T from the very beginning. 0.960V VCCSA and 1.024V VCCIO values were what I thought good as a starting point. And it just worked and saved me many hours of trial & error. These Gskills are plug & play. Heh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, are you not running 128GB set of memory ? If correct, tuning those modules would be quite different from small ones like mine (32GB).


Correct. TridentZ 3200CL14 128G

1T so far has been a no-go. I've been moving things around though, so I'll have to try again.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hi cekim
> When I installed these new memory, I set 1T from the very beginning. 0.960V VCCSA and 1.024V VCCIO values were what I thought good as a starting point. And it just worked and saved me many hours of trial & error. These Gskills are plug & play. Heh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, are you not running 128GB set of memory ? If correct, tuning those modules would be quite different from small ones like mine (32GB).


How are you adjusting your settings? Are you using Ai Tweaker or directly in your BIOS? I don't have AI Tweaker installed because it's more trouble then it's worth but I'm not exactly sure where in the BIOS those changes should be made. Were running almost identical systems except I'm not sure if your using 32 or 64GB of ram. I have 4 X 16 GB sticks. If possible can you give me a screen shot of where your making your adjustments.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> In the end I got an error after 2h 21'
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any tip without increasing the vcore?
> 
> Nice score, what cpu & cache clock?
> My memory will always reach a higher write above all but I can see yours is better in write
> And I still don't get how come your (expensive) 6950K's always shows a significant memory bandwidth improvement (well, some of them)
> Still need to figure if it's just a better IMC or some settings / voltages also can make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> See the clocks, my bad
> Will try with the same clocks soon


Managed to finally get it OCCT 4h stable at 4.4Ghz with 1.37v (cache 3.6 for now)
I think the temps are OK











Next step is either the cache at 3700 or the ram at 3400 though I don't quite know which one first


----------



## arrow0309

For the cache at 3700 I've used 1.28v and here's the 2h aida64 cache first:



And then an over 800% coverage with Hci 5.0 (it took me over 6h to do it):



Now I'm gonna push the ram some more, starting with an easy 3400 at 1.4 or 1.45v


----------



## arrow0309

And only a small improvement so far:



Maybe it's even enough for a 6 core


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> How are you adjusting your settings? Are you using Ai Tweaker or directly in your BIOS? I don't have AI Tweaker installed because it's more trouble then it's worth but I'm not exactly sure where in the BIOS those changes should be made. Were running almost identical systems except I'm not sure if your using 32 or 64GB of ram. I have 4 X 16 GB sticks. If possible can you give me a screen shot of where your making your adjustments.


I'm currently away from home.
There's nothing special I do with BIOS settings. I always adjust settings in BIOS. I don't like relying on Windows software for adjusting BIOS settings.

Previously, I was using 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28 (at 1T) (SK Hynix MFR) since when I bought 6950X in June last year. It took me couple of weeks to find stable settings with those Corsair set. Recently, changed my memory to G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34 (at 1T) (Samsung B-die, I think), and the G.Skill is pretty much plug & play. VCCSA and VCCIO are not much different from those previous Corsair. In fact, VCCSA is slightly lower.
Below is my 24/7 overclock settings:
Core clock = 4.4GHz
Cache clock = 3.7GHz
Highest CPU package temp during stress test = 69C (during OCCT)
VCCIN = 1.95V (I have not tried any lower, to be honest)
LLC = Level 5
vCore = 1.360V
vCache = 1.250V
VCCSA = 0.960V
VCCIO = 1.024V
RAM clock & timings = 32GB DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34 1T
vDIMM = 1.350V

With settings above, system is rock stable and has passed:
- 4 hours of GSAT
- 8 hours of OCCT
- 4 hours of ADIA64 cache stress test
- 700% coverage of HCI MemTest
- 8 hours of RealBench


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> And only a small improvement so far:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's even enough for a 6 core


Depends how capable the kit is with lower sub timings. Miniscule differences in reality


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Depends how capable the kit is with lower sub timings. Miniscule differences in reality


Here is a quick cinebench R15 (4.4 core, 3.7 cache 3200 c14 ram):



I tried a couple of h ago to test the ram at 3400 (same above clocks) maintaining the 14-14-14-34-1T timings at 1.40 (dram volt.) and then at 1.42, 1.44 and 1.45v (last one with a little 30mv vccsa increase)
Didn't manage to get rid of gsat errors however.
Same 4.4 @1.37v and 3.7cache @1.28v
Any hint to stabilise it at 3400 without any higher than 1.45v?


----------



## mus1mus

3466 seems to be working without any issues on mine at 1.45V. Might try that as well.
Adjust the timings like 14-15-14-34-1T and you will need much lower VDimm.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

Told you lol
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-x-series-processor-family-and-x299-chipset-announced-at-computex-may-30th.html


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Told you lol
> http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-x-series-processor-family-and-x299-chipset-announced-at-computex-may-30th.html


Looks like a re-hash of the same "leak" that's been around for a few weeks.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Looks like a re-hash of the same "leak" that's been around for a few weeks.


Don't worry, it's the same thing I was throwing at JP on another thread a week ago (got confused which thread with this second "leak" post







)
We're wishing it will be true, June/July release will work in really well for me...


----------



## Driller au

@ arrow0309
A quick question about your cpu package temps when stress testing,
In HWinfo do you get the highest temp say 75 deg than the next reading a second later can be the lowest say 69 deg ?
What i have been doing is once i start a run and everything is warmed up i re-set HWinfo and use the average temp as a guide as the highest / lowest temp is only up for a second or less, is this OK
Thanks


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Hello everyone
I can oc my ram 2933 14-16-16-31 or 3200 16-18-18-38 both are stable
Which of the two do you think is better?
Thank u


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> @ arrow0309
> A quick question about your cpu package temps when stress testing,
> In HWinfo do you get the highest temp say 75 deg than the next reading a second later can be the lowest say 69 deg ?
> What i have been doing is once i start a run and everything is warmed up i re-set HWinfo and use the average temp as a guide as the highest / lowest temp is only up for a second or less, is this OK
> Thanks


I have one called cpu package then PPO they seem to run nearly same load but PPO can idle 4-5c lower.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> 3466 seems to be working without any issues on mine at 1.45V. Might try that as well.
> Adjust the timings like 14-15-14-34-1T and you will need much lower VDimm.


Maybe, fist I have to stabilise it at 4.4, yesterday evening I tried a RB run and an error showed up after an hour (a windows error, the Luxmark stopped working) and I really don't know if I still have to increase the vcore, vcache or vccio / vccsa








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> @ arrow0309
> A quick question about your cpu package temps when stress testing,
> In HWinfo do you get the highest temp say 75 deg than the next reading a second later can be the lowest say 69 deg ?
> What i have been doing is once i start a run and everything is warmed up i re-set HWinfo and use the average temp as a guide as the highest / lowest temp is only up for a second or less, is this OK
> Thanks


I didn't really notice, not so much of a difference
But if it works for you you can be fine


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Hello everyone
> I can oc my ram 2933 14-16-16-31 or 3200 16-18-18-38 both are stable
> Which of the two do you think is better?
> Thank u


Why don't you just run some benchmark and decide for yourself ? It's as simple as running a memory in AIDA64.

That being said, 2933 is a weird clock. Not sure why you would want to run at the clock but...
DDR4-2933 CL14
1/1466500000*10^9*14 = 9.55ns

DDR4-3200 CL16
1/1600000000*10^9*16 = 10ns

They both seem about the same. But you should benchmark and see the real world difference.

As a side note,
I thought DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28 would be faster than DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34. But benchmark tells otherwise (see my previous post in this thread).
But seriously, IMHO, performance difference between system memory are negligible in real world, be it 2133, 2400 or 3200. Tuning uncore and DDR4.... I would rather spend my time else where.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Why don't you just run some benchmark and decide for yourself ? It's as simple as running a memory in AIDA64.
> 
> That being said, 2933 is a weird clock. Not sure why you would want to run at the clock but...
> DDR4-2933 CL14
> 1/1466500000*10^9*14 = 9.55ns
> 
> DDR4-3200 CL16
> 1/1600000000*10^9*16 = 10ns
> 
> They both seem about the same. But you should benchmark and see the real world difference.
> 
> As a side note,
> I thought DDR4-2400 10-12-12-28 would be faster than DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34. But benchmark tells otherwise (see my previous post in this thread).
> But seriously, IMHO, performance difference between system memory are negligible in real world, be it 2133, 2400 or 3200. Tuning uncore and DDR4.... I would rather spend my time else where.


Thank u for your reply
My board has frequency option of 2933, i can't get 3000 c14 stable, according to aida, read wirte copy 2933 c14 faster than 3200 c16, but i asked your opinions , but i think 2933 c14 better


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Told you lol
> http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-x-series-processor-family-and-x299-chipset-announced-at-computex-may-30th.html


let's see if INtel can price that 12 core somewhere in the green-yellow zone, unlike the 6950X which was off the scale!


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> let's see if INtel can price that 12 core somewhere in the green-yellow zone, unlike the 6950X which was off the scale!


Heh, I wouldn't count on it. You can likely expect the 10 core to be in the $1,000 bracket


----------



## arrow0309

I'd like a good overclocking 8c and a Rampage VI Gene


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> let's see if INtel can price that 12 core somewhere in the green-yellow zone, unlike the 6950X which was off the scale!


AMD is going to need to release a 16core quad channel memory "prosumer" chip between Ryzen and Naples to rationalize Intel's shenanigans.

I just want my 5GHz 16 core 1.21GW TDP chip dammit...


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I tested 2933c14 and 3200c16 both on sisoftware sandra ram benchmark and the 3200c16 is faster
Speed is king
This formula frequency/cas is not true


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I tested 2933c14 and 3200c16 both on sisoftware sandra ram benchmark and the 3200c16 is faster
> Speed is king
> This formula frequency/cas is not true


Depends on your app, most real applications benefit from lower latency random access. Synthetics are doing large, linear address walk transfers that DDR controllers love.

Totally random access means opening a new page, row/col address, etc... big overhead compared to address+1


----------



## xenkw0n

I don't mean to be that guy and while I did plan on reading this entire thread in the near future since I have an X99 system with a 6800k, I've been lurking more in the X58 thread since I've been tweaking my old computer.

The reason I'm posting here is to find out about how common it is for current gen ASUS X99 boards to just up and DIE out of nowhere? I've had an X99 A-II running since late June last year and just last night it randomly shut down on me. Tested memory and even have another power supply that I could use to test with but same result, computer just shuts off within a second of turning it on. The board is dead.

How common is this? Should I expect it to die randomly in the future once ASUS returns it from RMA?


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Maybe, fist I have to stabilise it at 4.4, yesterday evening I tried a RB run and an error showed up after an hour (a windows error, the Luxmark stopped working) and I really don't know if I still have to increase the vcore, vcache or vccio / vccsa


What version of RealBench are you using and have you experienced those LuxMark crashes before? When I was using the previous version (2.4x?), I would get LuxMark crashes randomly some time into my benchmarks, like what you are describing. I read online some people say it is an incompatibility with Pascal drivers, or with certain monitoring programs, etc., but then I also read others saying that it is simply a sign of instability in your overclock. I really was never sure what to believe, but I could never fix the crashes.

This weekend, I updated to the newest RB v 2.54, and the behavior has changed. Now, the RB Stress Test is completely unusable, as LuxMark crashes instantly as soon as the test starts, even on completely stock settings (no overclock)! It also crashes instantly when I run the Open CL benchmark test, whereas in the old version I could pass that one without a LuxMark crash. So again, RB Stress Test is completely unusable, LuxMark crashes occur instantly, no matter what settings I use, even all stock settings which I have never experienced any instability with during normal usage.

I can run the RB Encoding benchmark, however. I can also pass the custom x264 stress test, and long runs of OCCT L, and Aida64 with all tests checked (CPU, FPU, Cache, Memory, Disk, GPU... I think they call this "Full Suite"?). So at this point I personally am very suspicious of the validity of a LuxMark crash in RealBench...

Let me know what you think.

P.S. I think @Bal3Wolf was experiencing these LuxMark crashes recently as well?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> I don't mean to be that guy and while I did plan on reading this entire thread in the near future since I have an X99 system with a 6800k, I've been lurking more in the X58 thread since I've been tweaking my old computer.
> 
> The reason I'm posting here is to find out about how common it is for current gen ASUS X99 boards to just up and DIE out of nowhere? I've had an X99 A-II running since late June last year and just last night it randomly shut down on me. Tested memory and even have another power supply that I could use to test with but same result, computer just shuts off within a second of turning it on. The board is dead.
> 
> How common is this? Should I expect it to die randomly in the future once ASUS returns it from RMA?


Had an x99 commit sepuku... RMA'd its replacement has been humming along for about year now 27/4 under decent load.

Have 6 X99 boards total, all running 24/7 OC'd to some degree or the other (dead board was not prior to dying).

Can it happen? Yep.
Do I lose sleep at night wonder if at any moment one of these boards will fail? Nope.

Check your cables and connectors, just to be sure you don't have a short elsewhere, but I'd RMA it and not worry about it. So far as I know, X99 boards are no more prone to failure than anything else.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Really VCCSA/VCCIO are crazy voltages
Oc ram 3200 c16
Tried 1.15/1.1, 1.15/1.12, .13, .14 ,.15
Tried 1.16/1.16, 1.17/1.17, ... not stable until 1.2/1.2 passed 1500% hci memtest
Today i put vccio auto: 0.936V, VCCSA 1, 1.1 not stable,
Now VCCIO 0.936V VCCSA 1.12 V stable on hci memtest, these voltages are a lots of pain, but this is perfect for me


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Had an x99 commit sepuku... RMA'd its replacement has been humming along for about year now 27/4 under decent load.
> 
> Have 6 X99 boards total, all running 24/7 OC'd to some degree or the other (dead board was not prior to dying).
> 
> Can it happen? Yep.
> Do I lose sleep at night wonder if at any moment one of these boards will fail? Nope.
> 
> Check your cables and connectors, just to be sure you don't have a short elsewhere, but I'd RMA it and not worry about it. So far as I know, X99 boards are no more prone to failure than anything else.


Well good to know it doesn't seem more common. I just got concerned when I saw a lot of reviews on Newegg talking about similar scenarios (I know, I know, still seemed like a lot of people having the board randomly die after x amount of months).

I went through the song and dance with ASUS already and got them to give me a shipping label so I won't have to pay anything and this way when I get home from work today and try setting it up outside of the case with minimal components if it still doesn't work I can quickly throw it in a box and have it shipped off.

It was very odd, just shut off randomly while watching a movie. Never had a board die like that before especially considering I only had a very light overclock going, 4.1ghz core, 3.4ghz cache, 2800mhz memory at CL14 32gb, voltages on adaptive maxes out at 1.2v core, 1.06v cache, 1.24v dram and 1.01 VCCSA, way below what would be considered a stressful overclock for the motherboard.

EDIT:: Oh and another thing, ASUS claims they have no new X99 A-II's in stock to ship me a replacement so now I have to wait for it to ship out, get fixed and be shipped back until I can get my computer running again. How the hell can they not have stock on a current generation board?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> let's see if INtel can price that 12 core somewhere in the green-yellow zone, unlike the 6950X which was off the scale!


I predict $2,250 USD for 12c, hope we get cooler motherboards


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I predict $2,250 USD for 12c, hope we get cooler motherboards


You know Intel trolls these forums and just takes the highest prediction right?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> let's see if INtel can price that 12 core somewhere in the green-yellow zone, unlike the 6950X which was off the scale!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD is going to need to release a 16core quad channel memory "prosumer" chip between Ryzen and Naples to rationalize Intel's shenanigans.
> 
> I just want my 5GHz 16 core 1.21GW TDP chip dammit...
Click to expand...

Yeaaah








And Intel Protection Plan for free


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Maybe, fist I have to stabilise it at 4.4, yesterday evening I tried a RB run and an error showed up after an hour (a windows error, the Luxmark stopped working) and I really don't know if I still have to increase the vcore, vcache or vccio / vccsa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What version of RealBench are you using and have you experienced those LuxMark crashes before? When I was using the previous version (2.4x?), I would get LuxMark crashes randomly some time into my benchmarks, like what you are describing. I read online some people say it is an incompatibility with Pascal drivers, or with certain monitoring programs, etc., but then I also read others saying that it is simply a sign of instability in your overclock. I really was never sure what to believe, but I could never fix the crashes.
> 
> This weekend, I updated to the newest RB v 2.54, and the behavior has changed. Now, the RB Stress Test is completely unusable, as LuxMark crashes instantly as soon as the test starts, even on completely stock settings (no overclock)! It also crashes instantly when I run the Open CL benchmark test, whereas in the old version I could pass that one without a LuxMark crash. So again, RB Stress Test is completely unusable, LuxMark crashes occur instantly, no matter what settings I use, even all stock settings which I have never experienced any instability with during normal usage.
> 
> I can run the RB Encoding benchmark, however. I can also pass the custom x264 stress test, and long runs of OCCT L, and Aida64 with all tests checked (CPU, FPU, Cache, Memory, Disk, GPU... I think they call this "Full Suite"?). So at this point I personally am very suspicious of the validity of a LuxMark crash in RealBench...
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> P.S. I think @Bal3Wolf was experiencing these LuxMark crashes recently as well?
Click to expand...

New version crashes for me also on luxmark, I had more luck using the hwbot realbench version.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> You know Intel trolls these forums and just takes the highest prediction right?


I dare intel to put that price tag on that CPU, I want to see how many people will finally be fed up and switch to AMD only. I'll buy one if it's around 1K though.

Edit. I wanted to add that Skylake-E uses about half the cache compared to a 6950X, the CPU would significantly cost less with less cache. I'm going by the numbers of this rumor that lists a 13.75MB cache. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-x-series-processor-family-and-x299-chipset-announced-at-computex-may-30th.html


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> What version of RealBench are you using and have you experienced those LuxMark crashes before? When I was using the previous version (2.4x?), I would get LuxMark crashes randomly some time into my benchmarks, like what you are describing. I read online some people say it is an incompatibility with Pascal drivers, or with certain monitoring programs, etc., but then I also read others saying that it is simply a sign of instability in your overclock. I really was never sure what to believe, but I could never fix the crashes.
> 
> This weekend, I updated to the newest RB v 2.54, and the behavior has changed. Now, the RB Stress Test is completely unusable, as LuxMark crashes instantly as soon as the test starts, even on completely stock settings (no overclock)! It also crashes instantly when I run the Open CL benchmark test, whereas in the old version I could pass that one without a LuxMark crash. So again, RB Stress Test is completely unusable, LuxMark crashes occur instantly, no matter what settings I use, even all stock settings which I have never experienced any instability with during normal usage.
> 
> I can run the RB Encoding benchmark, however. I can also pass the custom x264 stress test, and long runs of OCCT L, and Aida64 with all tests checked (CPU, FPU, Cache, Memory, Disk, GPU... I think they call this "Full Suite"?). So at this point I personally am very suspicious of the validity of a LuxMark crash in RealBench...
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> P.S. I think @Bal3Wolf was experiencing these LuxMark crashes recently as well?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> New version crashes for me also on luxmark, I had more luck using the hwbot realbench version.


I've always used the latest RB versions with this 6850K (RC2, RC1 and the finale vers 2.54) and only had once this crash, at the beginning of my 4.3 overclocking but someone told me it should be a sign of instability as well so I increased the vcore and get rid of it.
Yesterday evening once again yeah, but even if I've passed 2h of aida cache and over 800% Hci I was feeling something was not 100% OK (even with the vccio / vccsa and some other things)
This evening I took advantage of the London's chilly weather and run another RB sesion (still in progress).
But first I've loaded the previous (4.3, cache 3.6) bios profile in order to get the lower vccsa, vccio, vccin anb vcache (I've posted a few pages back) and simply set the 4.4 cpu and 3.7 for the cache and I've slightly increased even more the vcore, from 1.370 to 1.375v and lowered by the same amount (5mv) the cache voltage (now it's ~ 1.26 in full load).
The result is good for now, more than 2.5h passed, hoping for the best:



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Really VCCSA/VCCIO are crazy voltages
> Oc ram 3200 c16
> Tried 1.15/1.1, 1.15/1.12, .13, .14 ,.15
> Tried 1.16/1.16, 1.17/1.17, ... not stable until 1.2/1.2 passed 1500% hci memtest
> Today i put vccio auto: 0.936V, VCCSA 1, 1.1 not stable,
> Now VCCIO 0.936V VCCSA 1.12 V stable on hci memtest, these voltages are a lots of pain, but this is perfect for me


Interesting combo's
And yeah, fine tuning these two voltages has been a pain in the arse with high speed ram since not only the Xmp but even the manual timing will set them (on Auto) at insane voltages (at least in my case, like almost 1.4v for the vccsa)
Like I said above, it seems I've found safer values lowering them as well


----------



## jsutter71

*G.Skill 4 X 16GB 3200 14-14-14-34*


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I dare intel to put that price tag on that CPU, I want to see how many people will finally be fed up and switch to AMD only. I'll buy one if it's around 1K though.
> 
> Edit. I wanted to add that Skylake-E uses about half the cache compared to a 6950X, the CPU would significantly cost less with less cache. I'm going by the numbers of this rumor that lists a 13.75MB cache. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-x-series-processor-family-and-x299-chipset-announced-at-computex-may-30th.html


careful what you wish for... The reality is there IS a market for high-clock rate, medium core count chips like the 6950x in the form of jobs that don't scale well beyond 8-12 cores.

My 6950x lays waste to my dual 2960v4 and 2696v3 (OC'd and u-code hacked to perform roughly on par with a V4) on such jobs - primarily because of the 4.x OC, but also because of the 3200 memory.

The high-core count chips have nothing to offer software that either isn't written to or structurally cannot take advantage of the cores and need GHz.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> careful what you wish for... The reality is there IS a market for high-clock rate, medium core count chips like the 6950x in the form of jobs that don't scale well beyond 8-12 cores.
> 
> My 6950x lays waste to my dual 2960v4 and 2696v3 (OC'd and u-code hacked to perform roughly on par with a V4) on such jobs - primarily because of the 4.x OC, but also because of the 3200 memory.
> 
> The high-core count chips have nothing to offer software that either isn't written to or structurally cannot take advantage of the cores and need GHz.


I gave my 6950X a good workout for a while using hand break.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I gave my 6950X a good workout for a while using hand break.


Not hand-brake but same here... It's been sucking in the amperes and pumping out the truth just fine for me.

Which is what has me concerned for pricing. I think it really will require AMD knee-capping them with a quad-channel memory 12-16core chip (16, pretty please?) @ 3.5GHz.

I really wish they could deliver 4.0-4.5GHz there, but I don't think either of them can do it with acceptable yield or TDP (to them, we obviously know there are those who are more than happy to deal with 250W of heat from thees chips).


----------



## mus1mus

When AMD FX is gunning for clocks, you guys say it's about IPC. Now that AMD can somewhat offer good IPC, you're crying foul for clocks.









AMD may have failed with their 14nm chips. But maybe they will get better.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> When AMD FX is gunning for clocks, you guys say it's about IPC. Now that AMD can somewhat offer good IPC, you're crying foul for clocks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD may have failed with their 14nm chips. But maybe they will get better.


I've always said I need both... I need all the GHz and I need all the cores...

AMD went for a RISC core with x86 glue to get all the clocks, but like Alpha and PPC before them, they could not produce the IPC, so Intel caught them in practical terms before their ad-copy ink dried.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> let's see if INtel can price that 12 core somewhere in the green-yellow zone, unlike the 6950X which was off the scale!


I hope so, I'd love to get my hands on another 8 or 10 core, not to say this [email protected] isn't doing well, I'm certainly not having the issues that I had with both my x99 setups.
But I still miss the 6900k though









I've got to build a new rig for myself or wife in July/August, so if it's released by then it'll be me getting it, might go full water for the first time too


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I tested 2933c14 and 3200c16 both on sisoftware sandra ram benchmark and the 3200c16 is faster
> Speed is king
> This formula frequency/cas is not true


But latency IS speed.
As @cekim said, it really seem to depend on applications.
Also, think about why... in many real world scenario, quad channel (256-bit bus wide) doesn't really provide tangible benefit over dual channel (128-bit).


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> *G.Skill 4 X 16GB 3200 14-14-14-34*


So, what did you do to improve your bandwidth?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> So, what did you do to improve your bandwidth?


Do you mean besides buying a CPU with 4 extra cores?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Do you mean besides buying a CPU with 4 extra cores?


LOL, I know that
But he posted a week (or so) ago and it's performance were not that high


----------



## ELIAS-EH

increase CPU cache frequency will improve RAM bandwidth.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> AMD is going to need to release a 16core quad channel memory "prosumer" chip between Ryzen and Naples to rationalize Intel's shenanigans.
> 
> I just want my *5GHz 16 core 1.21GW TDP chip* dammit...


...: what I want, what I need"...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I tested 2933c14 and 3200c16 both on sisoftware sandra ram benchmark and the 3200c16 is faster
> Speed is king
> *This formula frequency/cas is not true*


.. true.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I predict $2,250 USD for 12c, hope we get cooler motherboards


stop making predictions... please.








unlocked 12 cores for more than 2G is not gonna be a good day.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I hope so, I'd love to get my hands on another 8 or 10 core, not to say this [email protected] isn't doing well, *I'm certainly not having the issues that I had with both my x99 setups*.
> But I still miss the 6900k though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to build a new rig for myself or wife in July/August, so if it's released by then it'll be me getting it, might go full water for the first time too


no issues? you must not be pushing it as hard as your x99 rigs.








honestly, Overclocking the 7700K is nice and easy - as it should be.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> increase CPU cache frequency will improve RAM bandwidth.


Indeed. So does increased core frequency.








Having 10/20 cores/threads humming along nicely at 4.4GHz is great.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> increase CPU cache frequency will improve RAM bandwidth.


More than 4.4 / 3.7?
Honestly I don't think so
What for?


----------



## djgar

Benchmark fame and glory of course


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> More than 4.4 / 3.7?
> Honestly I don't think so
> What for?


Um, did you just ask why we would want to increase frequency?







Is this "adequateclock.net"?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Benchmark fame and glory of course


Honestly, I'm still seeing measurable improvements in application performance that map to increases in memory throughput at this point.

We don't seem, even at 82GB/s, to be at a clear saturation point where there's nothing left to be gained in large memory image, random access applications.

Of course, your application needs to make use of that and clearly some/many don't, but in the world of computes and big, data, they certainly do.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Honestly, I'm still seeing measurable improvements in application performance that map to increases in memory throughput at this point.
> 
> We don't seem, even at 82GB/s, to be at a clear saturation point where there's nothing left to be gained in large memory image, random access applications.
> 
> Of course, your application needs to make use of that and clearly some/many don't, but in the world of computes and big, data, they certainly do.


Actually I found copying large files seems to make good use of that extra cache speed.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Each one talk about safevoltage.com and anythink like that... I suggest him to put his cpu voltage to 1.6V and tried to oc his 6950x or 6900K to 5.2ghz ✌
OC is good but needs to be done safely.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Each one talk about safevoltage.com and anythink like that... I suggest him to put his cpu voltage to 1.6V and tried to oc his 6950x or 6900K to 5.2ghz ✌
> OC is good but needs to be done safely.


I'm just kidding. I have no more desire to fry my chip than anyone else...

Well, almost as little.


----------



## mbze430

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I predict $2,250 USD for 12c, hope we get cooler motherboards


I would be sad to see it at that price.


----------



## Medusa666

So I been considering what to do for weeks, and eyeing the ever so elusive 6950X for months.

Thing is I really like AMD Ryzen, but I'm happy with my X99 system as it performs great and has better performance than Ryzen, so that sidestep I have kind of dropped.

My consideration now is whatever it is worth finalizing the X99 build and go for a 6950X, I have the chance to buy one at 50% of the normal price. I have read some stuff about 6950X degrading fast, is this correct?

I would like to future proof my PC, the 5960X is amazing but there is a nagging feeling that there is still a final step to take, i.e the 6950X.

With X299 around the corner, and AMD X390 there is also the possibility of 6950X being obselete for the money in a few months, and that wouldn't feel especially good.

Again, this is a luxury problem, what to do : )


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no issues? you must not be pushing it as hard as your x99 rigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> honestly, Overclocking the 7700K is nice and easy - as it should be.


Nah, I did, but you remember the oddities with the first 5820k/Gaming 7 setup, then going through 3 Strix boards and 2 6900k's being killed by those Strix boards (stacks of newegg reviews saying the same)...
@djgar was one of the lucky ones that never had problems.
Nothing I ever did to them, I've actually hammered the 7700k more than the x99 systems strangely enough.
I went to the shops came back to find my Strix/6900k powered off and dead....twice... It died doing nothing









I'm sure they'll bring that stability/rigidity of z170/z270 to x299 though









I know what I'll be doing for the Skylake-X though, none of these mid ranged boards, straight for a Rampage, it was the midrange x99 boards that gave me grief.


----------



## rolldog

Ok, I just need a quick opinion. My current rig, the one as my profile pic with everything in it that you can imagine, I want to sell. Do you think I should try selling it as a PC, all or none, or would I be better off selling it in pieces? I have a feeling no one will want to buy this thing as is since whoever would buy it would probably want to build their own rig, not to mention how I would ship it as is.


----------



## cekim

Anyone else have issues with the latest win10 update? It seems to have enabled Turbo Boost 3.0 max automatically which destabilized my system until I turned it off.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> So, what did you do to improve your bandwidth?


The previous post was shown using Ripjaws 4 DDR4 2400 CL15. Now using the memory listed in my signature.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Anyone else have issues with the latest win10 update? It seems to have enabled Turbo Boost 3.0 max automatically which destabilized my system until I turned it off.


Yeah, I disabled the service and the app.

Also if you're using the Intel RST RAID application you need the new version:

SetupRST


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I dialed my memory settings back to 3200 but here are my AIDA scores


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> So, what did you do to improve your bandwidth?
> 
> 
> 
> The previous post was shown using Ripjaws 4 DDR4 2400 CL15. Now using the memory listed in my signature.
Click to expand...

Something doesn't match


----------



## arrow0309

I've just finished another 8H Realbench, am I stable enough for gaming?





Do I need to do the Gsat again (at these clocks) or not (done already a couple of times both of 4h with this ram freq but different cpu & cache clocks)?
Because I'm gonna try to oc the ram to 3400


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I've just finished another 8H Realbench, am I stable enough for gaming?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need to do the Gsat again (at these clocks) or not (done already a couple of times both of 4h with this ram freq but different cpu & cache clocks)?
> Because I'm gonna try to oc the ram to 3400


One question.
It seems that you have total 32GB of memory installed. But why did you run RB stress test with 16GB only ?
If you changed core and cache clock, I would run HCI MemTest again, too.

That being said, if you passed OCCT, HCI MemTest, GSAT, AIDA64 and Realbench, I think you should be rock stable.


----------



## arrow0309

Real Bench never worked with all of the 32gb in my system, I don't know why.
It starts but after a while it ceases the big working window.
Aida cache and Hci done at 4.4ghz and 3.7 cache but I've had a little different (higher) vccsa, vccin and vccio (but little lower vcore)
OK, I'll run them one more time and finish with the Gsat.


----------



## PowerK

Hmm.. that's strange. I've never had that issue.
It's my understaning that RB was designed so that to properly stress test the system with 32GB of physical memory installed, 32GB should be selected under stress test config menu. Perhaps, the issue you're experiencing is a sign of instability?


----------



## mus1mus

One of the worst chip in the lot.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@Jpmboy

More "leaks"...









Core i7 7740K Kaby Lake-X CPU on X299 Motherboard Spotted
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/core-i7-7740k-kaby-lake-x-cpu-on-gigabyte-x299-motherboard-spotted.html


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Real Bench never worked with all of the 32gb in my system, I don't know why.
> It starts but after a while it ceases the big working window.
> Aida cache and Hci done at 4.4ghz and 3.7 cache but I've had a little different (higher) vccsa, vccin and vccio (but little lower vcore)
> OK, I'll run them one more time and finish with the Gsat.


You should be testing with the amount of memory in the system, and refrain from using the system for anything during the test. If you're having issues whilst doing this then it's quite possibly instability. Run HCI, also.

Although after an 8 hour RB completion it might just be best to use the machine for gaming until such a time you encounter issues


----------



## arrow0309

Maybe because I've had no virtual memory (disabled)?
I've only recently set it back to system default paging file
I'll try it again this evening


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Maybe because I've had no virtual memory (disabled)?
> I've only recently set it back to system default paging file
> I'll try it again this evening


I don't have it in front of me right now, but I'm pretty sure there is even a warning on the RealBench Stress Test that states you should not disable the page file. Look at the instructions on the left.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Something doesn't match


I stand corrected. I was on my laptop last night so I did not go back to verify my last scores which I keep on my office PC. I thought that the previous score I posted was from my older memory. Thinking back I did not really make to many adjustments. I upgraded my motherboards firmware which had a profound improvement on my system. the only other changes I made were to mirror PowerK's memory settings since are system are similar. I kept my core speed the same at 43 but i changed my VCCSA to 0.960V and VCCIO to 1.024V. Still not matching his read/write speeds for some reason but everything else is close. Senility might be setting in. That's what happen when your retired and have nothing better to do.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I stand corrected. I was on my laptop last night so I did not go back to verify my last scores which I keep on my office PC. I thought that the previous score I posted was from my older memory. Thinking back I did not really make to many adjustments. I upgraded my motherboards firmware which had a profound improvement on my system. the only other changes I made were to mirror PowerK's memory settings since are system are similar. I kept my core speed the same at 43 but i changed my VCCSA to 0.960V and VCCIO to 1.024V. Still not matching his read/write speeds for some reason but everything else is close. Senility might be setting in. *That's what happen when your retired and have nothing better to do.*


Hey, that's my line!


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Senility might be setting in. That's what happen when your retired and have nothing better to do.


Must be great, I just got into the workforce so... 35 more years to go!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Hey, that's my line!


lol - I wonder how many "retirees" are here? start an "old guys club". I'm in.


----------



## djgar

^^^ Around-Too-Long Guys Club? Too-Much-Time-In-Your-Hands Guys Club? Hmm - Guys+Gals?


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - I wonder how many "retirees" are here? start an "old guys club". I'm in.


Not retired but old....I'm in


----------



## arrow0309

******* hell, I think only PowerK is younger


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> ******* hell, I think only PowerK is younger


not true, I'm nowhere near ready to retire!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> not true, I'm nowhere near ready to retire!


There's this myth about having lot's of time for your fancy once you hang-up the-skates. Unfortunately it is absolutely not true!


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Must be great, I just got into the workforce so... 35 more years to go!


HAHAHA...Military career allowed me to retire at age 42.


----------



## rolldog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Must be great, I just got into the workforce so... 35 more years to go!


45 years with this kind of hobby. Just think about how much extra you could put into your 401k if you weren't buying computer stuff.


----------



## rolldog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - I wonder how many "retirees" are here? start an "old guys club". I'm in.


"Old" is a relative term, like rich. What do you consider old? I'm 44, but everyone says I still act like I'm 12, which is true.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rolldog*
> 
> "Old" is a relative term, like rich. What do you consider old? I'm 44, but everyone says I still act like I'm 12, which is true.


well, my wife thinks I act the same age as you. And you are right, it is relative. to me 44 is old.








(erm... unless you've been getting AARP literature.. .for years, you ain't old)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well, my wife thinks I act the same age as you. And you are right, it is relative. to me 44 is old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (erm... unless you've been getting AARP literature.. .for years, you ain't old)


44 old, I'm turning 40 this year








Glad the wife doesn't think the same way as you guys though, she likes all the new gear and loves the LED's on PC's now..
She's even a gamer, she's still hooked on GTA, so it's not too hard to convince her we need new computer gear when we have the spare $$$


----------



## djgar

@schoolofmonkey, you spring chicken! My first "PC" had switches, relays and light bulbs ...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> 44 old, I'm turning 40 this year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad the wife doesn't think the same way as you guys though, she likes all the new gear and loves the LED's on PC's now..
> She's even a gamer, she's still hooked on GTA, so it's not too hard to convince her we need new computer gear when we have the spare $$$


kidding.... at 40 we had just taken our company public. Good and bad... Lesson, at that point you no longer own your company.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> @schoolofmonkey, you spring chicken! My first "PC" had switches, relays and light bulbs ...


oh c'mon.. the apple II didn't have any tubes pretending to be transistors.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> @schoolofmonkey, you spring chicken! My first "PC" had switches, relays and light bulbs ...


Ok I get it, so a Commodore 64 would of looked awesome at the time.
Started on one of them and a Apple II e....

First actual PC was a 286 with a nice orange text monitor.
I remember when I got my first modem, was heavy into BBSing, run my own for a little while..








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> kidding.... at 40 we had just taken our company public. Good and bad... Lesson, at that point you no longer own your company.


Steve Jobs learnt the hard way about that...









Me and overclocking was a new thing though, 18 months ago was my first dive into thanks to you guys


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> ******* hell, I think only PowerK is younger


LOL. 38 here, working like a slave.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> kidding.... at 40 we had just taken our company public. Good and bad... Lesson, at that point you no longer own your company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh c'mon.. the apple II didn't have any tubes pretending to be transistors.


This was way before the Apple II - try the Minivac ... I couldn't afford one (or talk my father into buying one) so I built a DIY frankestein thing


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> LOL. 38 here, working like a slave.


Still 10 years younger than me








And yeah, still working like a slave too (well, a bit less lately)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Ok I get it, so a Commodore 64 would of looked awesome at the time.
> Started on one of them and a Apple II e....
> First actual PC was a 286 with a nice orange text monitor.
> *I remember when I got my first modem*, was heavy into BBSing, run my own for a little while..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Jobs learnt the hard way about that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me and overclocking was a new thing though, 18 months ago was my first dive into thanks to you guys


Gandalf.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> This was way before the Apple II - try the Minivac ... I couldn't afford one (or talk my father into buying one) so I built a DIY frankestein thing


that's not a 'PC". first non-DIY "PC" was a timex sinclair 1000. Museum piece, should have kept that po s.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Still 10 years younger than me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah, still working like a slave too (well, a bit less lately)


have no idea what you are posting to the right of that avatar.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Still 10 years younger than me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah, still working like a slave too (well, a bit less lately)


Hehe. I see you're based in London. I lived in the UK for 17 years before returning back to Korea. Ah.. I miss good'ol England.

That being said, I just stumbled across this post by Jpm.
Running at 3400 CL13. That's crazy. Before you start tuning your memory, ask Jpm for advice.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> have no idea what you are posting to the right of that avatar.


This forum has words now? I'll have to look into that... later.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Gandalf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *that's not a 'PC".* first non-DIY "PC" was a timex sinclair 1000. Museum piece, should have kept that po s.
> have no idea what you are posting to the right of that avatar.


Hey, it's a matter of scale - it deals with 1s and 0s, but I did place PC in quotation marks









Oh, BTW, I believe you may have been distracted by that avatar .... I know I was


----------



## mus1mus

Does Uncore clock matter here guys? Also what has been the recommended Voltage for that?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> have no idea what you are posting to the right of that avatar.


Whoops, I don't remember








Maybe we could ask her, let me think
















Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Hehe. I see you're based in London. I lived in the UK for 17 years before returning back to Korea. Ah.. I miss good'ol England.
> 
> That being said, I just stumbled across this post by Jpm.
> Running at 3400 CL13. That's crazy. Before you start tuning your memory, ask Jpm for advice.


And I'm here since 3 and half years and I can tell you most of the times I miss my Italy








But it's nice here also, will however gonna move to Manchester this summer.
Turning to my OC yeah, you're right and I know the Jpmboy is the guru here








Let me just finish my stability tests again








And then well see to get some of his guidance









Btw:
Finished a long run of aida cache overnight (almost 4h):



And it's running the Hci, aiming for the 1000% this time








Than I'll try a last attempt to use the whole 32gb ram with RB (Gsat at the 3200 default cl14 speed I'm not gonna do it anymore since I've done it for 4h at 4.3GHz @3.600 cache)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Does Uncore clock matter here guys? Also what has been the recommended Voltage for that?


As I remember well you should stay within the 1.25-1.30 range for 3700, 3800 you have to find out what will gonna need


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Does Uncore clock matter here guys? Also what has been the recommended Voltage for that?


Definitely not more than 1.30v what I did is set it to 1.3v and found the highest stable clock.


----------



## Driller au

lols @ you guys saying how old you are i actually rode a horse to primary school {yr 1-6} true story

Now back on topic i think i found the problem with windows crashing at idle, i set bios back to default and still had the problem so a re-install later and all seems ok i will run at this for a day to make sure than start the OC again


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> lols @ you guys saying how old you are i actually rode a horse to primary school {yr 1-6} true story
> 
> Now back on topic i think i found the problem with windows crashing at idle, i set bios back to default and still had the problem so a re-install later and all seems ok i will run at this for a day to make sure than start the OC again


Being Amish doesn't necessarily mean you are old


----------



## Driller au

LoL good come back, but it was over 50 years ago


----------



## xTesla1856

Wow, you guys make me feel like I'm still in diapers


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> LoL good come back, but it was over 50 years ago


Old, Amish AND an overclocker!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Wow, you guys make me feel like I'm still in diapers


... that's a good thing. some of these old farts may be wearing them now.


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Being Amish doesn't necessarily mean you are old


Lol, I almost spit my coffee out this morning. My co-workers are looking at me funny









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ... that's a good thing. some of these old farts may be wearing them now.


I'm getting ready for diapers too, the ones that keep you up all night!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ... that's a good thing. some of these old farts may be wearing them now.


Well, that Depends ...


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> ... ...
> 
> Turning to my OC yeah, you're right and I know the Jpmboy is the guru here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me just finish my stability tests again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... ...
> 
> Btw:
> Finished a long run of aida cache overnight (almost 4h):
> 
> 
> 
> And it's running the Hci, aiming for the 1000% this time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than I'll try a last attempt to use the whole 32gb ram with RB (Gsat at the 3200 default cl14 speed I'm not gonna do it anymore since I've done it for 4h at 4.3GHz @3.600 cache)


Yeeeah, the Hci @1000% coverage also finished with 0 errors!








This time I don't have the proof though (been running my pc remotely and from a mobile location I just didn't bother taking any screenshots)








The result is important innit?








This night I'm gonna try again with this God blessed RB aiming the whole 32 gb of my ram and then I'm ready for a serious G.Skill memory OC
I've even bought their latest mechanical (rgb) keyboard








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ... that's a good thing. some of these old farts may be wearing them now.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ... that's a good thing. some of these old farts may be wearing them now.


WOW.....


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i see some of you tweaking memory what are the best timings to play with to improve perf ? my current memory is below i been testing 15-16-16-38-561-1t
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232317


----------



## Medusa666

I pulled the trigger on a 6950X for a good price and will recieve it next week.

So I'm going to be that guy that asks for some advice, I will read through the thread slowly but there are alot of pages









I'm looking for some advice on how to overclock it, is it different from Haswell-E, had a 5960X previously.

What max voltages exist? Anything special to be cautious of?

The memory kit I use is a 2666MHz 32GB Dominator Platinum, so it should overclock some at least.

Is uncore the same as for HW-E, i.e is 400-500MHz below the CPU speed?

Thanks : )


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Well, that Depends ...


lol... all in good fun guys. unfortunately I'm up there with the seniors too.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> WOW.....


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> I pulled the trigger on a 6950X for a good price and will recieve it next week.
> 
> So I'm going to be that guy that asks for some advice, I will read through the thread slowly but there are alot of pages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for some advice on how to overclock it, is it different from Haswell-E, had a 5960X previously.
> 
> What max voltages exist? Anything special to be cautious of?
> 
> The memory kit I use is a 2666MHz 32GB Dominator Platinum, so it should overclock some at least.
> 
> Is uncore the same as for HW-E, i.e is 400-500MHz below the CPU speed?
> 
> Thanks : )


average that I have seen is around 4.3GHz, there is a few that's gotten 4.4/4.5GHz. I personally fried one running it at 4.5GHz @1.35v but I'm sure that was a defective one. Max voltage I wouldn't run one over 1.35v myself but the one that I have does 4.4GHz @ 1.28v, didn't try for 4.5GHz. Cache voltage is not going to be 400-500MHZ from 4.4GHz, it would be around 3.5-3.7GHz at max voltage of 1.3. Good luck with your chip.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol... all in good fun guys. unfortunately I'm up there with the seniors too.


I like a good laugh.







Thanks


----------



## arrow0309

7H of Real Bench also passed with all of the ram selected











I'm gonna let it finish however but I don't expect any incoming error, I'd say I'm good to go.
Now I'm gonna work on the ram


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Wha
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> I pulled the trigger on a 6950X for a good price and will recieve it next week.
> 
> So I'm going to be that guy that asks for some advice, I will read through the thread slowly but there are alot of pages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for some advice on how to overclock it, is it different from Haswell-E, had a 5960X previously.
> 
> What max voltages exist? Anything special to be cautious of?
> 
> The memory kit I use is a 2666MHz 32GB Dominator Platinum, so it should overclock some at least.
> 
> Is uncore the same as for HW-E, i.e is 400-500MHz below the CPU speed?
> 
> Thanks : )


I have 6900k oc 4.2 1.27V, the issue with 6900k and more 6950x is the enormous heat geenrated, above 1.3V, you can hit core temp 90 degre maybe more, you need a very high end cooler, personally i am very satisfied with my 6900k 4.2 ghz 1.27v, ram 3200 , cache x34.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> 7H of Real Bench also passed with all of the ram selected
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna let it finish however but I don't expect any incoming error, I'd say I'm good to go.
> Now I'm gonna work on the ram


Very nice.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Very nice.


Yeah, not complaining
Don't forget it's still a micro-atx rig









Now I'll have to find a 3400 or 3466 ram stability (better if cl 14, even 14-15-14) and I can consider myself finally satisfied.
Hope my G. SKILLs won't let me down (after the km780 rgb I've also purchased their sr910 headset)


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Yesterday i finished my OC finally
6900k 4.2 1.27V
X99A PRO CARBON
oc ram 3200mhz corsair lpx
Cache x34 1.14V
VCCIO 0.923V
VCCSA 1.12V (bios read 1.15)
Adaptive mode
RAM 1.36V using memory try it

Passed 3 hours occt large data set
1700% HCI MEMTEST
8 hours RB


----------



## mus1mus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Yesterday i finished my OC finally
> 6900k 4.2 1.27V
> X99A PRO CARBON
> oc ram 3200mhz corsair lpx
> Cache x34 1.14V
> VCCIO 0.923V
> VCCSA 1.12V (bios read 1.15)
> Adaptive mode
> RAM 1.36V using memory try it
> 
> Passed 3 hours occt large data set
> 1700% HCI MEMTEST
> 8 hours RB


Did take like 20 or so hours?









I'm doing the last 2 sets using the Raider. Pretty good board to my surprise.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Did take like 20 or so hours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm doing the last 2 sets using the Raider. Pretty good board to my surprise.


it took about 3 weeks.

OC RAM was the most hard to find the right value of VCCIO and VCCSA.

MSI is an amazing board for OC RAM.

my RAM are 2400 Mhz C14 corsair LPX (4x8)


----------



## mus1mus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> it took about 3 weeks.
> 
> OC RAM was the most hard to find the right value of VCCIO and VCCSA.
> 
> MSI is an amazing board for OC RAM.
> 
> my RAM are 2400 Mhz C14 corsair LPX (4x8)


Ahhh. Got you.

RAM tuning doesn't really need much of VCCSA or VCCIO provided you have a capable kit. I do agree that pushing things out of their rated specs will take time to tweak though.

Very nice work!

The Mem-Try-it is a beauty!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> 7H of Real Bench also passed with all of the ram selected
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna let it finish however but I don't expect any incoming error, I'd say I'm good to go.
> Now I'm gonna work on the ram


that rig has come a long way... in a relatively short period of time. Good job!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> 7H of Real Bench also passed with all of the ram selected
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna let it finish however but I don't expect any incoming error, I'd say I'm good to go.
> Now I'm gonna work on the ram


Nice work!

So far the TridentZ kit has been stable and "works out of the box", but hasn't shown me any low-hanging fruit for improvement.

Even the prior (works otb) is awesome though for 128G 3200CL14. Can't complain (though I did







).


----------



## ELIAS-EH

false

Tha
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Ahhh. Got you.
> 
> RAM tuning doesn't really need much of VCCSA or VCCIO provided you have a capable kit. I do agree that pushing things out of their rated specs will take time to tweak though.
> 
> Very nice work!
> 
> The Mem-Try-it is a beauty!


Thank u hope all of you to get good oc ram
I was expected to have a cpu 4.3 under 1.3V but that's my luck. I will put today my bios settings as images


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol... all in good fun guys. unfortunately I'm up there with the seniors too.


Well I need your senior mind. I have my 6950x OC'd to 4.3 with 1.235v core stable. The question I have is with my memory. I have 32gb of Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200MHz with stock timing of 16-18-18-36 2T. I have tighten the timings to 14-16-16-34 1T with 1.350v DRAM, VCCIO of 0.960v and VCCSA of 1.195v. Everything is stable in aida64 and 200% of HCI with 12-instances of 2115. If this looks good to you I will run 20 instances of the unused memory for 500% or more tonight. Thanks for your input.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

IMG_1575.JPG 985k .JPG file


IMG_1576.JPG 1053k .JPG file


IMG_1577.JPG 1120k .JPG file


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that rig has come a long way... in a relatively short period of time. Good job!


Thanks bud, I followed your guidelines at the beginning and now I need your tips once again








I'd like to start overclocking the ram, 3400 should be nice, also 3466 (even with little higher timings like 14-15-14), what do ya suggest me to start with?
And will that gonna be 1.45v dram fixed, nothing less and nothing more (oh God, I wouldn't worry for the 1.45 but more than that I can't easily digest)?


----------



## Vellinious

I'm going to put my 6950X up for sale. I need to look up the requirements to post it for sale here. Do things sell well when posted here?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I'm going to put my 6950X up for sale. I need to look up the requirements to post it for sale here. Do things sell well when posted here?


If you are referring to the market place of this website definitely it sells. I bought a few things on here and sold a few. Make sure you read this first. http://www.overclock.net/f/322/marketplace-rules


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Well I need your senior mind. I have my 6950x OC'd to 4.3 with 1.235v core stable. The question I have is with my memory. I have 32gb of Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200MHz with stock timing of 16-18-18-36 2T. I have tighten the timings to 14-16-16-34 1T with 1.350v DRAM, VCCIO of 0.960v and VCCSA of 1.195v. Everything is stable in aida64 and 200% of HCI with 12-instances of 2115. If this looks good to you I will run 20 instances of the unused memory for 500% or more tonight. Thanks for your input.


Does it really need VSA that high or did you switch VCCIO and VSA voltyage in your post? yeah, run 20 and divide 90% of the installed ram equally between them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Thanks bud, I followed your guidelines at the beginning and now I need your tips once again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to start overclocking the ram, 3400 should be nice, also 3466 (even with little higher timings like 14-15-14), what do ya suggest me to start with?
> And will that gonna be 1.45v dram fixed, nothing less and nothing more (oh God, I wouldn't worry for the 1.45 but more than that I can't easily digest)?


I've been running a 3200c14 64GB kit at 3400c13 for a long time now. (I mean going on a year?)
Enjoy:

gsat stable, HCI too, but it takes forever to do laps.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I'm going to put my 6950X up for sale. I need to look up the requirements to post it for sale here. Do things sell well when posted here?


yeah, sure they sell well. A least one posted picture must have your ocn mane and date on it.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I'm going to put my 6950X up for sale. I need to look up the requirements to post it for sale here. Do things sell well when posted here?


Getting ready for new toys?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Iv posted and others have also of luxmark crashing in realbench when nothing else crashed well i figured out something i believe seems like luxmark can have problems with certain nvida drivers and causes it to crash not because a system is unstable using newest driver right now seems to work right with newest realbench and luxmark.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Getting ready for new toys?


Yeah....building a house. lol


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Haha lots of fun "NOT" I helped my uncle do all his electric, cable, Ethernet pulls never hated electric wire more in my life.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Yeah....building a house. lol


Ah darn... sorry to hear that. Adulting hits the toys hard.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Yeah....building a house. lol


if it's your first house build... my condolences, but well worth it.


----------



## tistou77

Hello

A PSU 750W is enough for a 6950X @4.4ghz and a GTX1070 (or 1080) ?

Thanks


----------



## axiumone

It'll be tight. Depending on how many drives you have, water pumps, etc. I think 850-1000 is much safer.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> It'll be tight. Depending on how many drives you have, water pumps, etc. I think 850-1000 is much safer.


Thanks for your answer

You can see my complete configuration in "tistou's config"


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Thanks for your answer
> 
> You can see my complete configuration in "tistou's config"


Ah, I see it now. Yeah, I'd say 850+, especially if you're running all 9 of the MO-RA fans off the psu.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> Ah, I see it now. Yeah, I'd say 850+, especially if you're running all 9 of the MO-RA fans off the psu.


Ok thanks so much


----------



## ssateneth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Does it really need VSA that high or did you switch VCCIO and VSA voltyage in your post? yeah, run 20 and divide 90% of the installed ram equally between them.
> I've been running a 3200c14 64GB kit at 3400c13 for a long time now. (I mean going on a year?)
> Enjoy:
> 
> gsat stable, HCI too, but it takes forever to do laps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, sure they sell well. A least one posted picture must have your ocn mane and date on it.


Have you tried lowering your ..... ah, what is it called... DRAM CLK Period? I'm not 100% what its called, its towards the bottom of DRAM advanced config. I'm able to run it down to 8, anything lower no-post's. It changes all auto-configured dram timings to that of the appropriate DRAM MHz divider. So you could run 3400MHz RAM but use the timings that would get autoconfigured to that of a 2400MHz kit, or some other divider! Just takes some tnnkering. Essentially 'free' performance gains.

Here's before.




And after I set clk period to 8. Gains can be better with higher uncore speeds. Only running 4.2 for the moment since I'm still fighting with uncore speeds.


----------



## lanofsong

All Broadwell-E owners,

Would you consider signing up with OCN Team Boinc for the upcoming 2017 Pentathlon (*May 5th through May 19th*)

This event is truly a GLOBAL battle with you team OCN going up against many teams from across the world and while we put in a good showing at last year's event by finishing 6th, we could do with a lot more CPU/GPU compute power, *especially CPU POWER*. All you need to do is sign up and crunch on any available hardware that you can spare.

The cool thing about this event is that it spread over 5 disciplines over *varying lengths of time* (different projects) so there is a lot of *strategy/tactics* involved.

We look forward to having you and your hardware on our team. Again, this event lasts for two weeks and takes place May 5th through the 19th.


Download the software here and get a few GPU/CPU units crunched before this event begins.

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

Note: For every project you fold on, you will be offered if you want to join a team - type in overclock.net (enter) then JOIN team.


Remember to sign up for the Boinc team by going here: You can also post any questions that your may have - this group is very helpful









8th BOINC Pentathlon thread

To find your Cross Project ID# - sign into your account and it will be located under Computing and Credit


Please check out the GUIDE - How to add BOINC Projects page for more information about running different projects:

This really is an exciting and fun event and i look forward to it every year and I am hoping that you will join us and participate in this event









BTW - There is an awesome BOINC Pentathlon badge for those who participate









lanofsong

OCN - FTW


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ssateneth*
> 
> Have you tried lowering your ..... ah, what is it called... DRAM CLK Period? I'm not 100% what its called, its towards the bottom of DRAM advanced config. I'm able to run it down to 8, anything lower no-post's. It changes all auto-configured dram timings to that of the appropriate DRAM MHz divider. So you could run 3400MHz RAM but use the timings that would get autoconfigured to that of a 2400MHz kit, or some other divider! Just takes some tnnkering. Essentially 'free' performance gains.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And after I set clk period to 8. Gains can be better with higher uncore speeds. Only running 4.2 for the moment since I'm still fighting with uncore speeds.


thanks. clk period is at 13 on this BWE rig.
If you look at the timings I posted several (rtp, faw, tCWL) are already as low as they can go. You should be able to run tCWL at 9... this will drive rtl and iol lower.

be sure to verify stability with HCi or gsat too. http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-ddr4-z170-z270-and-x99-24-7-memory-stability-thread/0_20
I'll look for ya on the 64GB HWE list


----------



## clarifiante

glad to join this thread. got a 6900k recently and i have been OC-ing. i currently have it stable at 4.4ghz @ 1.325 VCore. I am running on a Asus Rampage V 10th edition.

other settings are:
Cache 34
Cache voltage 1.15
LLC 6
VCCIO 1.05

RAM is corsair dominator 32GB (16x2) @ 3200mhz @ 1.35V (stock)

also my workloads are not particuarly intensive and i am using a predator 360 AIO w GPU loop.

I am trying to get to 4.5 just for the kicks, so far i have tried up to 1.39 which could successfully boot but i was unsure of testing it since the voltage is a bit high. i've read over various forums and so far i understand the consensus for 24/7 use it is good to keep it under 1.35V, is this right?

does anyone have any tips on what other settings i could change to push for that magic 4.5?


----------



## jsutter71

Tweaking the memory cache today. Current results.


----------



## jsutter71

More tweaking. Tweaking cache settings. Not sure if I'll be able to push to much more beyond this point since my CPU package temps were hitting 80 C during benchmarking.


----------



## PowerK

Slightly off topic.
I bought 2600K in Jan/Feb 2011. This has been running at 4.7GHz since then.
Just for fun, I ran OCCT overnight on 2600K system yesterday. This Sandy Bridge is still kicking hard at 4.7GHz with 16GB G.Skill DDR3 2133MHz 9-11-10-28 1T


----------



## Jubijub

for OCing a 6900K @ 4.0 or 4.2, would you watercool the mofsets as well, or is ensuring a good airflow sufficient ?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I've been running a 3200c14 64GB kit at 3400c13 for a long time now. (I mean going on a year?)
> Enjoy:
> 
> gsat stable, HCI too, but it takes forever to do laps.


Hi, I tried with your settings and got errors in Hci (with tWR and tRFC set only)
Tried with step by step re-setting all sec timings to auto first and then increasing the primary timings back to 14-14-14-34-2T and I'm still getting Gsat errors.
All running at 3400, 1.45v and also the both vttddr increased to 0.72500








Not good overclocking ram kit?
Shall I try 3466 (with different timings)?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jubijub*
> 
> for OCing a 6900K @ 4.0 or 4.2, would you watercool the mofsets as well, or is ensuring a good airflow sufficient ?


Depending of the mainboard but a good airflow will be enough for 4.2Ghz IMO


----------



## Madness11

Hey guys. Have OC my 6900k to 4.2 . But 1.245Vcore its ok ? or i need more or less ??


----------



## Jubijub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Depending of the mainboard but a good airflow will be enough for 4.2Ghz IMO


Asus X99-Deluxe II

(so 8 phases power supply (like the Rampage V 10e), and MOSFETS 50A (unlike the Rampage which are given fro 60A)


----------



## arrow0309

I see, so no more 60A 3550, now the Deluxe II is using the newer (50A rated) IR3556 PowIRstage

You should be fine, certainly
Consider my micro-atx X99M WS using the powerful 60 amps 3550 with a slim (yet double, fin type) cooler:



So far so good


----------



## ELIAS-EH

guys, in my opinion, I have a conclusion in OC:

you need 2 software.

1- OCCT large data set 3 hours for CPU

pass, step 2:

2- HCI memtest 1700% for OC RAM & Ring (HCI memtest also stress the cache not only the RAM)

you can finish OC PC in less than one day without tons of software.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> guys, in my opinion, I have a conclusion in OC:
> 
> you need 2 software.
> 
> 1- OCCT large data set 3 hours for CPU
> 
> pass, step 2:
> 
> 2- HCI memtest 1700% for OC RAM & Ring (HCI memtest also stress the cache not only the RAM)
> 
> you can finish OC PC in less than one day without tons of software.


It takes you one day only for the Hci 1700% lol (in case you've magically found all the right and proper settings & voltages)


----------



## mus1mus

Roughly 7 or more hours for 2000% on the latest HCI @ 32GB on mine.


























Same run. Just have to Open/Close monitoring apps to get the SS.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> Hey guys. Have OC my 6900k to 4.2 . But 1.245Vcore its ok ? or i need more or less ??


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> It takes you one day only for the Hci 1700% lol (in case you've magically found all the right and proper settings & voltages)


no it takes me 3 weeks, but I means that we need only 2 software for OC.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, I tried with your settings and got errors in Hci (with tWR and tRFC set only)
> Tried with step by step re-setting all sec timings to auto first and then increasing the primary timings back to 14-14-14-34-2T and I'm still getting Gsat errors.
> All running at 3400, 1.45v and also the both vttddr increased to 0.72500
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not good overclocking ram kit?*
> Shall I try 3466 (with different timings)?
> Depending of the mainboard but a good airflow will be enough for 4.2Ghz IMO


Oh well, I don;t know which... could be the board or the kit, but before trying 3400, be sure to clrcmos to flush out all ram parameters.

____________________________________________________________________

2017 TIM comparo: https://play3r.net/reviews/cooling/thermal-paste-comparison-2017-what-is-the-best-thermal-paste-2017/


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Does it really need VSA that high or did you switch VCCIO and VSA voltyage in your post? yeah, run 20 and divide 90% of the installed ram equally between them.


Thanks for the reply. I tried to lower VCCSA and get errors. I also tried to increase VCCIO and I get errors even with 10 to 30 mv. I ran HCI with 20 instances stable for 500%+ 1.360v DRAM 1.195v VCSSA and 0.960v VCCIO. I will run a memory/cache benchmark and see how 3200MHz performs. I received my Titan Xp so I have been playing with that toy.


----------



## Jubijub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I see, so no more 60A 3550, now the Deluxe II is using the newer (50A rated) IR3556 PowIRstage
> 
> You should be fine, certainly
> Consider my micro-atx X99M WS using the powerful 60 amps 3550 with a slim (yet double, fin type) cooler:
> 
> 
> 
> So far so good


let me ask differently : would it hurt to go with the mobo block ? (eg by getting slightly lesser cooling on the CPU, or any other side effect ?)

My rationale : pricing is awfully similar (20$ difference), and from what I understand, worst case it would do nothing, best case it would help a little with OC.
Am I missing something ?


----------



## chibi

One potential issue with monoblocks is uneven mounting. This can bend traces and cause all kinds of instability.
With a normal CPU block, it's pretty much screw it down until it locks as the springs may redistribute the pressure evenly. this is the case with EKWB Evo blocks. Speaking from experience, my ASUS RVE10 Monoblock screws in from underneath the mobo, and the pressure is definitely not even. I can tell by the amount of threads that bite with the locking nut. Some corners screw in more than others. I haven't powered on the system to test yet, but I hope it works out in the end... lol.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> One potential issue with monoblocks is uneven mounting. This can bend traces and cause all kinds of instability.
> With a normal CPU block, it's pretty much screw it down until it locks as the springs may redistribute the pressure evenly. this is the case with EKWB Evo blocks. Speaking from experience, my ASUS RVE10 Monoblock screws in from underneath the mobo, and the pressure is definitely not even. I can tell by the amount of threads that bite with the locking nut. Some corners screw in more than others. I haven't powered on the system to test yet, but I hope it works out in the end... lol.


mono-blocked my RvE and X99-Pro. No issues with that.

I will say the X99-Pro monoblock is a bit more appealing for the sake of long-term maintenance and frankly, I don't care how hot the PCH gets because it just doesn't matter as we don't need mess with the PCIe clocks (thankfully) to OC.

The complexity of break-down is definitely much higher with the full-board block, but I can't say that I saw anything on either resembling what you describe.


----------



## chibi

My issue with the RVE10 monoblock was when I had to poke out the plastic bits by the CPU socket. After clearing that, I placed the block on top and fed the feet through. However, when I went to screw in the nut, some of them would catch more than the others and the threading looks uneven. I did take the block on and off multiple times and cleaned out the mounting holes as best I could. Just my experience, but I don't expect too much of a problem as they're only off by a thread or so.

I'll see if I can grab some pictures later tonight to showcase my scenario. I do fully agree with you on the X99 Pro monoblock though. I prefer that look and don't care about the PCH for the same reasons.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> My issue with the RVE10 monoblock was when I had to poke out the plastic bits by the CPU socket. After clearing that, I placed the block on top and fed the feet through. However, when I went to screw in the nut, some of them would catch more than the others and the threading looks uneven. I did take the block on and off multiple times and cleaned out the mounting holes as best I could. Just my experience, but I don't expect too much of a problem as they're only off by a thread or so.
> 
> I'll see if I can grab some pictures later tonight to showcase my scenario. I do fully agree with you on the X99 Pro monoblock though. I prefer that look and don't care about the PCH for the same reasons.


Board to bow on their own, but the amount of bending the block imparts back to straight shouldn't be an issue. The intel socket puts quite a lot of pressure on the chip package all on its own.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I tried to lower VCCSA and get errors. I also tried to increase VCCIO and I get errors even with 10 to 30 mv. I ran HCI with 20 instances stable for 500%+ 1.360v DRAM 1.195v VCSSA and 0.960v VCCIO. I will run a memory/cache benchmark and see how 3200MHz performs. I received my Titan Xp so I have been playing with that toy.


nice.. great "toy"








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Board to bow on their own, but the amount of bending the block imparts back to straight shouldn't be an issue. The intel socket puts quite a lot of pressure on the chip package all on its own.


I gotta say , there are so many posts related to improper mono-block fitment or overtightening etc. I still contend that the monoblock cannot contact the CPU as well as a component block... just don;t get carried away with your GPUs tho


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice.. great "toy"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say , there are so many posts related to improper mono-block fitment or overtightening etc. I still content that the monoblock cannot contact the CPU as well as a component block... just don;t get carried away with your GPUs tho


LOL @ that GPU. There's someone who appreciates a good Rube Goldberg solution... Where's the steel ball and the slide?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice.. great "toy"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say , there are so many posts related to improper mono-block fitment or overtightening etc. I still content that the monoblock cannot contact the CPU as well as a component block... just don;t get carried away with your GPUs tho


YIKES!








COOL!


----------



## Silent Scone

I dub that GPU "Bane".


----------



## Jpmboy

lol - prototype "monoblock" by Yugo.


----------



## jsutter71

*Pushing the envelope a bit further today. Dropped the voltage slightly and increased the core clock to 44 and the cache ratio to 37.*


----------



## Medusa666

I got my new 6950X today and I have only installed it for functionality.

The idle vcore in BIOS is 0,984v, is this OK?

Other than that I'm going to brew alot of coffe and start reading up on this thread, from page one
















I think that I'm going to stay with X99 for the coming years, should be good for awhile.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> I got my new 6950X today and I have only installed it for functionality.
> 
> The idle vcore in BIOS is 0,984v, is this OK?
> 
> Other than that I'm going to brew alot of coffe and start reading up on this thread, from page one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I'm going to stay with X99 for the coming years, should be good for awhile.


Start here for some great information: http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> I got my new 6950X today and I have only installed it for functionality.
> 
> The idle vcore in BIOS is 0,984v, is this OK?
> 
> Other than that I'm going to brew alot of coffe and start reading up on this thread, from page one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I'm going to stay with X99 for the coming years, should be good for awhile.


What the prior poster said - read that OC guide.

Yes, < 1.0v totally normal for idle.


----------



## Medusa666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Start here for some great information: http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> What the prior poster said - read that OC guide.
> 
> Yes, < 1.0v totally normal for idle.


Thanks for the advice, I'm going to look into that guide first thing I do.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> Thanks for the advice, I'm going to look into that guide first thing I do.


for best performance I recommend dedicated settings for VCCSA and VCCIO.


----------



## nrpeyton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I'm going to put my 6950X up for sale. I need to look up the requirements to post it for sale here. Do things sell well when posted here?


You're selling your 6950.

What _ever_ for?
_(U don't mind me asking)._


----------



## trippinonprozac

Hey guys,

From what I have read I have a fairly good 6950x as it does 4.3ghz (36x cache) at 1.26v and 4.4ghz (34 cache) 1.32v.

My issue is that even at 4.3 at 1.26v the chip gets quite hot. Its under an extensive custom loop and had Krynaut Grizzly applied.

Im wondering if it is worth re-seating it and checking the spread of the thermal compound. Do some chips just get real toasty? In a 30 min realbench stress test I am hitting 75c on hottest core (the others are between 59c-68c.

Thoughts?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nrpeyton*
> 
> You're selling your 6950.
> 
> What _ever_ for?
> _(U don't mind me asking)._


he answered that in the posts following the one you quoted.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trippinonprozac*
> 
> Hey guys,
> From what I have read I have a fairly good 6950x as it does 4.3ghz (36x cache) at 1.26v and 4.4ghz (34 cache) 1.32v.
> My issue is that even at 4.3 at 1.26v the chip gets quite hot. Its under an extensive custom loop and had Krynaut Grizzly applied.
> Im wondering if it is worth re-seating it and checking the spread of the thermal compound. Do some chips just get real toasty? In a 30 min realbench stress test I am hitting 75c on hottest core (the others are between 59c-68c.
> Thoughts?


Are those temperatures at 4.4 or 4.3? THat is a rather large spread in temperature across the cores - wouldn't hurt to check the block mount.


----------



## arrow0309

I just got myself one of these Leadex Titanium









https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B010IYY59Y/ref=pe_385721_37986871_TE_item

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/super-flower-leadex-titanium-1000w-psu,review-33400.html

Will replace my old and trusty Evga G2, you think it'll ensure enough power for even a TXP sli now?


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trippinonprozac*
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> From what I have read I have a fairly good 6950x as it does 4.3ghz (36x cache) at 1.26v and 4.4ghz (34 cache) 1.32v.
> 
> My issue is that even at 4.3 at 1.26v the chip gets quite hot. Its under an extensive custom loop and had Krynaut Grizzly applied.
> 
> Im wondering if it is worth re-seating it and checking the spread of the thermal compound. Do some chips just get real toasty? In a 30 min realbench stress test I am hitting 75c on hottest core (the others are between 59c-68c.
> 
> Thoughts?


Without knowing your room temperature nor custom loop setup, it's difficult to tell. However, 75C in the hottest core during RealBench seems quite high for custom loop. Package temp must be around or even over 80C. This means during OCCT, it'll reach near or over 90C. Way too high for custom loop.
Try OCCT and see CPU Package Temp.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I just got myself one of these Leadex Titanium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B010IYY59Y/ref=pe_385721_37986871_TE_item
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/super-flower-leadex-titanium-1000w-psu,review-33400.html
> 
> Will replace my old and trusty Evga G2, you think it'll ensure enough power for even a TXP sli now?


I think you will be seriously pushing the PSU *if* you intend to power overclocked BW-E + 2x overclocked Titan X SLI + custom loop with D5 pump.
I recommend minimum 1200W. 1500W is better.
But for a single Titan X, why not.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Without knowing your room temperature nor custom loop setup, it's difficult to tell. However, 75C in the hottest core during RealBench seems quite high for custom loop. Package temp must be around or even over 80C. This means during OCCT, it'll reach near or over 90C. Way too high for custom loop.
> Try OCCT and see CPU Package Temp.


arrow, To give you an idea - I think I may have posted this here already, but I've been measuring all my boxes from the wall recently to make sure I was not going to overload circuits under 100% load.

I measured my 4.4 6950x, 2x1080ti OC ~2000 SLI, 2 D5 pumps system... 800-850w from the wall in aida64 stress including GPU. Which is not even as bad as it gets...


----------



## Medusa666

I have a kit of quad channel Corsair Dominator Platinum 2666MHz, are there any noticeable performance gains to be had for gaming and general usage when OC the memory?

Does the turbo 3.0 feature work even when CPU is overclocked? Can I have one core higher than the others?

Thanks,


----------



## arrow0309

I think I can easily make it, I'm never overclocking my both cpu in full load and gpu for stress test. In gaming the cpu itself is reaching lower power loads (when gaming) besides I have a 6 core cpu, one D5 and some fans (micro-atx case). And the psu itself is a better performing than many other 1k psu's.
But maybe yeah, I'll better try not to and wait for Volta flagship


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> I have a kit of quad channel Corsair Dominator Platinum 2666MHz, are there any noticeable performance gains to be had for gaming and general usage when OC the memory?
> 
> Does the turbo 3.0 feature work even when CPU is overclocked? Can I have one core higher than the others?
> 
> Thanks,


yes games benefit form OC ram example : battlefield 1 and fallout 4

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2677-bf1-ram-benchmark-frequency-8gb-enough/page-2
http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Turbo boost 3.0 is a useless feature. It makes 1 cores to run at 4 Ghz (specified by intel) and the other at 3.7 Ghz (Default by intel without OC for the 6900K, for the 6800K, it is a little lower)

most of the load will be on the cores running at 4 Ghz (90-100% usage) and the rest of the load will be on the other cores.
I tested it before OC my 6900K, and causes so many spikes, stutter in battlefield 1.
OC your CPU at 4- 4.2 Ghz on all cores will be so much better.

I have 6900K 4.2Ghz 1.271V
OC RAM 3200 Mhz C16 (1.36V), VCCIO 0.936V (AUTO), VCCSA : 1.152 V


----------



## cookiesowns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> I think you will be seriously pushing the PSU *if* you intend to power overclocked BW-E + 2x overclocked Titan X SLI + custom loop with D5 pump.
> I recommend minimum 1200W. 1500W is better.
> But for a single Titan X, why not.


Naw, 1000W is perfectly sufficient. You need to be doing some serious power hogs with 6950X and 2x overclocked TXP with power mods in order to reach the limits of 1000W. I really have only seen my system pull over 1000W when I was running KPE 980Tis overvolted.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> nice.. great "toy"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "


This is my 24/7 OC past 300+% HCI Memtest. @Jpmboy can you please look at my memory settings and give me some of your wisdom. What is the best way to get the RTL(CHC) DO and IO-L (CHA) DO in line? I have tried increasing the DRAM, VCCSA and VCCIO voltage. It changes the channels to alternate 53, 55 and 10, 8. Is the (tWTR-L) and (tRTP) to high? CPU at 4.2GHz 1.2v, Cashe 3.3GHz 0.040v offset, DRAM 1.360v, VCCIN 1.914v, VCCSA 1.195v and VCCIO 0.960v. First is the stock XMP profile picture and second is the new OC for memory picture. Thanks for your help.









http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/cachemem_zps0bmzmcaz.png.html

http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/AsRock_zpsy7nnvzji.png.html


----------



## 1033ruben

so i finally got my 6800k stable on my msi x99a gaming pro carbon mobo after about a month of messing with settings here and there, man was is it a headache. so i am running my 6800k at 1.35 volts 3 of the cores are running at 4.4 ghz and the other 3 at 4.3 ghz i have the core voltage set to override (manual) not adaptive or offset. avx is set to -2, vccin is set to 1.75 , ram is set to xmp with 3000 mhz corsair vengeance led 1.35 volts with sa set to 1.325, vdroop is set to 100% (enthusiastic). and i think thats everything that i had to change in the uefi. okay now to temps while idle sits right around 40ish and under load the hottest it got under real bench 3 hour pass was the high 60's like 68. now i do have a open loop which consists of a d5 pump Mcp655 480 mm rad from coolgate and 8 120mm fans in push pull config. and it is all sitting inside of a thermaltake core p5 (open chasis).
RUBEN


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> so i finally got my 6800k stable on my msi x99a gaming pro carbon mobo after about a month of messing with settings here and there, man was is it a headache. so i am running my 6800k at 1.35 volts 3 of the cores are running at 4.4 ghz and the other 3 at 4.3 ghz i have the core voltage set to override (manual) not adaptive or offset. avx is set to -2, vccin is set to 1.75 , ram is set to xmp with 3000 mhz corsair vengeance led 1.35 volts with sa set to 1.325, vdroop is set to 100% (enthusiastic). and i think thats everything that i had to change in the uefi. okay now to temps while idle sits right around 40ish and under load the hottest it got under real bench 3 hour pass was the high 60's like 68. now i do have a open loop which consists of a d5 pump Mcp655 480 mm rad from coolgate and 8 120mm fans in push pull config. and it is all sitting inside of a thermaltake core p5 (open chasis).
> RUBEN


I have the GODLIKE Gaming carbon very similar. I am not sure what methodology you use in overclocking your system. With what you have posted I would say your VCCIN is low it should be at least .45v above your core voltage. Your VCCSA at 1.325 is way to high you might try balancing this with VCCIO. With these boards best to manually overclocking your memory. Did your XMP profile overclock you cashe (Ring)? This will impact your core voltage as well as your memory. Your Idle temps are high for water cooling. Take a look at these links below great information:









http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-ddr4-z170-z270-and-x99-24-7-memory-stability-thread


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> I have the GODLIKE Gaming carbon very similar. I am not sure what methodology you use in overclocking your system. With what you have posted I would say your VCCIN is low it should be at least .45v above your core voltage. Your VCCSA at 1.325 is way to high you might try balancing this with VCCIO. With these boards best to manually overclocking your memory. Did your XMP profile overclock you cashe (Ring)? This will impact your core voltage as well as your memory. Your Idle temps are high for water cooling. Take a look at these links below great information:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-ddr4-z170-z270-and-x99-24-7-memory-stability-thread


no it is not my VCCSA it is just my SA that is at 1.325 and from everything that i have read it is at the highest suppose to be at 1.35. yes my xmp did oc my cache but i adjusted that after and i manually also put my memory at 3000.
why do u say my temps are to high i thought it was 95 c where u begin to see throttling and the highest of any cores is mid 60's.
THANKS
RUBEN
wait let me check real quick
yeah it is my cpu sa votage that is set to 1.325


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> no it is not my VCCSA it is just my SA that is at 1.325 and from everything that i have read it is at the highest suppose to be at 1.35. yes my xmp did oc my cache but i adjusted that after and i manually also put my memory at 3000.
> why do u say my temps are to high i thought it was 95 c where u begin to see throttling and the highest of any cores is mid 60's.
> THANKS
> RUBEN
> wait let me check real quick
> yeah it is my cpu sa votage that is set to 1.325


SA is your system agent voltage VCCSA. You shoild try to get that below 1.2 if posible. I was talking about your idle temp of 40c. With my predator 360 with cpu and gpu is 24c with romm temp of 77f.


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> SA is your system agent voltage VCCSA. You shoild try to get that below 1.2 if posible. I was talking about your idle temp of 40c. With my predator 360 with cpu and gpu is 24c with romm temp of 77f.


yeah no i stated to think about that and ran a quick 30 min real bench and the highest it ever got was 56 c also the reason why i think my idle temps are so high/my load temps are only about 10-12 c higher is because i have it set to override mode meaning it is constantly at 1.35 volts. i am not sure why but my adaptive mode quit working on me in the last couple of days, i mean it doesnt fluctuate anymore depending on cpu load not sure wat the deal is with that but i have found my rig to be a lot more stable with the override mode. just curious what cpu do u have and what are your settings.
THANKS
RUBEN


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> yeah no i stated to think about that and ran a quick 30 min real bench and the highest it ever got was 56 c also the reason why i think my idle temps are so high/my load temps are only about 10-12 c higher is because i have it set to override mode meaning it is constantly at 1.35 volts. i am not sure why but my adaptive mode quit working on me in the last couple of days, i mean it doesnt fluctuate anymore depending on cpu load not sure wat the deal is with that but i have found my rig to be a lot more stable with the override mode. just curious what cpu do u have and what are your settings.
> THANKS
> RUBEN


See post 6367 on the previous page for my rig and settings. Make sure in the UEFI under your CPU ratio mode or manual mode depending on what board you have is not set to fixed. If it is it will not let adaptive mode work.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> This is my 24/7 OC past 300+% HCI Memtest. @Jpmboy can you please look at my memory settings and give me some of your wisdom. What is the best way to get the RTL(CHC) DO and IO-L (CHA) DO in line? I have tried increasing the DRAM, VCCSA and VCCIO voltage. It changes the channels to alternate 53, 55 and 10, 8. Is the (tWTR-L) and (tRTP) to high? CPU at 4.2GHz 1.2v, Cashe 3.3GHz 0.040v offset, DRAM 1.360v, VCCIN 1.914v, VCCSA 1.195v and VCCIO 0.960v. First is the stock XMP profile picture and second is the new OC for memory picture. Thanks for your help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/cachemem_zps0bmzmcaz.png.html
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/AsRock_zpsy7nnvzji.png.html


After much effort I have found the best settings for stability and max performance. You might try increasing you CPU Cache ratio. On 38 my system hits it's peak.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> After much effort I have found the best settings for stability and max performance. You might try increasing you CPU Cache ratio. On 38 my system hits it's peak.


Thanks for the reply. This is my 24/7 oc and since cashe does not benefit much for everyday use I would like it to be minimal. I do have a 4.4 oc with 38MHz of cashe for bench matking and same memory oc and it is fast.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Thanks for the reply. This is my 24/7 oc and since cashe does not benefit much for everyday use I would like it to be minimal. I do have a 4.4 oc with 38MHz of cashe for bench matking and same memory oc and it is fast.


What are your 3Dmark scores? are you running TXp in SLI?

Here are my best scores so far.
19383 in Time spy
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1679851

34666 in Fire Strike
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12514604


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> What are your 3Dmark scores? are you running TXp in SLI?
> 
> Here are my best scores so far.
> 19383 in Time spy
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1679851
> 
> 34666 in Fire Strike
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12514604


Just got my Titan Xp so still dialing in my overclocks. I have only made a test run one card: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1669423


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> See post 6367 on the previous page for my rig and settings. Make sure in the UEFI under your CPU ratio mode or manual mode depending on what board you have is not set to fixed. If it is it will not let adaptive mode work.


okay thanks i will check it out.
and your settings are as in bios settings?
RUBEN


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> okay thanks i will check it out.
> and your settings are as in bios settings?
> RUBEN


Yes these are my UEFI settings.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cookiesowns*
> 
> Naw, 1000W is perfectly sufficient. You need to be doing some serious power hogs with 6950X and 2x overclocked TXP with power mods in order to reach the limits of 1000W. I really have only seen my system pull over 1000W when I was running KPE 980Tis overvolted.


Sure. Perhaps for you. Personally, I wouldn't want to exeed 700-800W usage on a 1000W PSU.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> so i finally got my 6800k stable on my msi x99a gaming pro carbon mobo after about a month of messing with settings here and there, man was is it a headache. so i am running my 6800k at 1.35 volts 3 of the cores are running at 4.4 ghz and the other 3 at 4.3 ghz i have the core voltage set to override (manual) not adaptive or offset. avx is set to -2, vccin is set to 1.75 , ram is set to xmp with 3000 mhz corsair vengeance led 1.35 volts with sa set to 1.325, vdroop is set to 100% (enthusiastic). and i think thats everything that i had to change in the uefi. okay now to temps while idle sits right around 40ish and under load the hottest it got under real bench 3 hour pass was the high 60's like 68. now i do have a open loop which consists of a d5 pump Mcp655 480 mm rad from coolgate and 8 120mm fans in push pull config. and it is all sitting inside of a thermaltake core p5 (open chasis).
> RUBEN


beware, vdroop to 100% (enthusiastic) will damage your CPU, it is very dangerous,

it causes the CPU voltage to spikes to a very high value when CPU is going down to idle, which will damage it.
Put is 50% or max 75%
this is my advice


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> This is my 24/7 OC past 300+% HCI Memtest. @Jpmboy can you please look at my memory settings and give me some of your wisdom. What is the best way to get the RTL(CHC) DO and IO-L (CHA) DO in line? I have tried increasing the DRAM, VCCSA and VCCIO voltage. It changes the channels to alternate 53, 55 and 10, 8. Is the (tWTR-L) and (tRTP) to high? CPU at 4.2GHz 1.2v, Cashe 3.3GHz 0.040v offset, DRAM 1.360v, VCCIN 1.914v, VCCSA 1.195v and VCCIO 0.960v. First is the stock XMP profile picture and second is the new OC for memory picture. Thanks for your help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/cachemem_zps0bmzmcaz.png.html
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/AsRock_zpsy7nnvzji.png.html*


there's 2 ways to go here: either bring ChA D0 and ChC D0 in line or vis-versa. The simplest way is to increase vdimm which will probably do it - these should stagger based upon the trace layout - also, tCWL will drive the RTL and IOL values. Try raising amnd lowering it one notch at a time and check the trl/iol in bios, no need to enter the OS . 1.36V is pretty low. Try 1.4V. Post up the SPD tab in CPUz... and if the MSi board offers something that alows you to train/post with a higher vdimm, like 1.425V and run at 1.4V - may be called "final" or "eventual" VDIMM in bios - this will align things better. unfortunately I have zero experience with the MSI x99 boards.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> there's 2 ways to go here: either bring ChA D0 and ChC D0 in line or vis-versa. The simplest way is to increase vdimm which will probably do it - these should stagger based upon the trace layout - also, tCWL will drive the RTL and IOL values. Try raising amnd lowering it one notch at a time and check the trl/iol in bios, no need to enter the OS . 1.36V is pretty low. Try 1.4V. Post up the SPD tab in CPUz... and if the MSi board offers something that alows you to train/post with a higher vdimm, like 1.425V and run at 1.4V - may be called "final" or "eventual" VDIMM in bios - this will align things better. unfortunately I have zero experience with the MSI x99 boards.


Thank you very much! Yes My board has all the options different names but same outputs. I will give these a shot tonight.


----------



## jsutter71

System locked up today so I lowered my core voltage to 4.3 and raised my CPU cache to 38. I also made a slight increase in VCCSA. The results show increased memory read but a slight decrease in write and copy. Oh well. You win some you lose some but you live. You live to fight another day. I don't know. Something I heard once on another Friday.


----------



## jsutter71

That's better. Same settings but better results. Must have been the background programs. That's what I get for listening to stupid advice. After I read this article I turned of game mode.
http://www.pcgamer.com/windows-10-game-mode-tested-good-for-minimum-fps-bad-for-multitasking/


----------



## Jpmboy

just FYI... pretty consistent over time. Run on the left is from Oct16, 2016, on the right was just today. 1.45V, [email protected] 3400


----------



## chibi

Snippet from JP's screen above.

Can someone explain to me the correlation of RTL and IO numbers? I assume I would want the IO's to be the same, but I notice the RTL's stagger a bit. How do I know if my settings are totally bonkers and what should I aim for?

My build is almost done, just need to replace a few leaky rotary fittings and I should be able to start overclocking.


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> beware, vdroop to 100% (enthusiastic) will damage your CPU, it is very dangerous,
> 
> it causes the CPU voltage to spikes to a very high value when CPU is going down to idle, which will damage it.
> Put is 50% or max 75%
> this is my advice


i really dont think it matters in my case since the voltage of my cpu never changes ever i have been trying to get adaptive to work but it doesnt want to work. i hae all of the powersaving modes turned on along with the dynamic mode for the cpu all to no avail.
and i even tried resetting the bios to defaults.
THANKS
RUBEN


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> 
> Snippet from JP's screen above.
> Can someone explain to me the correlation of RTL and IO numbers? I assume I would want the IO's to be the same, but I notice the RTL's stagger a bit. How do I know if my settings are totally bonkers and what should I aim for?
> My build is almost done, just need to replace a few leaky rotary fittings and I should be able to start overclocking.


I believe this is related to the fact that Channels B and D are physically closer to the socket, so.. .although the EEs try to make trace-paths equivalent and ASUS T-toplogy helps to normalize the path (resistance etc) differences, this is why the RTLs stagger in this manner on the R5E and R5E10.


----------



## chibi

Thanks JP! In terms of overclocking, what if the RTL-A was say 59 and RTL-B was 57. Does higher or lower indicate instability and or performance? What values in the RVE10 bios can be used to tune these numbers? Same question for the IO numbers.


----------



## Madness11

Hey guys .
http://imgur.com/a/qsL1H
This setting ok ?? (Now 4.0 and 1.2v) but tell me pls its ok or no


----------



## nrpeyton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> he answered that in the posts following the one you quoted.


? Checked through pages 636 to 640.. nothing?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nrpeyton*
> 
> ? Checked through pages 636 to 640.. nothing?


He's trading CPU power for living space ...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> He's trading CPU power for living space ...


terrible trade... out-house with a server-rack... all you need...


----------



## inedenimadam

So I decided to back my overclock down a bit. I ran my 5820k into the ground early, and I dont really want to do it to this 6800k.

Anyway, I cant seem to get the dang thing to downvolt past a certain point. 41x on 100 strap. I am using adaptive with .001 offset and 1.15 additional turbo.... and HWiNFO is reading 1.25-1.3 across various cores. It reads roughly the same if I up the voltage to 1.2.

It makes no sense, why is my processor not responding to voltages set in BIOS?

Edit to add: package and core temps confirm that voltage below 1.25ish will default to 1.25-1.3, and that it is not a software read error.

Also Also: How do you guys get rid of turbo 3.0? I have disabled the service, tried uninstalling the software, disabling and deleteing the driver from device panel...and it keeps coming back...its worse than herpes.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Thanks JP! In terms of overclocking, what if the RTL-A was say 59 and RTL-B was 57. Does higher or lower indicate instability and or performance? What values in the RVE10 bios can be used to tune these numbers? Same question for the IO numbers.


lower Round Trip Latency will give better ram metrics (benchmarks) but will require tuning of other settings like tCWL. the staggering can be complicated but a stagger of 1 is normal. IN the RVE10 use either the offset or set the actual value. *Word of caution*.... once you decide to head down this rabbit hole MAKE SURE you have a good image of your system. Fouling ram can result in unrecoverable OS installs and even corrupt the bios requiring a dead-board flash. (which the RVE and 10 do like the champs they are.








Here's a good start post from Alex: https://rog.asus.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-75147.html
There are many such threads at HWBOT. http://hwbot.org/newsflash/3058_advanced_skylake_overclocking_tune_ddr4_memory_rtlio_on_maximus_viii_with_alexaros_guide

For a gaming rig, just lower tCWL (and add voltage) until is fails to post. Back off by 1 (which may require a clrcmos) and note the RTL IOLs at this higher value. If it is training properly - a +1 stagger - and flat IOL tune the rest of the settings from those values manually entered.








There are lots of folks around here much more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nrpeyton*
> 
> ? Checked through pages 636 to 640.. nothing?


he is building a house. a 6950X buys a bunch of bathroom fixtures.


----------



## lanofsong

Hey there Broadwell-E owners,

Would you consider signing up with Team OCN for the 2017 Pentathlon (*May 5th through May 19th*). There is so much time left an we really could use your help.

This event is truly a GLOBAL battle with you team OCN going up against many teams from across the world and while we put in a good showing at last year's event by finishing 6th, we could do with a lot more CPU/GPU compute power, *especially CPU POWER*. All you need to do is sign up and crunch on any available hardware that you can spare.

The cool thing about this event is that it spread over 5 disciplines over *varying lengths of time* (different projects) so there is a lot of *strategy/tactics* involved.

We look forward to having you and your hardware on our team. Again, this event lasts for two weeks and takes place May 5th through the 19th.


Download the software here.

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

Presently we really would like some help with the following projects:

For CPU's - *Cosmologyathome.org* and *worldcommunitygrid.org* (*OpenZika only*).

If you have a GPU available - *Einsteinathome.org*

Note: For every project you fold on, you will be offered if you want to join a team - type in overclock.net (enter) then JOIN team.


Remember to sign up for the Boinc team by going here: You can also post any questions that your may have - this group is very helpful









8th BOINC Pentathlon thread

To find your Cross Project ID# - sign into your account and it will be located under Computing and Credit


Please check out the GUIDE - How to add BOINC Projects page for more information about running different projects:

This really is an exciting and fun event and i look forward to it every year and I am hoping that you will join us and participate in this event









BTW - There is an awesome BOINC Pentathlon badge for those who participate









lanofsong

OCN - FTW


----------



## curseddiamond

I went from the i7-6800k to the i7-6850 as i found one used and I am very happy with it. I run 2 1080ti in SLI and wanted to add an NVMe drive and a black magic capture card so I needed the extra PCI lanes.

Anyone want a barely used 6800, lol

the 6850 turned out to be a better overclocker for me. don't know if that is true across the board or if I did better in the lottery. My 6800 could run very stable at 4.4 but the 6850 runs just as stable at 4.5


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> there's 2 ways to go here: either bring ChA D0 and ChC D0 in line or vis-versa. The simplest way is to increase vdimm which will probably do it - these should stagger based upon the trace layout - also, tCWL will drive the RTL and IOL values. Try raising amnd lowering it one notch at a time and check the trl/iol in bios, no need to enter the OS . 1.36V is pretty low. Try 1.4V. Post up the SPD tab in CPUz... and if the MSi board offers something that alows you to train/post with a higher vdimm, like 1.425V and run at 1.4V - may be called "final" or "eventual" VDIMM in bios - this will align things better. unfortunately I have zero experience with the MSI x99 boards.


Finally I have figure out this boards UEFI. The advanced mode has so many settings and once you have grasp of the basics it all make sense. Thanks for all your help.









http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/AsRock_zpscuistlfm.png.html


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *curseddiamond*
> 
> I went from the i7-6800k to the i7-6850 as i found one used and I am very happy with it. I run 2 1080ti in SLI and wanted to add an NVMe drive and a black magic capture card so I needed the extra PCI lanes.
> 
> Anyone want a barely used 6800, lol
> 
> the 6850 turned out to be a better overclocker for me. don't know if that is true across the board or if I did better in the lottery. My 6800 could run very stable at 4.4 but the 6850 runs just as stable at 4.5


at which voltage are you running the 6850K 4.5 ghz?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys did anyone used a liquid metal between the CPU IHS and the AIO water cooler copper pump ?
like CLP, CLU, Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut ...

how much temp was improved ? and there is any side effect over time ?

thank u


----------



## xTesla1856

Quick sanity check: Are BW-E chips soldered to the IHS?


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Quick sanity check: Are BW-E chips soldered to the IHS?


Yes. http://www.overclock.net/t/1613986/broadwell-e-direct-die-mounting-instructions


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Finally I have figure out this boards UEFI. The advanced mode has so many settings and once you have grasp of the basics it all make sense. Thanks for all your help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/AsRock_zpscuistlfm.png.html


looking good!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys did anyone used a liquid metal between the CPU IHS and the AIO water cooler copper pump ?
> like CLP, CLU, Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut ...
> 
> how much temp was improved ? and there is any side effect over time ?
> 
> thank u


I would not use a LM TIM with a copper block. Nickel Plate - yes, bare copper, no. The interacti0on with gallium is not a simple stain on the copper. Sure, the LM will do better than any grease.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> looking good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not use a LM TIM with a copper block. Nickel Plate - yes, bare copper, no. The interacti0on with gallium is not a simple stain on the copper. Sure, the LM will do better than any grease.


 Capture.jpg 169k .jpg file


----------



## Vellinious

I put the CPU up for sale in the marketplace here. I built a little Ryzen rig to get my by until after I get the house built. It's a decent little CPU, but.....certainly not what I'm used to.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I put the CPU up for sale in the marketplace here. I built a little Ryzen rig to get my by until after I get the house built. It's a decent little CPU, but.....certainly not what I'm used to.


Good luck with the house!


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Good luck with the house!


lol, gonna need it. Thanks!!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

F*** this world i will buy the nzxt x62 and the thermal grizzy Conductonaut and apply it between the ihs and the pump, and ? My 6900K above 4.2 ghz
I don't like to be from safethermalpaste.net


----------



## curseddiamond

I am running at 1.29 on the vcore. I can bump it 4.6 if I run the vcore at 1.35 but it is not stable through all the testing I use.

it will handle gaming and daily driving but it will not go more than about 20-30 minutes under the full stress test I use without getting to hot for my liking.

I also have my cache set to 3.5 at 1.2 volts. no matter what I bump it up to my cache cannot get past 3.5, period.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys did anyone used a liquid metal between the CPU IHS and the AIO water cooler copper pump ?
> like CLP, CLU, Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut ...
> 
> how much temp was improved ? and there is any side effect over time ?
> 
> thank u


I did, used the CLP and yeah, saw a great temp improvement (but maybe because of the convex ihs also). Changed the block as well but it's hard to believe that my Heatkiller IV (itself) did such an evident temp drop over the Supremacy evo I've had before. The CLP also did it's part









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I would not use a LM TIM with a copper block. Nickel Plate - yes, bare copper, no. The interacti0on with gallium is not a simple stain on the copper. Sure, the LM will do better than any grease.


Exactly, mine has a nickel base


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> F*** this world i will buy the nzxt x62 and the thermal grizzy Conductonaut and apply it between the ihs and the pump, and ? My 6900K above 4.2 ghz
> I don't like to be from safethermalpaste.net


lol - quit asking and just do it.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I ordered Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut from amazon.
now i need a new 280 mm AIO cooler

I am thinking of buying cooler master nepton 280L

Do you recommend to me guys?


----------



## stephenn82

Its all in what you want. That one, the Corsair H115i, evga CLC 280, or Kraken x62 are all very similar. what you want to spend, and how many flashy lights do you want? I went with the corsair, its pretty good, no bling, great pump and rad design, middle of the road price.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stephenn82*
> 
> Its all in what you want. That one, the Corsair H115i, evga CLC 280, or Kraken x62 are all very similar. what you want to spend, and how many flashy lights do you want? I went with the corsair, its pretty good, no bling, great pump and rad design, middle of the road price.


thank u for your reply

where i live, i can get only the nepton 280L from the store, i will try finding a store that has the corsair, but i think you are right, they are close to each other in terms of performance.


----------



## stephenn82

The EVGA CLC280 is a really good cooler, very capable...if you can find that, sweet. check out Steve's review here:
video included

the video gets to the point at 5 minute mark, edited.
https://youtu.be/LA_qVVhvZaY?t=302

site has an in depth review and analysis.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2788-evga-clc-280-review-vs-nzxt-x62-corsair-h115i?showall=1


----------



## Iceman2733

Anyone else getting IA: Turbo Attenuation (MCT) with HWinfo? I have read about people modifying the settings of Turbo under the bios but doesn't seem like a lot of people do, not sure if this is why I am getting it. Heck even googling it doesn't bring up a lot of results on it or what exactly it is.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I ordered Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut from amazon.
> now i need a new 280 mm AIO cooler
> 
> I am thinking of buying cooler master nepton 280L
> 
> Do you recommend to me guys?


Swiftech H240-X


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Swiftech H240-X


i read some bad reviews about this AIO. did anyone try it ?


----------



## curseddiamond

IMG_20170510_012255.jpg 254k .jpg file
I am running the Swiftech 240x - prestige and it works great. it can be a pain in the ass to install due to the placement of the res and pump. I originally had the 360 but couldn't fit it in the top of my Corsair 780T.

so be mindful of where you would plan to install.

the great thing about it compared to other AIO is that you can expand it in the future to cool other components such as your GPU or two. the pump is more than enough to handle that flow you would just need to add the extra coolant and hardware.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Thank y for your reply

did you have any water leak ? I read some review about this issue.
and what are these 3 colors tubes that came with it ?

thank u


----------



## ELIAS-EH

guys

is this worth the price ?

https://www.amazon.com/Thermaltake-PACIFIC-RL360-Cooling-CL-W113-CA12SW/dp/B01BI0X9MQ/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1494415903&sr=8-5&keywords=thermaltake+kit

regards


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Thank y for your reply
> 
> did you have any water leak ? I read some review about this issue.
> and what are these 3 colors tubes that came with it ?
> 
> thank u


I purchased one that came with a busted fitting, when I opened the box it was all wet inside, returned it and received another box full of water, again had a broken fitting.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

thank u

I took the decision, I will buy the cooler master, master liquid pro 280
I will put thermal Grizzly Conductonaut on the CPU IHS and on the copper surface of the pump (received an email from thermal grizzly technical support that recommend me to put on both surface)
when I will install them I will gives you the temp of my 6900K.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> I purchased one that came with a busted fitting, when I opened the box it was all wet inside, returned it and received another box full of water, again had a broken fitting.


damn - really? that's ridiculous. Bad packaging ( and gorilla handling) or just poor quality fittings?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> thank u
> 
> I took the decision, I will buy the cooler master, master liquid pro 280
> I will put thermal Grizzly Conductonaut on the CPU IHS and on the copper surface of the pump (received an email from thermal grizzly technical support that recommend me to put on both surface)
> when I will install them I will gives you the temp of my 6900K.


Exactly, this is how I applied the CLP:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wv5Vg25SKLNDc0SkNSelNtbEE/view?usp=drivesdk


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Thank u
No need to cover all the cpu IHS right ?

One small dot is enought to spread it and cover most of the ihs? Or i need more than one dot in the center?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Thank u
> No need to cover all the cpu IHS right ?
> 
> One small dot is enought to spread it and cover most of the ihs? Or i need more than one dot in the center?


Make it a little bit bigger on the ihs (yet one drop only) and one more dot on the block's base, yeah.
And IMHO you don't actually need to cover all the ihs area since the Broadwell-E die is much smaller (even smaller then the Haswell-E), look at the 6850K:




And even the 10 core flagship 6950X:



And also just in case you would have applied too much this reduced coverage will be a benefit, you won't risk anything









Edit:
I've always used this original (CLU) applying method exactly like in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N3D1zaeJoU


----------



## rolldog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - quit asking and just do it.


Ok Jpmboy, after giving it some thought, I decided you were right, I need a second rig. With all the delays I ran across with my current rig, recalls, etc, I'm not very familiar with all the Skylake/Kaby Lake hardware as I should be, so I'm hoping you can give me a few words of advice so I can start on this asap instead of months from now.

As I've seen, the market is flooded with Z270 boards, which is really what I think I need, along with an i7-7700k CPU. I'm hoping you can save me a great deal of time and narrow down my choices. I was looking at the Asus Maximus IX Extreme or the Gigabyte Z270X Gaming 9 with an i7-7700k, but do the additional features of these board justify the premium they sell for over other boards? I've heard mixed reviews on each, but I don't have much time to waste trying to decide since my case is on the way, my GPUs are already here, so if I can come to a decision on which board and CPU to get, then I can start designing my rig.

You've always been helpful in the past, which is why I'm asking you for advice. I definitely want the Z270 since I want to use Optane memory on this build, but I just want someone to steer me in the right direction so I can get these last parts ordered. Also, regarding the memory, Asus says it can run DDR4 4133
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - quit asking and just do it.


Awesome!


----------



## trippinonprozac

Hey guys,

If anyone is after a solid 6950x I am sadly going to let mine go and move back to a 5960x.

Competing priorities means something has to give. PM me if anyone is interested.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Make it a little bit bigger on the ihs (yet one drop only) and one more dot on the block's base, yeah.
> And IMHO you don't actually need to cover all the ihs area since the Broadwell-E die is much smaller (even smaller then the Haswell-E), look at the 6850K:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even the 10 core flagship 6950X:
> 
> 
> 
> And also just in case you would have applied too much this reduced coverage will be a benefit, you won't risk anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> I've always used this original (CLU) applying method exactly like in this video:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N3D1zaeJoU


thank u so much, really helped me, appreciated.


----------



## Jubijub

TIL : those CPU can be delidded...I've always thought that they were soldered...


----------



## xurxo1975

Hi All,

Today I´m going to build my 6850K cpu, after my 5820K died on me last month.
Any advice on to start my overclock.
Any limmit that I shouldn´t pass with the voltage

Just a newbie as I was with my 5820K

Thanks guys!!


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xurxo1975*
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Today I´m going to build my 6850K cpu, after my 5820K died on me last month.
> Any advice on to start my overclock.
> Any limmit that I shouldn´t pass with the voltage
> 
> Just a newbie as I was with my 5820K
> 
> Thanks guys!!


Start here: http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/








Go here for memory: http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-intel-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread


----------



## Driller au

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xurxo1975*
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Today I´m going to build my 6850K cpu, after my 5820K died on me last month.
> Any advice on to start my overclock.
> Any limmit that I shouldn´t pass with the voltage
> 
> Just a newbie as I was with my 5820K
> 
> Thanks guys!!


Start here http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
this one to thanks to arrow0309 https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?89748-6850K-Overclocking-My-Experience

lols to slow to find that RoG link


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jubijub*
> 
> TIL : those CPU can be delidded...I've always thought that they were soldered...


They are soldered. Deliding these is not for the faint of heart.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jubijub*
> 
> TIL : those CPU can be delidded...I've always thought that they were soldered...


they are. and unless youy do direct-to-die cooling with the appropriate shims (to avoid crushing the die), it's pointless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rolldog*
> 
> Ok Jpmboy, after giving it some thought, I decided you were right, I need a second rig. With all the delays I ran across with my current rig, recalls, etc, I'm not very familiar with all the Skylake/Kaby Lake hardware as I should be, so I'm hoping you can give me a few words of advice so I can start on this asap instead of months from now.
> 
> As I've seen, the market is flooded with Z270 boards, which is really what I think I need, along with an i7-7700k CPU. I'm hoping you can save me a great deal of time and narrow down my choices. I was looking at the Asus Maximus IX Extreme or the Gigabyte Z270X Gaming 9 with an i7-7700k, but do the additional features of these board justify the premium they sell for over other boards? I've heard mixed reviews on each, but I don't have much time to waste trying to decide since my case is on the way, my GPUs are already here, so if I can come to a decision on which board and CPU to get, then I can start designing my rig.
> 
> You've always been helpful in the past, which is why I'm asking you for advice. I definitely want the Z270 since I want to use Optane memory on this build, but I just want someone to steer me in the right direction so I can get these last parts ordered. Also, regarding the memory, Asus says it can run DDR4 4133
> Awesome!


lol - you can;t go wrong with rhe M9E... but the hero and Apex are incredible boards. Just make sure they have all the I/O you need. I'm running an NVMe Raid 0 on the apex... very fast.


----------



## xurxo1975

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> Start here http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
> this one to thanks to arrow0309 https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?89748-6850K-Overclocking-My-Experience
> 
> lols to slow to find that RoG link


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Start here: http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go here for memory: http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-intel-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread


Thanks guys!!!

Have some reading material


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xurxo1975*
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Today I´m going to build my 6850K cpu, after my 5820K died on me last month.
> Any advice on to start my overclock.
> Any limmit that I shouldn´t pass with the voltage
> 
> Just a newbie as I was with my 5820K
> 
> Thanks guys!!


why your CPU died ? did you applied insane voltage? and did you OC on stock cooler ?
it is very rare that a CPU died


----------



## ELIAS-EH

*


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> they are. and unless youy do direct-to-die cooling with the appropriate shims (to avoid crushing the die), it's pointless


Not entirely pointless, since Intel's solder is pretty thick. You should be able to shave off a few C even if you replace the IHS simply because the IHS will be closer to the die.

Anyway, I delidded a few LGA-1366 parts by just sanding all the way through the IHS, which left a nice shim around the edge.


----------



## stephenn82

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> why your CPU died ? did you applied insane voltage? and did you OC on stock cooler ?
> it is very rare that a CPU died


Uhhh pretty sure HEDT never come with IHS fans.


----------



## arrow0309

I want a *Core i9-7900X*
















https://videocardz.com/69457/specifications-of-intels-core-x-i9-and-i7-series-supposedly-leaked


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I want a *Core i9-7900X*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://videocardz.com/69457/specifications-of-intels-core-x-i9-and-i7-series-supposedly-leaked


I wonder what the base clock will be for the Core i9-7920X


----------



## jsutter71

Strange numbering sequence. Now we have 4 i9 CPU's that end in X. Makes me wonder if they're gonna release a 7950x later or at the same time and it just hasn't been leaked yet.


If they are consistent with history I'd say yes. They released 3 40 PCIe lane chips so it makes since that they would release at least 3 44 lane chips.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Good news to see i9 cpu's 6 cores and above with such boost clock, but for sure i will not replace my 6900k.
i will upgrade when intel release HEDT cpu's with 7 nm.


----------



## mrkambo

Guys i could really do with some help, over the last few days i been getting real erratic lockups, so today...reset UEFI and booted into Windows and ran realbench, it failed at 20 mins in with all stock settings....

Not really sure where to go from here


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> Guys i could really do with some help, over the last few days i been getting real erratic lockups, so today...reset UEFI and booted into Windows and ran realbench, it failed at 20 mins in with all stock settings....
> 
> Not really sure where to go from here


Try to do a proper clear cmos and / or bios update and with the ram at default (no Xmp)
See if is working well


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Try to do a proper clear cmos and / or bios update and with the ram at default (no Xmp)
> See if is working well


Funnily enough, there as a BIOS update available, it wasn't relevant to me personally but done it none the less, been running RB for 26 minutes now...and no issues so far......

Edit: Passed an hour with no problems, suppose better find my OC again...


----------



## stephenn82

I9 to compete with r9? The finally decoded to change name of HEDT on intel side. It was getting to be too many i7 lol


----------



## sblantipodi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stephenn82*
> 
> I9 to compete with r9? The finally decoded to change name of HEDT on intel side. It was getting to be too many i7 lol


i9 is a big downgrade...
now you need to buy the 10 cores chip to get more than 28 PCIexpress lanes.


----------



## clarifiante

i am abit worried with my voltage on my 6900k OC @ 4.4ghz. in bios i have it set to adaptive at 1.3V +0.034 offset @ LLC6 but according to the hwmonitor, IA voltage shot up to 1.576V. what is this and should i be worried?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sblantipodi*
> 
> i9 is a big downgrade...
> now you need to buy the 10 cores chip to get more than 28 PCIexpress lanes.


you are right, 6 and 8 cores cpu do not support fully SLI GPU (x16) !


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *clarifiante*
> 
> i am abit worried with my voltage on my 6900k OC @ 4.4ghz. in bios i have it set to adaptive at 1.3V +0.034 offset @ LLC6 but according to the hwmonitor, IA voltage shot up to 1.576V. what is this and should i be worried?


From my experience HWMonitor can be buggy and report min/max values incorrectly at times. Try HWInfo and see if it reports the same voltage spikes.


----------



## mrkambo

sigh....i cant get my CPU stable at all anymore, kinda at my wits end with it, not sure if its starting to die, at stock its solid


----------



## stephenn82

it seems as if Intel is pulling the old AMD trick, flooding the market with a bunch of stuff that doesnt make sense to bring money back to the pockets. wait, didnt intel do that before, then just decide to run with one socket (775 after phasing out 478?) Then, they brought 1366 and phased 775 for 1156. Now they are back to their old ways, just having a confusing mess of items.

It also sounds like the i9 is to compete with the r9 series coming out from AMD, but they had to be "first" to market with the 9 naming convention...right?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stephenn82*
> 
> it seems as if Intel is pulling the old AMD trick, flooding the market with a bunch of stuff that doesnt make sense to bring money back to the pockets. wait, didnt intel do that before, then just decide to run with one socket (775 after phasing out 478?) Then, they brought 1366 and phased 775 for 1156. Now they are back to their old ways, just having a confusing mess of items.
> 
> It also sounds like the i9 is to compete with the r9 series coming out from AMD, but they had to be "first" to market with the 9 naming convention...right?


As the matter of facts the first Intel's 6 core cpu on 1366 was "supposed" to be called I9









http://www.pcworld.com/article/182906/Intel_Core_i9_SixCores_Of_Speed.html

But the lack of competition at that time made them delay it


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> sigh....i cant get my CPU stable at all anymore, kinda at my wits end with it, not sure if its starting to die, at stock its solid


What CPU do you have ? how much voltage did you applied to it ? weird for the CPU to degraded so much fast.

maybe it is you OC RAM or Cache that was not perfectly stable from the beginning, i read that you OC your Cache to 36, i am not able to get stable oc cache stable above 33.
i suggest bring you cache, RAM to stock speed (28 cache and 2133 RAM, and everything else at stock , VCCIO, VCCSA ...), and OC only the CPU, e.g. 4.1 Ghz 1.27V - 1.28V, and test it with OCCT large data set 1 hour, any CPU can pass 4.1 Ghz at 1.27V-1.28V (worst case).


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> sigh....i cant get my CPU stable at all anymore, kinda at my wits end with it, not sure if its starting to die, at stock its solid
> 
> 
> 
> What CPU do you have ? how much voltage did you applied to it ? weird for the CPU to degraded so much fast.
> 
> maybe it is you OC RAM or Cache that was not perfectly stable from the beginning, i read that you OC your Cache to 36, i am not able to get stable oc cache stable above 33.
> i suggest bring you cache, RAM to stock speed (28 cache and 2133 RAM, and everything else at stock , VCCIO, VCCSA ...), and OC only the CPU, e.g. 4.1 Ghz 1.27V - 1.28V, and test it with OCCT large data set 1 hour, any CPU can pass 4.1 Ghz at 1.27V-1.28V (worst case).
Click to expand...

You kidding?
Mine is 37 stable


----------



## stephenn82

when will they bring the i11 on? when enough competition is around? jk


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> What CPU do you have ? how much voltage did you applied to it ? weird for the CPU to degraded so much fast.
> 
> maybe it is you OC RAM or Cache that was not perfectly stable from the beginning, i read that you OC your Cache to 36, i am not able to get stable oc cache stable above 33.
> i suggest bring you cache, RAM to stock speed (28 cache and 2133 RAM, and everything else at stock , VCCIO, VCCSA ...), and OC only the CPU, e.g. 4.1 Ghz 1.27V - 1.28V, and test it with OCCT large data set 1 hour, any CPU can pass 4.1 Ghz at 1.27V-1.28V (worst case).


I dont think it was core/uncore voltage, i think its the VCCSA/IO, my mobo doesnt have an absolute value for VCCSA i was running a offset of +390 to get my RAM working at 3000mhz, in order to get 3200 with XMP timings i needed about +440, but i have no idea what the actual voltage was, and no software will read it, short coming of my motherboard.

but ill try what you said when i get some time, maybe the weekend, but im not convinced...


----------



## matogl0396

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrkambo*
> 
> I dont think it was core/uncore voltage, i think its the VCCSA/IO, my mobo doesnt have an absolute value for VCCSA i was running a offset of +390 to get my RAM working at 3000mhz, in order to get 3200 with XMP timings i needed about +440, but i have no idea what the actual voltage was, and no software will read it, short coming of my motherboard.
> 
> but ill try what you said when i get some time, maybe the weekend, but im not convinced...


My motherboard is the same way, only shows VCCSA offset. By playing around with it I found it was voltages #6 and #12 in HW Monitor. If I change the offset to +.001 (the smallest possible) it is ~ .944. The "auto" setting, however, is a +300 offset to ~ 1.244. Then, if I turn on XMP to default settings on my 3200 RAM, it adds another +300 offset to ~ 1.544 (just with auto and XMP)!

I have found that .001 offset is stable for default memory, but I can't get anywhere close to 3200 around the ~ .95 - 1.05 VCCSA that most people swear by on this forum. I need 250 offset or more to even POST, and ~ 340 to be stable. So that is .944 + .340 = 1.284. That works for me for 15-17-17-35 2T 3200 @ 1.35v on my G.Skill 16-18-18-38 3200 16GB kit. Interestingly, this is "only" a .04 increase from the "auto" setting, which is actually in-line with others' experiences, it's just that my default is +300 mV higher.

Again, this is just my experience. I constantly see people recommend ~ .95 - 1.05 VCCSA, but that simply doesn't do the trick for me. I have a rare board though, an ASRock X99E-ITX/ac, which is a mini ITX form factor. It's the only mini ITX x99 board in existence, and most people avoid it due to lack of SLI support. But for me and my 6800k gaming & streaming from an HTPC, it was the only option. So anyway, hope it helps but take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## arrow0309

Gosh, than I've to thanks the Heavens for my "low" voltages, everything except the vcore (4.4Ghz) and also the cache at 3.7Ghz








And btw, I don't use the xmp for the (same) above sky rocking voltages (vccsa mainly)


----------



## clarifiante

my 6900k won't ever clock down according to hwmonitor it idles at 4399, my OC is 4.4Ghz, temps are quite ok around 35-45C idle. i have power savings all on auto or untouched in bios. mobo is rampage v edition 10

would appreciate help!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *clarifiante*
> 
> my 6900k won't ever clock down according to hwmonitor it idles at 4399, my OC is 4.4Ghz, temps are quite ok around 35-45C idle. i have power savings all on auto or untouched in bios. mobo is rampage v edition 10
> 
> would appreciate help!


Voltage must be adaptive in the BIOS.
check also that in the windows, power plan is balanced.

btw what is the Core voltage of your 6900K at 4.4Ghz ? I have the same CPU


----------



## stephenn82

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> My motherboard is the same way, only shows VCCSA offset. By playing around with it I found it was voltages #6 and #12 in HW Monitor. If I change the offset to +.001 (the smallest possible) it is ~ .944. The "auto" setting, however, is a +300 offset to ~ 1.244. Then, if I turn on XMP to default settings on my 3200 RAM, it adds another +300 offset to ~ 1.544 (just with auto and XMP)!
> 
> I have found that .001 offset is stable for default memory, but I can't get anywhere close to 3200 around the ~ .95 - 1.05 VCCSA that most people swear by on this forum. I need 250 offset or more to even POST, and ~ 340 to be stable. So that is .944 + .340 = 1.284. That works for me for 15-17-17-35 2T 3200 @ 1.35v on my G.Skill 16-18-18-38 3200 16GB kit. Interestingly, this is "only" a .04 increase from the "auto" setting, which is actually in-line with others' experiences, it's just that my default is +300 mV higher.
> 
> Again, this is just my experience. I constantly see people recommend ~ .95 - 1.05 VCCSA, but that simply doesn't do the trick for me. I have a rare board though, an ASRock X99E-ITX/ac, which is a mini ITX form factor. It's the only mini ITX x99 board in existence, and most people avoid it due to lack of SLI support. But for me and my 6800k gaming & streaming from an HTPC, it was the only option. So anyway, hope it helps but take it with a grain of salt.


I am pretty sure when you select XMP for memory in bios, there is an ok and a no button for selecting CPU settings. I always select no for the xmp profile for CPU. I still get my ram running at 3200 though. It doesnt allow the boosted CPU voltages to take over.


----------



## Medusa666

Guys, what is CPU VCCU voltage, and what would be good settings for it?


----------



## mus1mus

Was just reading this off Gigabyte's guide. Helps with Cache OC.

Honestly though, I haven't tried this with the Raiders. Cache anyway, is CPU reliant. 3.6 - 3.7 seems to be where most tops out. 3.8 unattainable on some chips. I do have a chip that does 4.0 GHz granted I am Voltage willing.


----------



## mrkambo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> My motherboard is the same way, only shows VCCSA offset. By playing around with it I found it was voltages #6 and #12 in HW Monitor. If I change the offset to +.001 (the smallest possible) it is ~ .944. The "auto" setting, however, is a +300 offset to ~ 1.244. Then, if I turn on XMP to default settings on my 3200 RAM, it adds another +300 offset to ~ 1.544 (just with auto and XMP)!
> 
> I have found that .001 offset is stable for default memory, but I can't get anywhere close to 3200 around the ~ .95 - 1.05 VCCSA that most people swear by on this forum. I need 250 offset or more to even POST, and ~ 340 to be stable. So that is .944 + .340 = 1.284. That works for me for 15-17-17-35 2T 3200 @ 1.35v on my G.Skill 16-18-18-38 3200 16GB kit. Interestingly, this is "only" a .04 increase from the "auto" setting, which is actually in-line with others' experiences, it's just that my default is +300 mV higher.
> 
> Again, this is just my experience. I constantly see people recommend ~ .95 - 1.05 VCCSA, but that simply doesn't do the trick for me. I have a rare board though, an ASRock X99E-ITX/ac, which is a mini ITX form factor. It's the only mini ITX x99 board in existence, and most people avoid it due to lack of SLI support. But for me and my 6800k gaming & streaming from an HTPC, it was the only option. So anyway, hope it helps but take it with a grain of salt.


Possibly the most informative post ive read, ill check HWmonitor out again and report my findings


----------



## wickedld9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matogl0396*
> 
> My motherboard is the same way, only shows VCCSA offset. By playing around with it I found it was voltages #6 and #12 in HW Monitor. If I change the offset to +.001 (the smallest possible) it is ~ .944. The "auto" setting, however, is a +300 offset to ~ 1.244. Then, if I turn on XMP to default settings on my 3200 RAM, it adds another +300 offset to ~ 1.544 (just with auto and XMP)!
> 
> I have found that .001 offset is stable for default memory, but I can't get anywhere close to 3200 around the ~ .95 - 1.05 VCCSA that most people swear by on this forum. I need 250 offset or more to even POST, and ~ 340 to be stable. So that is .944 + .340 = 1.284. That works for me for 15-17-17-35 2T 3200 @ 1.35v on my G.Skill 16-18-18-38 3200 16GB kit. Interestingly, this is "only" a .04 increase from the "auto" setting, which is actually in-line with others' experiences, it's just that my default is +300 mV higher.
> 
> Again, this is just my experience. I constantly see people recommend ~ .95 - 1.05 VCCSA, but that simply doesn't do the trick for me. I have a rare board though, an ASRock X99E-ITX/ac, which is a mini ITX form factor. It's the only mini ITX x99 board in existence, and most people avoid it due to lack of SLI support. But for me and my 6800k gaming & streaming from an HTPC, it was the only option. So anyway, hope it helps but take it with a grain of salt.


The X99 Taichi does this also and it is frustrating trying to sort out what voltages it's automatically supplying to most things. I too tried to set similar VCCSA as has been recommended in this thread and got nothing but crashes. .3-.35 is where I need to be for stability with probably the same GSkill kit as you, as well as a 32GB 2666 Ballistix Elite kit.
The X99 Taichi is a nice board but certainly not the most friendly when doing detailed overclocking. Had I known that this build was going to snowball (out of control) into what it has I would have sprung for a high end ASUS.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys hello
I need to buy gtx 1080TI
I know this is not the right place, but can you please advice me which is the best custom built to buy in terms of quality , and performance
Asus strix or evga FTW3 or msi gaming x
Thank u


----------



## stephenn82

There is an Nvidia thread, but my vote goes to Strix...or the FTW3. both are superb cards...oh, and the MSI is top notch too...
wait, that just makes it as hard as before...or harder!?

What is your budget, and what is your "theme" or 'scheme" you are building for? That should be your main choices, not us. its not WE that will be using that card day in and day out, or looking at it in our case window, or paying it off over 6 months or a lump of cash in one go. Even though I wish you would buy me a Strix or Gaming X....


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Your reply makes me more confused. Anw thx


----------



## stephenn82

I personally would go with ASUS ROG STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 Ti OC

THis has 10+2 choke setup and almost 1600mhz stock clock. its a hell of an overclocker...and you can buy me one...I will even let YOU use it for me....lol

For real, this is the one I would get.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

thank u for your reply.
I think the STRIX is the best one
I was waiting for the volta gpu, but my GTX 780 from gigabyte died 2 days ago.


----------



## Silent Scone

The Strix boosts to 1950Mhz out of the box.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Aorus (Gigabyte) 1080 Ti Xtreme Ed. and Zotac AMP! Extreme have the highest overclock out of the box. Also the Gigabyte has 4 years warranty compared to the standard 3 years warranty of other AIBs.


----------



## Menthol

If you are concerned with RGB lighting you may want to choose same brand as your motherboard, otherwise Strix is a very good card, also something to consider is some of these cards have an oversize heatsink taking up 3 slots which can interfere with other hardware


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Btw I bought the Performance Tuning Protection Plan for ky 6900k for 35$
I will oc my 6900k for 4.3 above 1.3v, when it will degrade i will replace it
Live in extreme and FUC* this world


----------



## lanofsong

Hey Broadwell-E owners,

We are having our monthly Foldathon from Monday 22nd - Wednesday 24th - 12noon EST.
Would you consider putting all that power to a good cause for those 2 days? If so, come sign up and fold with us - see attached link.

May 2017 Foldathon

To get started:

1.Get a passkey (allows for speed bonus) - need a valid email address
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/getpasskey.py

2.Download the folding program:
http://folding.stanford.edu/

Enter your folding name (mine is the same as my OCN name)
Enter your passkey
Enter Team OCN number - 37726

later
lanofsong


----------



## jsutter71

Looks like this is going to break some speed records.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-skylke-x-i9-7900x-45ghz-clock/


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Looks like this is going to break some speed records.
> https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-skylke-x-i9-7900x-45ghz-clock/


i think the 8 core will hit or come super close to 5Ghz. and the 10 right behind that. im excited to see whats coming.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> i think the 8 core will hit or come super close to 5Ghz. and the 10 right behind that. im excited to see whats coming.


12 cores... 12!!!


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 12 cores... 12!!!


^^^^^^^^!


----------



## GXTCHA

Sign me up for either the 8 or more likely 10 core!

A tasty 7900X paired with 3600+ DDR4... mmmmmhmmmm

And with Volta right around the corner. The next 6 to 12 months are going to be very fun!


----------



## Silicon Lottery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 12 cores... 12!!!


Jpmboy I'm curious- Assuming the 12 core chips aren't available for the first couple months, should I assume you are you going to jump on a 7900X first and then move to a 7920X?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 12 cores... 12!!!


16?!?!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I don't care about these i9 CPU's
my 6900K (@4.3) is more than enough, I am sure it will serve me till 7nm intel.
see you intel in 2020


----------



## Jubijub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I don't care about these i9 CPU's
> my 6900K (@4.3) is more than enough, I am sure it will serve me till 7nm intel.
> see you intel in 2020


One could argue that if they reach 4.5 OOB, they can probably reach 5 fairly easily, which is better than the 4.2/4.4 you can get with a 6900K.

This being said (and as an owner of a 6900K myself currently in a box as I wait for my darn Caselabs) :
- 8 cores is enough for the workload I handle (I need GPU acceleration)
- I wouldn't spit on more IPC / frequency, but hoping to achieve 4.2 with mine, this should be enough in practice
- we don't know yet the price of that beast, and I suspect it won't be on the cheap side.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jubijub*
> 
> One could argue that if they reach 4.5 OOB, they can probably reach 5 fairly easily, which is better than the 4.2/4.4 you can get with a 6900K.
> 
> This being said (and as an owner of a 6900K myself currently in a box as I wait for my darn Caselabs) :
> - 8 cores is enough for the workload I handle (I need GPU acceleration)
> - I wouldn't spit on more IPC / frequency, but hoping to achieve 4.2 with mine, this should be enough in practice
> - we don't know yet the price of that beast, and I suspect it won't be on the cheap side.


As AMD and Intel have demonstrated, you can't predict OC until you have a chip in your hands... yields and architecture dictate this. So, 4.5 is no guarantee of anything more than 4.5 and frankly, it doesn't even mean you can even hit 4.5 on all cores at the same time on any given chip as people have seen with Ryzen.

It's exciting to see some competition again, but we'll see when we see. Too early to pick a winner in the next round.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silicon Lottery*
> 
> Jpmboy I'm curious- Assuming the 12 core chips aren't available for the first couple months, should I assume you are you going to jump on a 7900X first and then move to a 7920X?


yeah - that wait will be painful. It kinda depends on the MB situation. But it's all too possible I'd do something (shameful) like that.


----------



## Silicon Lottery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - that wait will be painful. It kinda depends on the MB situation. But it's all too possible I'd do something (shameful) like that.


It's a convenient little trap Intel has going on there, going to cause a lot of double dippers I suspect.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I highly doubt an 8 or 10 cores reach 5 ghz on all cores OC, if it was 4 cores, it is possible,
Btw 4.5 ghz on one core and the rest are 4.3.


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silicon Lottery*
> 
> It's a convenient little trap Intel has going on there, going to cause a lot of double dippers I suspect.


We have done this dance for most every generation, either way CPU's are easy to resale compared to other components


----------



## arrow0309

Hi lads, maybe you've heard this question already but just in case I'd like to hear haw do you think.
What would be the core's max daily gaming temp for my 6850K @4.4, 1.375v adaptive?
I'm on water and reaching a 35C max liquid temp


----------



## Driller au

I am @ 4.375 , 1.3v with a H115i aio and playing BF1 I run at 50C on the cpu fluid temp is about 10C below that


----------



## arrow0309

Getting 60 C on the max core (4.4 @1.375v, 3.7 cache), I know is a little on the high side but I just can't do any better, this cpu is not one of the best and maybe it has an uneven ihs as well. Consider that I've put CLP and I still have the fifth core getting higher then the others, before with siliconic grease was even worse.


----------



## arrow0309

*i9 7980XE 18c/36t monster spotted*

https://videocardz.com/69900/exclusive-intel-to-launch-18-core-core-i9-7980xe-cpu

I'm gonna wait to see when it's released and hope for a decent price to get a 7900X.
If not I'll switch to an AMD 1976X.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

intel is on fire.
long live multicores cpu's

and now we can said : quad cores i5 or i7 dead, RIP

welcome to the multicores ERA >=6 cores

for sure I will not replace my 6900K, it will serve me for the 7 nm cpu's when intel will use other material than silicon


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> intel is on fire.
> long live multicores cpu's
> 
> and now we can said : quad cores i5 or i7 dead, RIP
> 
> welcome to the multicores ERA >=6 cores
> 
> for sure I will not replace my 6900K, it will serve me for the 7 nm cpu's when intel will use other material than silicon


Dead? I doubt it. Normal users and gamers don't really care much for many cores unless clocks are high too.
I hope these i9's will be able to hit at least 4.8 GHz post OC on all cores, so they can match or even beat mainstream quad's in gaming.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Dead? I doubt it. Normal users and gamers don't really care much for many cores unless clocks are high too.
> I hope these i9's will be able to hit at least 4.8 GHz post OC on all cores, so they can match or even beat mainstream quad's in gaming.


I will gives you 3 games as example that use 6 cores cpu:

battlefield 1, watch dogs 2 and over watch, need 6 cores to run without bottleneck

especially watch dogs 2, huge bottleneck with 4 cores i7 or i5 cpu's

games are going to use multicores cpu's more efficiently


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I will gives you 3 games as example that use 6 cores cpu:
> 
> battlefield 1, watch dogs 2 and over watch, need 6 cores to run without bottleneck
> 
> especially watch dogs 2, huge bottleneck with 4 cores i7 or i5 cpu's
> 
> games are going to use multicores cpu's more efficiently


Overwatch? Are you kidding? http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html
It likes high clocks better than many cores, 4 is fine

7700K performs just as good as HEDT i7's in those games. 7700K even beats them when all are overclocked since it hits 5+ GHz and have better IPC

Overall, in all new games, 7700K beats current i7 HEDT with ease, because current HEDT can't reach high clocks. Skylake-X will go higher than current HEDT and better IPC than Broadwell-E

Going HEDT for gaming alone is waste of money for 99.9% of people.. Only SLI/CF users might get a few percent better performance..


----------



## mus1mus

I'm sure someone said before that his Broadwell (not E) scores better than a Skylake CPU at same clocks.









It was buried somewhere on my thread list though.


----------



## tistou77

Intel has planned an 18 cores for Skylake-X ??

https://videocardz.com/69900/exclusive-intel-to-launch-18-core-core-i9-7980xe-cpu


----------



## mus1mus

10C will cost 1K - June
12C will cost 1.6K - August
14C will cost 2K - October
16C will cost 2.6K - November
18C will cost 3.5K - Christmas Bonus Money


----------



## tistou77

In fact








No topic yet for Skylake-X?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> 10C will cost 1K - June
> 12C will cost 1.6K - August
> 14C will cost 2K - October
> 16C will cost 2.6K - November
> 18C will cost 3.5K - Christmas Bonus Money


Gonna wait for the 18c monster to arise and hope for a price cut of the 10c (or however a less than 1k)








Meanwhile:

http://wccftech.com/intel-x299-motherboards-pictured-asus-asrock-gigabyte-biostar-evga-msi/

I like the new OC Formula with only 4 ram slots and (I believe) a lot of OC headroom


----------



## tux1989

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> 10C will cost 1K - June
> 12C will cost 1.6K - August
> 14C will cost 2K - October
> 16C will cost 2.6K - November
> 18C will cost 3.5K - Christmas Bonus Money


Thai prices https://gameolo.com/product-category/%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%9A/cpu/cpu-intel?orderby=price-desc


----------



## Jubijub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tux1989*
> 
> Thai prices https://gameolo.com/product-category/%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%9A/cpu/cpu-intel?orderby=price-desc


I absolutely don't believe each model will be cheaper than its predecessor, while packing a lot more power. Ryzen hasn't threatened Intel on per core power, they just made the 8 core more affordable. Whoever needed more is still stuck with Intel.

That did make the low end irrelevant, but this bit was challenged by Intel itself with Skylake (unless you need the 2 cores, a 6820K has not point vs a 7700K)


----------



## cekim

16/18c unlocked would be awesome... yes please.









I'll see it when I believe it.


----------



## Madness11

GUYS .. hey ))))) Well change 6900k to 7900x ????( Or i waste money?) Streming + gaming


----------



## mus1mus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jubijub*
> 
> I absolutely don't believe each model will be cheaper than its predecessor, while packing a lot more power. Ryzen hasn't threatened Intel on per core power, they just made the 8 core more affordable. *Whoever needed more is still stuck with Intel.*
> 
> That did make the low end irrelevant, but this bit was challenged by Intel itself with Skylake (unless you need the 2 cores, a 6820K has not point vs a 7700K)


Til SP3r2 comes around. Zen Modules can also be configured to scale for up to 32C on that said platform -- Naples. Threadripper.

And ohh -- that pricing looks hideous.


----------



## wickedld9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jubijub*
> 
> I absolutely don't believe each model will be cheaper than its predecessor, while packing a lot more power. Ryzen hasn't threatened Intel on per core power, they just made the 8 core more affordable. Whoever needed more is still stuck with Intel.
> 
> That did make the low end irrelevant, but this bit was challenged by Intel itself with Skylake (unless you need the 2 cores, a 6820K has not point vs a 7700K)


I expect that those prices are wrong, they are too high. I guess we will see this week, but I think 10-16 core will be around $100/core, with the 18 getting halo pricing of $111/core.


----------



## Jubijub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madness11*
> 
> GUYS .. hey ))))) Well change 6900k to 7900x ????( Or i waste money?) Streming + gaming


You do realize nobody has any facts about the 7900X, so this would be WAYYYYYYY too early to make any kind of statement right ?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Til SP3r2 comes around. Zen Modules can also be configured to scale for up to 32C on that said platform -- Naples. Threadripper.
> 
> And ohh -- that pricing looks hideous.


I was referring to existing processors...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wickedld9*
> 
> I expect that those prices are wrong, they are too high. I guess we will see this week, but I think 10-16 core will be around $100/core, with the 18 getting halo pricing of $111/core.


I would be surprised... 6900K is 131$ per core (which could be seen as high vs Ryzen 57$ per core, unless you need the performance per core), 6950K is 165$ per core (Newegg prices)

I don't really see any rationale for them dropping the price by 23% or 39%, especially on setups where no competition exist for the time being (ie anything > 8 cores), and even more so single core performance is strong (which is to be expected given that Kaby lake is already 2 gen above Broadwell, and that a Broadwell-E already blows Ryzen on IPC (which is why I bought a 6900K and not a Ryzen). And if those frequencies are confirmed, this is going to be even worse.

Again, new AMD CPUs might completely change this, but as long as we compare vs a 1800X, I don't see Intel being threatened on that segment, and thus having to slash prices.


----------



## mus1mus

Broadwell-E vs Ryzen in IPC is a question of what benchmark you want to use to compare them.

Besides the fact that BE enjoys quad-channel memory advantage, they are trading blows.

Pricing-wise, it's up to Intel to ignore what AMD has to offer. Competition is back in case you haven't been seeing the other side.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - that wait will be painful. It kinda depends on the MB situation. But it's all too possible I'd do something (shameful) like that.


I'm hoping for 7920X and motherboard release at the same time. I was thinking of switching from Asus to EVGA this time. Any experience with EVGA motherboards? I'm hoping they don't suck at overclocking so I don't have to deal with the Asus RMA nigtmares.


----------



## Jubijub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Broadwell-E vs Ryzen in IPC is a question of what benchmark you want to use to compare them.
> 
> Besides the fact that BE enjoys quad-channel memory advantage, they are trading blows.
> 
> Pricing-wise, it's up to Intel to ignore what AMD has to offer. Competition is back in case you haven't been seeing the other side.


OK so to clear the way : over 20 years, I have had Intel and AMD CPUs, as well as AMD and nvidia cards : I don't do fanboyism, I just take whatever is best at the time of building a rig.

Now Ryzen loses a lot of direct benches vs a 6900K, even at nominal speed (where Ryzen would have a freq advantage) : 7-zip, winrar, GCC, VS2015, x265, lightroom (almost 40%), 3DS, and games (on an average of 20% in favor of 6900K)
Ryzen wins : x264, chess IA







and probably a few other things

So I am not sure "trading blows" is an accurate statement vs a 6900K.

What is interesting though is that you get 80% of the performance for 50% of the cost, and that is a massive feat from AMD, and I love to see them back in the game. It is also a superb option for heavily threaded workload where the Ryzen is probably 95% of a 6900K, for still 50% of the cost. But on low threaded workload (which is still a big chunk of things out there), Ryzen is not competitive with even a 7700K that is much cheaper.

But in this kind of segment, money may not be the issue (if you are in the market for a 12 core, you know you won't get it cheap), and usually people will buy the fastest thing they can regardless of the price in that segment (if you do video authoring all day, getting a 20% faster processor gets 20% more work done per day, this has a value that far exceed the extra 500$ you would put on it). The only exception would be if you use GPU acceleration, in which case the CPU probably matters less and a Ryzen is good enough.

All this to say that intel still has the raw performance lead, on a segment where people are willing to spend the money, so I don't see them slashing prices by 30% on the upper segment of high end processors. The situation is totally different if you compare with a 6800K or 6850K, where the Ryzen clearly spanks Intel offering.

Edit : and yet they did


----------



## Jubijub

http://techreport.com/review/31986/intel-core-x-series-cpus-and-x299-platform-revealed

I stand corrected : the 7900X is spot on 100$ / core

So basically by having gone with a 6900K, I am losing 4 PCI channels (which I will probably not miss), 3.2/3.7/4.0 vs 3.3/4.0/4.5 (OC around 4.2 will offset some of this), 2 generations behind (those are Kaby lake based if not mistaken), and 2C/4T

oh well, I am still going to be happy with that 6900K


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Oh yeah i7-7820X here I come.

Lets hope intel and board partners (Asus I'm looking at you) have the bugs worked out for x299....


----------



## Lass3

What the...

Intel's Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X CPUs will not be soldered
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/intel_s_skylake-x_and_kaby_lake-x_cpus_will_not_be_soldered/1


----------



## xTesla1856

Invest in delid tools people !


----------



## jsutter71

Intel has gone over the deep end with these prices. 2k for a high end CPU. And I thought $1700 for the 6950x was crazy.


----------



## Medusa666

Considering selling the 6950X and X99 setup for AMD X399 or Intel i9, however there is no need to, just a "want"







I'm not even close to using all of the 6950X power and capability, seeing as I do some light multitasking and gaming with the occasional rendering.

Maybe the wisest thing to do is to wait until 2019-2020 for PCI-E 4.0, DDR5, and any other good stuff that is most likely to come up.

I wonder how the Broadwell-E 6900K and 6950X will stack up performance wise versus these new i9s and Threadripper CPUs.

Any ideas?


----------



## CerN

I'm so damn pissed that the 8 core is limited in PCIe lanes.
I don't need 10 cores, 6 is OK for me. I am willing to pay the price for the 8 core, but I am not willing to deal with 28pcie lanes...

God damnit Intel...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Dead? I doubt it. Normal users and gamers don't really care much for many cores unless clocks are high too.
> I hope these i9's will be able to hit at least 4.8 GHz post OC on all cores, so they can match or even beat mainstream quad's in gaming.


if turbo boost 3 can hit 4.5... 4.8 GHz in a gaming OC (per-core) is very possible... but we will have to see.


----------



## octiny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Intel has gone over the deep end with these prices. 2k for a high end CPU. And I thought $1700 for the 6950x was crazy.


For 8 more cores.

$1000 for the equivalent of a 6950x.


----------



## Jpmboy

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBBFAh5?m=en-us


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *octiny*
> 
> For 8 more cores.
> 
> $1000 for the equivalent of a 6950x.


I'm sitting here staring at my $15,000+ system and getting the upgrade bug, but then I remember that up until a couple years ago I was using a system with a 1st gen Core i7 CPU. The devil on my left shoulder is telling me that if I wasn't married I could do whatever I wanted, but then the angel on my right shoulder is telling me that I've been with my wife for 17 years and to stop acting like a selfish ***hole.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I'm sitting here staring at my $15,000+ system and getting the upgrade bug, but then I remember that up until a couple years ago I was using a system with a 1st gen Core i7 CPU. The devil on my left shoulder is telling me that if I wasn't married I could do whatever I wanted, but then the angel on my right shoulder is telling me that I've been with my wife for 17 years and to stop acting like a selfish ***hole.


lol - so true. Just being in this thread means "need" has been overcome by "want".


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *"need" has been overcome by "want"*


Story of my life


----------



## Medusa666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - so true. Just being in this thread means "need" has been overcome by "want".


*Quote For Truth Sir.*

That's the problem though ain't it, and it is a luxury problem, to even consider these things is in itself ridicilous, life is too short not to enjoy it, and if it so happens that there is this one expensive hobby that we all enjoy and share, then why not put some money into it, won't make a difference in the long run when we are all stardust









My girlfriend encourages me to upgrade, it is me myself that hesitates, my X99 system has been through alot, my second motherboard fried a 5960X, got a replacement, the overclocking memories, and the raw performance, so there is also, at least for me, some emotional value at play


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> *Quote For Truth Sir.*
> 
> That's the problem though ain't it, and it is a luxury problem, to even consider these things is in itself ridicilous, life is too short not to enjoy it, and if it so happens that there is this one expensive hobby that we all enjoy and share, then why not put some money into it, won't make a difference in the long run when we are all stardust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My girlfriend encourages me to upgrade, it is me myself that hesitates, my X99 system has been through alot, my second motherboard fried a 5960X, got a replacement, the overclocking memories, and the raw performance, so there is also, at least for me, some emotional value at play


HAHAHA!!!! MY Wife when she was my girlfriend use to be the same way. I thought I'd found the perfect gal so I married her. Then we had children. Over the years words like "I want you to be happy" changed to "I'll support whatever decision you make", and finally to " Stop acting so selfish".


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> lol - so true. Just being in this thread means "need" has been overcome by "want".


You just have to have three jobs to have a balance to meet the wants of you and your wife! One job has to have a one or more computers involved for your hobby.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBBFAh5?m=en-us


Sign me up for a i9-7980XE! it's a safe bet that Jpmboy will get one?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> Broadwell-E vs Ryzen in IPC is a question of what benchmark you want to use to compare them.
> 
> Besides the fact that BE enjoys quad-channel memory advantage, they are trading blows.
> 
> Pricing-wise, it's up to Intel to ignore what AMD has to offer. Competition is back in case you haven't been seeing the other side.


Things have gotten a LOT more complicated than IPC now that we are going HCC for the consumer.

Which, I will say - about damn time!!! Thanks AMD for forcing Intel's hand.









Now IPC is 1/2 to 3/4 of the equation and LATENCY and the other IPC (Inter-Process-Communication) come into play. AMD's architecture in this first pass has MUCH higher inter-complex and inter-core (intra-complex) latency than Intel. As such non-synthetics (i.e. random access) suffer.

They (AMD) appear to be much closer this time to Intel, so maybe rev 2 evens the race, but IPC and sythetic multi-core only tell part of the story. Vanishingly few "real" applications can do what Cinebench does when it comes to scaling to high-core-counts. Even for those applications that scale well, its not often you can just divide by #cores and go and still not have an application that you should just re-write in Cuda/openCL.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Intel has gone over the deep end with these prices. 2k for a high end CPU. And I thought $1700 for the 6950x was crazy.


I have to say, not really... I like cheap things as much as the next guy and I would not argue with cheaper CPUs, but with a smear of processors as they have now from 4 to 18 cores, the sweet spot in the middle is now right back where it was.


----------



## cekim

I doubt I will make it through this release without an 18core lol... and possibly a threadripper...









I will say, for the moment, I have no need for the smaller ones... so, late summer it is.


----------



## Artah

whoa is that a real cpu speed digital display on the rampage vi extreme?


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm hoping for 7920X and motherboard release at the same time. I was thinking of switching from Asus to EVGA this time. Any experience with EVGA motherboards? I'm hoping they don't suck at overclocking so I don't have to deal with the Asus RMA nigtmares.


i almost hit u up two trade one of Xp's for your 6950x with these prices glad i didnt lol.

Do i need any of this nope, but i sure do want. Def caught the bug. Enthoo Elite, skylake x or even threadripper up top Titan V's, Kaby lake x down below with a ti maybe.............hmmm. yup! thats what i want.







this time gonna get everything over time and just build one time. think thats gonna be my first you tube video. #screwsloose


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> whoa is that a real cpu speed digital display on the rampage vi extreme?


I remember thinking when the X99 Godlike came out that it had the most abusive use of LEDs ever. I now consider it to be a tasteful and reserved example.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> I remember thinking when the X99 Godlike came out that it had the most abusive use of LEDs ever. I now consider it to be a tasteful and reserved example.


Hey, Hey, Hey I like my Godlike Gaming Carbon! I just leave the led's off.....


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> whoa is that a real cpu speed digital display on the rampage vi extreme?


About the R6E and the M2 expansion card (DIMM), it is possible to put 2 SSD M2 (1 for the OS and 1 for the DATA) ?
Performance is the same as with M2s on conventional M2 ports ?

Thanks


----------



## mus1mus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Things have gotten a LOT more complicated than IPC now that we are going HCC for the consumer.
> 
> Which, I will say - about damn time!!! Thanks AMD for forcing Intel's hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now IPC is 1/2 to 3/4 of the equation and LATENCY and the other IPC (Inter-Process-Communication) come into play. AMD's architecture in this first pass has MUCH higher inter-complex and inter-core (intra-complex) latency than Intel. As such non-synthetics (i.e. random access) suffer.
> 
> They (AMD) appear to be much closer this time to Intel, so maybe rev 2 evens the race, but IPC and sythetic multi-core only tell part of the story. *Vanishingly few "real" applications can do what Cinebench does when it comes to scaling to high-core-counts. Even for those applications that scale well, its not often you can just divide by #cores and go and still not have an application that you should just re-write in Cuda/openCL*.
> I have to say, not really... I like cheap things as much as the next guy and I would not argue with cheaper CPUs, but with a smear of processors as they have now from 4 to 18 cores, the sweet spot in the middle is now right back where it was.


You got it right, you sir.









IMO, real world apps simply favor Intel due to the fact that they have been the industry standard when these apps were conceived. And I really didn't think of Zen doing an overnight success. Even when talking to AMD fans for that matter.

But hey, pricing looks attractive no matter which side you chose. I do feel that Intel forcefully pushing AMD to resort to cheaper pricing to compete with X299 this time. Like saying, "now go out and sell your chips with very little margin for revenue"


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> About the R6E and the M2 expansion card (DIMM), it is possible to put 2 SSD M2 (1 for the OS and 1 for the DATA) ?
> Performance is the same as with M2s on conventional M2 ports ?
> 
> Thanks


That's what I was planning to do but I'm not sure if it will work that way yet because of the booting issues with m.2. I am torn between R6E and that new shiny EVGA Dark. It's a tossup between the 10GiB LAN on R6E and the M.2 primising cooling on the EVGA Dark. Maybe I'll get both for different rigs...


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> i almost hit u up two trade one of Xp's for your 6950x with these prices glad i didnt lol.
> 
> Do i need any of this nope, but i sure do want. Def caught the bug. Enthoo Elite, skylake x or even threadripper up top Titan V's, Kaby lake x down below with a ti maybe.............hmmm. yup! thats what i want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this time gonna get everything over time and just build one time. think thats gonna be my first you tube video. #screwsloose


oh that 6950x is way gone, do I have regrets letting it go, absolutely. Now I need to dampen that pain with a new motherboard and an i9-7980XE. If wanted a 10 core I would have stuck with that clear silicon winner 6950x chip for sure. Do I need 10 cores? Nope, do I need 18 cores? No way unless I start hand breaking again. Am I going to get a i9-7980XE? Absolutely. Am I going to get to enjoy the i9-7980XE? That all depends if the wife is finally fed up with the upgrade obsession, she really doesn't enjoy the draining and filling/bleeding our rigs but for some reason she enjoyed assembling the custom loop on her new gun metal SMA8. I hope these become available before that experience leaves her thoughts.


----------



## richiec77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> That's what I was planning to do but I'm not sure if it will work that way yet because of the booting issues with m.2. I am torn between R6E and that new shiny EVGA Dark. It's a tossup between the 10GiB LAN on R6E and the M.2 primising cooling on the EVGA Dark. Maybe I'll get both for different rigs...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh that 6950x is way gone, do I have regrets letting it go, absolutely. Now I need to dampen that pain with a new motherboard and an i9-7980XE. If wanted a 10 core I would have stuck with that clear silicon winner 6950x chip for sure. Do I need 10 cores? Nope, do I need 18 cores? No way unless I start hand breaking again. Am I going to get a i9-7980XE? Absolutely. Am I going to get to enjoy the i9-7980XE? That all depends if the wife is finally fed up with the upgrade obsession, she really doesn't enjoy the draining and filling/bleeding our rigs but for some reason she enjoyed assembling the custom loop on her new gun metal SMA8. I hope these become available before that experience leaves her thoughts.


Bought the 6950x from Artah. It's a really nice CPU. Don't regret buying it. It's a golden CPU for BW-E. Was shocked at the price Intel has their new 10 core at. Expected something like $1110-1400. The TIM and forced Win10 upgrade has me on the staying side of the fence.

That new R6E board is awesome looking. The lighting is insane. The EVGA board has some good features but I'd wait and see. They've had issues in the past but use to be really good with motherboards. Some say it's the most stable x99 platform....don't know as I haven't used one myself. If cosmetics is paramount, the R6E wins. But EVGA FTW are interesting also.



Interestingly....there appears to be a PCI-E slot right behind the IO area. Looks like it's for Wifi.similar to the MSI Godlike board.


----------



## Jubijub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Things have gotten a LOT more complicated than IPC now that we are going HCC for the consumer.
> 
> Which, I will say - about damn time!!! Thanks AMD for forcing Intel's hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now IPC is 1/2 to 3/4 of the equation and LATENCY and the other IPC (Inter-Process-Communication) come into play. AMD's architecture in this first pass has MUCH higher inter-complex and inter-core (intra-complex) latency than Intel. As such non-synthetics (i.e. random access) suffer.
> 
> They (AMD) appear to be much closer this time to Intel, so maybe rev 2 evens the race, but IPC and sythetic multi-core only tell part of the story. Vanishingly few "real" applications can do what Cinebench does when it comes to scaling to high-core-counts. Even for those applications that scale well, its not often you can just divide by #cores and go and still not have an application that you should just re-write in Cuda/openCL.
> I have to say, not really... I like cheap things as much as the next guy and I would not argue with cheaper CPUs, but with a smear of processors as they have now from 4 to 18 cores, the sweet spot in the middle is now right back where it was.


Or of curiosity, could you list apps where Ryzen has a clear benefit over a 6900k ?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jubijub*
> 
> Or of curiosity, could you list apps where Ryzen has a clear benefit over a 6900k ?


I'm not aware of any where it has a "clear benefit" over the 6900k. I do recall there were a few synthetics where it did beat the 6900k, but not by a "clear margin".

I believe I described AMD as "much closer" not a clear winner, or even exceeding IPC. The point though is that IPC is only half the battle, so even IF AMD had synthetic IPC numbers (and BTW, they have claimed they do over Xeon parts vaguely using HPC benchmarks), they would still have an architectural issue of latency between cores and complexes.

AMD's latency IS measurable higher and that latency can have a significant impact on real application performance where memory access and IPC (InterProcessCommunication) are random rather than sequential and orthogonal.

We are also seeing rev 1 of Ryzen... so there may yet be more improvement.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I'm not aware of any where it has a "clear benefit" over the 6900k. I do recall there were a few synthetics where it did beat the 6900k, but not by a "clear margin".
> 
> I believe I described AMD as "much closer" not a clear winner, or even exceeding IPC. The point though is that IPC is only half the battle, so even IF AMD had synthetic IPC numbers (and BTW, they have claimed they do over Xeon parts vaguely using HPC benchmarks), they would still have an architectural issue of latency between cores and complexes.
> 
> AMD's latency IS measurable higher and that latency can have a significant impact on real application performance where memory access and IPC (InterProcessCommunication) are random rather than sequential and orthogonal.
> 
> We are also seeing rev 1 of Ryzen... so there may yet be more improvement.


I'm rooting for AMD and one day I may switch. Good healthy competition is good so that intel stops this highway robbery. It's not like they personally put 3.4 billion transistors on those broadwell-e chips then it would be justified to sell it for thousands. Machines do these things after the hard part of the developement.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm rooting for AMD and one day I may switch. Good healthy competition is good so that intel stops this highway robbery. It's not like they personally put 3.4 billion transistors on those broadwell-e chips then it would be justified to sell it for thousands. Machines do these things after the hard part of the developement.


I'm rooting for computer users.









I think Intel dropping 18c so quickly after AMD's 16 is proof of how hard they've been sand-bagging. Because they could.

I think the 2696v3 running 9-10cores at 3.8GHz and all cores at 3.4GHz is further proof of how hard they've been sand-bagging. The fact that I can keep it under 70C with a 3u heat-sink even more so...

AMD has to deliver and consistently. AMD has to keep the hype in check and consistently.

Then we all win.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I'm mulling this over in my head.

The Ryzen 1800x is about $499, which is nearly or equal to the 6900k at around $1000.
Now Intel drops the 7820X for $599 which in theory will be faster than both the 1800x and 6900k for $100 more.
(Ignoring the PCIe lane side of things)

I know what sensible people will pick when looking at CPU's in that price range









Like other's have said most current applications/games have been optimized for the Intel platform since they were the industry standard for years.


----------



## richiec77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I'm mulling this over in my head.
> 
> The Ryzen 1800x is about $499, which is nearly or equal to the 6900k at around $1000.
> Now Intel drops the 7820X for $599 which in theory will be faster than both the 1800x and 6900k for $100 more.
> (Ignoring the PCIe lane side of things)
> 
> I know what sensible people will pick when looking at CPU's in that price range
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like other's have said most current applications/games have been optimized for the Intel platform since they were the industry standard for years.


Honestly....I'd compare against the 1700 as it is as capable as the 1700x and 1800x when OC. Price then drops to the low $300's USD (I feel for you Ausi's getting raped on prices and shipping). So start looking at it from that standpoint.

Ryzen has 24 lanes so it's competitive to a point against 28 lanes.

When it comes to gaming performance, Intel takes the lead. This newer processor....appears to clock even higher than what a 5960x or 6900k can achieve so more performance there. Basically what the 7700k did to the 6700k. So gaming will most likely be 10-15% over Ryzen (snowballing the estimate). Overall higher FPS really only matters if you have the GPU power for higher refresh rate monitors. If not using a 100/120/144/165/200/240 monitor.....Ryzen doesn't perform bad in gaming.

Really....Intel will most likely be even faster and ahead of Ryzen. Cost is where Ryzen still shines. Really it's a matter of if the extra cost makes sense for you.

Upgrade paths....unknown. But with x299 there's up to an 18 core. Not sure if The Great Lakes (or whatever lake is next) will work with x299. Ryzen: AMD said they planned for longer life. But honestly look at the boards as either keep for 3 years now with whatever I/O is there or plan to upgrade the board. So that's an up in the air part.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Sign me up for a i9-7980XE! it's a safe bet that Jpmboy will get one?


oh... $2G for a toy.... again.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I doubt I will make it through this release without an 18core lol... and possibly a threadripper...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say, for the moment, I have no need for the smaller ones... so, late summer it is.


yep... I'm gonna _try_ to wait it out, but used cpus sell pretty quickly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> whoa is that a real cpu speed digital display on the rampage vi extreme?











At some point tho, you can put too many lights on these things.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> About the R6E and the M2 expansion card (DIMM), it is possible to put 2 SSD M2 (1 for the OS and 1 for the DATA) ?
> Performance is the same as with M2s on conventional M2 ports ?
> 
> Thanks


I'm currently running an NVMe Raid 0 on the APEX DIMM2 riser card. Very fast compared to the base m.2 intel 600 drives on the card. works great.








I'm not 100% sure about how they work not in raid mode on the card as an OS/data drive pair. One thing for sure tho, it is a very efficient slot.


----------



## richiec77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> oh... $2G for a toy.... again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep... I'm gonna _try_ to wait it out, but used cpus sell pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point tho, you can put too many lights on these things.
> I'm currently running an NVMe Raid 0 on the APEX DIMM2 riser card. Very fast compared to the base m.2 intel 600 drives on the card. works great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not 100% sure about how they work not in raid mode on the card as an OS/data drive pair. One thing for sure tho, it is a very efficient slot.


OHHHHhhhhhh.....THAT'S What the DIMM.2 is. I was trying to figure that out. the 1 ASUS x399 board seen has a slot next to the RAM slots for a DIMM.2 device. Interesting.

https://www.techpowerup.com/229448/asus-dimm-2-is-an-m-2-riser-card


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I'm currently running an NVMe Raid 0 on the APEX DIMM2 riser card. Very fast compared to the base m.2 intel 600 drives on the card. works great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not 100% sure about how they work not in raid mode on the card as an OS/data drive pair. One thing for sure tho, it is a very efficient slot.


OK thank you
I will inquire if I can use this slot with 2 M2 "separate"


----------



## ELIAS-EH

did intel failed again ?!?!?!?!?

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-x-core-i9-7900x-vs-core-i7-6950x-cpu-benchmarks/

can someone explain to me these performance in CPU-Z

6950X at stock has 3.5 Ghz and 7900X at stock has 4.3 Ghz (on all cores), the result is not interesting

BTW my 6900K OC at 4.2 Ghz has the same performance in CPU-Z as stock 7900X.

there is something wrong.


----------



## mus1mus

Hmmm. CPU-Z Benchmark is awful. Look at how Ryzen dominated B-E CPUs for that matter.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> did intel failed again ?!?!?!?!?
> 
> http://wccftech.com/intel-core-x-core-i9-7900x-vs-core-i7-6950x-cpu-benchmarks/
> 
> can someone explain to me these performance in CPU-Z
> 
> 6950X at stock has 3.5 Ghz and 7900X at stock has 4.3 Ghz (on all cores), the result is not interesting
> 
> BTW my 6900K OC at 4.2 Ghz has the same performance in CPU-Z as stock 7900X.
> 
> there is something wrong.


make sure you are using the same version of cpuZ. And their benchmarks are always low. Besides, stock comparisons are pretty meaningless.
6950X @ 4.2


----------



## Medusa666

Is it worth selling the 6950X for a good penny and wait for i9/Threadripper?

I guess it is subjective, but I feel that this year is a big year for CPUs and most likely a good chance to future proof for quite some time.

Thoughts?


----------



## mus1mus

Sell it off before the new ones come out or to someone who doesn't know what's coming if you are up for a good return.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> Is it worth selling the 6950X for a good penny and wait for i9/Threadripper?
> 
> I guess it is subjective, but I feel that this year is a big year for CPUs and most likely a good chance to future proof for quite some time.
> 
> Thoughts?


I sold mine and it was clocking 4.4GHz @ 1.28v, kind of miss that chip. I needed to offset for the i7-7980xe but I should have kept that chip honestly and put it on my wife's rig. That chip will last you for years unless you must have the bleeding edge then all bets off.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Wow intel will offer all i9 cpu's not soldered, so we will cook some eggs on it, or delidding it?
https://youtu.be/I1Bv8Mxnnlc


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Wow intel will offer all i9 cpu's not soldered, so we will cook some eggs on it, or delidding it?
> https://youtu.be/I1Bv8Mxnnlc


Right mate, Intel fail


----------



## Artah

Is it only me or does the i9-7980XE seem like a contingency plan for intel? Like they were not planning to make it until they found out about the 16 core AMD. It seems to be missing the most information on leaks. That's my conspiracy theorist in me talking...


----------



## richiec77

I think Intel planned for 12 cores and then AMD forced their hand to go up in count. Also forced them to cut prices a bit too.


----------



## Medusa666

Act
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richiec77*
> 
> I think Intel planned for 12 cores and then AMD forced their hand to go up in count. Also forced them to cut prices a bit too.


Actually, they planned for 10C.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Is it only me or does the i9-7980XE seem like a contingency plan for intel? Like they were not planning to make it until they found out about the 16 core AMD. It seems to be missing the most information on leaks. That's my conspiracy theorist in me talking...


Given that 18C v3 xeon's can do 3.6-3.8 @50% load and 3.3-3.4 @ 100% even within the confines of the chips TDP management, they've clearly had the sand-bags on for a while. The ucode "fix" to stop them from doing so wasn't one of those "OMG the chip is going to explode", but rather a "your 1 or 2U heat-sink might not be able to keep up with the heat comfortably.

There is a rather profound issue of how to impress people after day=1 with such chips if the software doesn't follow through. So, between that and no pressure, they, lifted off the gas for a while, but kept exploring and eventually GPU computes started nibbling away at their lunch pretty hard.

Those two things (AMD and GPU computes) have finally opened the gates for the better.

No conspiracy required, you can see it in the HCC architecture, and the "phi" chips. The world is going wide and slow until someone finds a cheap alternative to SI


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Given that 18C v3 xeon's can do 3.6-3.8 @50% load and 3.3-3.4 @ 100% even within the confines of the chips TDP management, they've clearly had the sand-bags on for a while. The ucode "fix" to stop them from doing so wasn't one of those "OMG the chip is going to explode", but rather a "your 1 or 2U heat-sink might not be able to keep up with the heat comfortably.
> 
> There is a rather profound issue of how to impress people after day=1 with such chips if the software doesn't follow through. So, between that and no pressure, they, lifted off the gas for a while, but kept exploring and eventually GPU computes started nibbling away at their lunch pretty hard.
> 
> Those two things (AMD and GPU computes) have finally opened the gates for the better.
> 
> No conspiracy required, you can see it in the HCC architecture, and the "phi" chips. The world is g*oing wide and slow until someone finds a cheap alternative* to SI


^^ This. there is a physical limit to what silicon tech can do... at the limit, so more cores for now.








tho I cannot believe a 7980XE would be Tim'ed. That would be tragic.


----------



## mus1mus

18C 4.5GHz at 1.3 and TIM?
AMD used to be HOT literally.
And it seems Intel wants to take that crown away too
hahah










Delid your 2K$ toy peeps.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ This. there is a physical limit to what silicon tech can do... at the limit, so more cores for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tho I cannot believe a 7980XE would be Tim'ed. That would be tragic.


I've been thinking the same thing, I get (to a degree) everything under the 7900x having TIM, but the cpu's above that have a higher TDP.

Found this article:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-skylake-x-solder

"Asus confirmed to us the news of X299 chips' lack of solder is indeed true. We spoke to one of their reps during their motherboard workshop at Computex yesterday about the overclocking potential of a delidded Skylake-X CPU. They've been seeing a 30°C drop in temperatures by popping the top on the chip and using a liquid metal thermal interface.

He went on to explain Skylake-X shares the same issue as Kaby Lake - temperatures rise at lightning speed when upping the voltage going into the processor, meaning 1.3V of power is roughly the maximum amount of juice you'll want to pump into it without serious cooling. The Asus team did manage to get 4.3GHz out of the ten-core 7900X with 1.25V of power though, so the chips will still be pretty capable even at default voltages."


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I've been thinking the same thing, I get (to a degree) everything under the 7900x having TIM, but the cpu's above that have a higher TDP.
> 
> Found this article:
> 
> https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-skylake-x-solder
> 
> "Asus confirmed to us the news of X299 chips' lack of solder is indeed true. We spoke to one of their reps during their motherboard workshop at Computex yesterday about the overclocking potential of a delidded Skylake-X CPU. They've been seeing a 30°C drop in temperatures by popping the top on the chip and using a liquid metal thermal interface.
> 
> He went on to explain Skylake-X shares the same issue as Kaby Lake - temperatures rise at lightning speed when upping the voltage going into the processor, meaning 1.3V of power is roughly the maximum amount of juice you'll want to pump into it without serious cooling. The Asus team did manage to get *4.3GHz* out of the ten-core 7900X with 1.25V of power though, so the chips will still be pretty capable even at default voltages."


4.3GHz is the stock turbo... it's hard to call that an overclock.


----------



## Artah

I might go with a lower version of the chip like the lowest one that has 44 PCIE lanes like the i9-7900X for a bit on a test bench until the next generation of motherboards come out in case they come out with PCIE 4.0 because Volta may support it. If any boards come out with PCIE 4.0 then I'll dismantle my rig again.

http://www.pcmag.com/news/347163/


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Who wants to buy the skylake-x , buy with it a delidding tool:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/dominic-moass/intels-new-skylake-xkaby-lake-x-chips-still-use-low-quality-tim/

What a disaster from intel, high risk to damage it.
Offcore i will keep my lovely 6900K


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Who wants to buy the skylake-x , buy with it a delidding tool:
> https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/dominic-moass/intels-new-skylake-xkaby-lake-x-chips-still-use-low-quality-tim/
> 
> What a disaster from intel, high risk to damage it.
> Offcore i will keep my lovely 6900K


Yeah, we get it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I don't care about these i9 CPU's
> my 6900K (@4.3) is more than enough, I am sure it will serve me till 7nm intel.
> see you intel in 2020


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> did intel failed again ?!?!?!?!?
> 
> http://wccftech.com/intel-core-x-core-i9-7900x-vs-core-i7-6950x-cpu-benchmarks/
> 
> can someone explain to me these performance in CPU-Z
> 
> 6950X at stock has 3.5 Ghz and 7900X at stock has 4.3 Ghz (on all cores), the result is not interesting
> 
> BTW my 6900K OC at 4.2 Ghz has the same performance in CPU-Z as stock 7900X.
> 
> there is something wrong.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Wow intel will offer all i9 cpu's not soldered, so we will cook some eggs on it, or delidding it?
> https://youtu.be/I1Bv8Mxnnlc


And just to be sure, even posted it in another thread:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Who wants to buy the skylake-x , buy with it a delidding tool:
> https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/dominic-moass/intels-new-skylake-xkaby-lake-x-chips-still-use-low-quality-tim/
> Or you will cook some eggs on it ? it is not soldered
> What a disaster from intel, high risk to damage it.
> Offcore i will keep my lovely 6900K


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Yeah, we get it.
> 
> And just to be sure, even posted it in another thread:


----------



## chibi

Hey Charlie, I'm not quite sure I got the memo. Can you please provide further confirmation if Intel is still soldering the IHS or not?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Hey Charlie, I'm not quite sure I got the memo. Can you please provide further confirmation if Intel is still soldering the IHS or not?


No solder or liquid metal this time. Solder is dangerous to the chip with that many transistors and adding the process to use liquid metal instead will cost the CPU giant $10 more per chip which would bring their profits down significantly or they would need to increase the price from $2,000 per chip to $2,010. Anyone know if this new 18 core CPU could run windows minesweep on windows 95 without causing my titan xp SLI to microstutter?


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Hey Charlie, I'm not quite sure I got the memo. Can you please provide further confirmation if Intel is still soldering the IHS or not?


Yeah, I mean I'm personally bummed that they aren't soldered - at least the ones we've seen so far - but not bummed enough to start post after post griping and moaning about it. It is what it is, if the guy doesn't like it he should simply not buy it. If I buy one and the thermals are too radical for me to deal with, I'll sell it or de-lid it and still not start post after post griping and moaning about it.


----------



## Maintenance Bot




----------



## xurxo1975

Hi all

Looks like everybody is already looking at the new Intel CPU, and I just got my new 6850K hope I can enjoy this one for more than a couple of years

I starter OC my cou yesterday after reading OC of EDGE UP ASUS

Able to get to 4.4 with 1.3 volt in adaptive mode, but with the same volt I got BSOD when I tried to go to 4.5
So I tried to set the volt to 1.35 in adaptive & manual mode to see how it reacted, surprise was that the volt in AIDA was at 1.5 volt
Is this normal????

My understanding was that if you put 1.35 or whatever figure was the highest I could go, can someone help me

Thanks


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xurxo1975*
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Looks like everybody is already looking at the new Intel CPU, and I just got my new 6850K hope I can enjoy this one for more than a couple of years
> 
> I starter OC my cou yesterday after reading OC of EDGE UP ASUS
> 
> Able to get to 4.4 with 1.3 volt in adaptive mode, but with the same volt I got BSOD when I tried to go to 4.5
> So I tried to set the volt to 1.35 in adaptive & manual mode to see how it reacted, surprise was that the volt in AIDA was at 1.5 volt
> Is this normal????
> 
> My understanding was that if you put 1.35 or whatever figure was the highest I could go, can someone help me
> 
> Thanks


what motherboard? there is a setting on Asus to set your max additional turbo voltage and that would be locked as the limit. 6850K is an awesome chip, we have 3 of them at the house.


----------



## xurxo1975

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> what motherboard? there is a setting on Asus to set your max additional turbo voltage and that would be locked as the limit. 6850K is an awesome chip, we have 3 of them at the house.


My mistake I had the volt in CPU Cache ISO Core now it's stays at 1.5 while running realbench at 4.5

Btw Mobo sabertooth
Cooling it with noctua

Max temp 67 celcius after 10 min

Will run this setup 30 more min

Is this avg or below ???

Thanks btw for the fast reply!!


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xurxo1975*
> 
> My mistake I had the volt in CPU Cache ISO Core now it's stays at 1.5 while running realbench at 4.5
> 
> Btw Mobo sabertooth
> Cooling it with noctua
> 
> Max temp 67 celcius after 10 min
> 
> Will run this setup 30 more min
> 
> Is this avg or below ???
> 
> Thanks btw for the fast reply!!


definitely above average, most broadwell-e can barely run 4.3GHz.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Yeah, I mean I'm personally bummed that they aren't soldered - at least the ones we've seen so far - but not bummed enough to start post after post griping and moaning about it. It is what it is, if the guy doesn't like it he should simply not buy it. If I buy one and the thermals are too radical for me to deal with, I'll sell it or de-lid it and still not start post after post griping and moaning about it.


Personally, I would moan more about having to spring for an i9-7900X or 7920X to get 44 PCiE lanes. I have an i7-5820K now and wished I would have stepped up to a 40-lane CPU then. Now to get more than 28 lanes with Skylake-X, I would have to step all the way past the 6-core i9-7800K, past the 8-core i9-7820K to the 10-core i9-7800K or 12-core i9-7920K.

The HW-E 5930K and 5960K have 40 lanes. The BW-E 6850K, 6900K and 6950K have 40 lanes. Why do I have to get a 10-core + CPU to get over 28 lanes? You can de-lid the chip and change the TIM. You can't change the PCiE lane arrangement. So, if whining, I choose to whine about that.


----------



## xurxo1975

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> definitely above average, most broadwell-e can barely run 4.3GHz.


After almost 2 running at 4.5, CPU & Core at 1.35. No other tweaks
RealBench still no errors max temps I´m getting 69 degrees, any advice???

Was thinking to buy a custom watercooling loop, but looking at this I don´t know if I need it, more advice is welcome

Thanks a lot!!!!


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xurxo1975*
> 
> After almost 2 running at 4.5, CPU & Core at 1.35. No other tweaks
> RealBench still no errors max temps I´m getting 69 degrees, any advice???
> 
> Was thinking to buy a custom watercooling loop, but looking at this I don´t know if I need it, more advice is welcome
> 
> Thanks a lot!!!!


4.5G at 1.35 is slightly hot, are you using air or AIO? This really depends on your use, if you are mostly gaming then that should be fine. If you are going to fold and do video encoding then cooling it with something stronger is a +. BWE exponentially increases in temp with voltage/clock after 4.3GHz from my experience I don't know about anyone else. I think I was getting around 55c with the 10 core at [email protected] at full load if I remember correctly. I do have a custom loop with it with 140mm x11 push/pull but I also have a couple of TXp on the same loop.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> I've been thinking the same thing, I get (to a degree) everything under the 7900x having TIM, but the cpu's above that have a higher TDP.
> 
> Found this article:
> 
> https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-skylake-x-solder
> 
> "Asus confirmed to us the news of X299 chips' lack of solder is indeed true. We spoke to one of their reps during their motherboard workshop at Computex yesterday about the overclocking potential of a delidded Skylake-X CPU. They've been seeing a 30°C drop in temperatures by popping the top on the chip and using a liquid metal thermal interface.
> 
> He went on to explain Skylake-X shares the same issue as Kaby Lake - temperatures rise at lightning speed when upping the voltage going into the processor, meaning 1.3V of power is roughly the maximum amount of juice you'll want to pump into it without serious cooling. The Asus team did manage to get 4.3GHz out of the ten-core 7900X with 1.25V of power though, so the chips will still be pretty capable even at default voltages."


well.. if the 7980X is a "TIM job"... gonna be very hard to rationalize buying one UNLESS the ITP will accept delidded cpus (without a cracked die for example). The need to crack open a $2000 cpu will definitely put a damper on sales. IDK, maybe it's a way for INtel to mitigate RMAs from folks who electrocute extreme chips. *But that is their declared audience for this CPU*... Intel's marketing and techies ain't thinking straight there.









certainly not selling my soldered 6950X in order to buy into that if I needed to. LOL - someone should send Intel a tube of CLP.


----------



## mus1mus

Pretty much taking the _two-grand_ fun away IMO.


----------



## Silicon Lottery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well.. if the 7980X is a "TIM job"... gonna be very hard to rationalize buying one UNLESS the ITP will accept delidded cpus (without a cracked die for example). The need to crack open a $2000 cpu will definitely put a damper on sales. IDK, maybe it's a way for INtel to mitigate RMAs from folks who electrocute extreme chips. *But that is their declared audience for this CPU*... Intel's marketing and techies ain't thinking straight there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> certainly not selling my soldered 6950X in order to buy into that if I needed to. LOL - someone should send Intel a tube of CLP.


This mirrors the feedback some customers are saying in emails I've been getting.

We're either going to extend our warranty out and eat/merge the cost into the processors we sell, or offer a plan similar at launch to cover these chips delidded. Crunching the numbers now, but about 5% of the CPU price should cover a 1 year warranty. Not as long as ITP, but it's something.

Side note: Broadwell-E had the most warranty claims and feedback of processors dying compared to everything else we've offered.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> Personally, I would moan more about having to spring for an i9-7900X or 7920X to get 44 PCiE lanes. I have an i7-5820K now and wished I would have stepped up to a 40-lane CPU then. Now to get more than 28 lanes with Skylake-X, I would have to step all the way past the 6-core i9-7800K, past the 8-core i9-7820K to the 10-core i9-7800K or 12-core i9-7920K.
> 
> The HW-E 5930K and 5960K have 40 lanes. The BW-E 6850K, 6900K and 6950K have 40 lanes. Why do I have to get a 10-core + CPU to get over 28 lanes? You can de-lid the chip and change the TIM. You can't change the PCiE lane arrangement. So, if whining, I choose to whine about that.


See, I wouldn't whine about that, either. If the core/lane/price specs didn't meet my budget criteria, I'd just pass.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well.. if the 7980X is a "TIM job"... gonna be very hard to rationalize buying one UNLESS the ITP will accept delidded cpus (without a cracked die for example). The need to crack open a $2000 cpu will definitely put a damper on sales. IDK, maybe it's a way for INtel to mitigate RMAs from folks who electrocute extreme chips. *But that is their declared audience for this CPU*... Intel's marketing and techies ain't thinking straight there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> certainly not selling my soldered 6950X in order to buy into that if I needed to. LOL - someone should send Intel a tube of CLP.


What, guys that take a soldering iron to a $1200 GPU should be scared of popping the top on a $2K CPU


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well.. if the 7980X is a "TIM job"... gonna be very hard to rationalize buying one UNLESS the ITP will accept delidded cpus (without a cracked die for example). The need to crack open a $2000 cpu will definitely put a damper on sales. IDK, maybe it's a way for INtel to mitigate RMAs from folks who electrocute extreme chips. *But that is their declared audience for this CPU*... Intel's marketing and techies ain't thinking straight there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> certainly not selling my soldered 6950X in order to buy into that if I needed to. LOL - someone should send Intel a tube of CLP.


I have a feeling that the CPU's above the 7900x will be soldered.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> I have a feeling that the CPU's above the 7900x will be soldered.


Oh great, then comes the 'Why do I have to spend more than a 7900X to get soldered IHS??!!" crowd.


----------



## GXTCHA

Just did a pretty lazy OC on my 6900k w/ a quick RB 15 minute run before I hit the rack.

6900k - 4.2ghz @ 1.25v adaptive offset
32GB RAM - 3200mhz @ 1.35v
MB = R5E10
CIO @ 1.05 (stock)
SA @ +0.15 adaptive on .885 (stock) in BIOS
Cooling is an x62 NZXT AIO

Passed the 15 minute run but there were some hang ups in the first minute or so but moved through them without issue:


I've got a couple concerns right off the bat, specifically the variation within HWiNFO on the CPU temp. The core temps seem to vary greatly from the CPU package as well as the "CPU" temp. Which one(s) are the most important to monitor? I assumed package so I'm concerned mine is too high right now.

Also, the SA is through the roof in HWiNFO but my BIOS settings shouldnt be allowing it to run that high. Am I missing a step here by setting the adaptive SA to 0.15? Should I leave it Auto?

The BIOS on the X99 platform seems much less user friendly than on Z270... I think I may just be inexperienced. If anyone has any insight into the CPU voltages as well as SA, I'd really appreciate it. I've got more work to do on the OC as well... thanks!


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Oh great, then comes the 'Why do I have to spend more than a 7900X to get soldered IHS??!!" crowd.


----------



## xurxo1975

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> 4.5G at 1.35 is slightly hot, are you using air or AIO? This really depends on your use, if you are mostly gaming then that should be fine. If you are going to fold and do video encoding then cooling it with something stronger is a +. BWE exponentially increases in temp with voltage/clock after 4.3GHz from my experience I don't know about anyone else. I think I was getting around 55c with the 10 core at [email protected] at full load if I remember correctly. I do have a custom loop with it with 140mm x11 push/pull but I also have a couple of TXp on the same loop.


I´m using a Noctua Noctua nh-d15 as a cooler I will be using it mainly for Gaming, if I had some spare time I would like to start encoding my own videos that I have in 1080i.

Btw I had a 5820K before and I was never able to get to 4.5Mhz, and the temps were always around 80 degrees If I tested it on 4.4.... That´s why i was asking if I really needed a Custom water loop.

Thanks btw for your replies!!!


----------



## GXTCHA

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GXTCHA*
> 
> Just did a pretty lazy OC on my 6900k w/ a quick RB 15 minute run before I hit the rack.
> 
> 6900k - 4.2ghz @ 1.25v adaptive offset
> 32GB RAM - 3200mhz @ 1.35v
> MB = R5E10
> CIO @ 1.05 (stock)
> SA @ +0.15 adaptive on .885 (stock) in BIOS
> Cooling is an x62 NZXT AIO
> 
> Passed the 15 minute run but there were some hang ups in the first minute or so but moved through them without issue:
> 
> 
> I've got a couple concerns right off the bat, specifically the variation within HWiNFO on the CPU temp. The core temps seem to vary greatly from the CPU package as well as the "CPU" temp. Which one(s) are the most important to monitor? I assumed package so I'm concerned mine is too high right now.
> 
> Also, the SA is through the roof in HWiNFO but my BIOS settings shouldnt be allowing it to run that high. Am I missing a step here by setting the adaptive SA to 0.15? Should I leave it Auto?
> 
> The BIOS on the X99 platform seems much less user friendly than on Z270... I think I may just be inexperienced. If anyone has any insight into the CPU voltages as well as SA, I'd really appreciate it. I've got more work to do on the OC as well... thanks!


Quick update from this morning:

I was able to pass a quick RB 15 minute run with the following updated settings:

6900k - 4.3ghz @ 1.20v adaptive offset (BIOS)
32GB RAM - 3200mhz @ 1.35v (BIOS)
MB = R5E10
CIO @ 1.05 (stock)
SA @ -0.001 adaptive on .885 (stock) in BIOS, 1.00 in HWiNFO
Cooling is an x62 NZXT AIO

Results seemed to be slightly better:



Still a little misty on the SA for X99 and why my adaptive needed to be set to a negative to keep it from shooting up and confused as to which is the most important CPU reading to watch in HWiNFO. I'm a little concerned that the CPU package temp is getting to the mid 70's/80.00 - is that normal for these settings and an AIO?

I am going to work more on it this weekend and see if I can push into 4.4 or 4.5ghz at a reasonable voltage. Am also going to try and get this RAM to run at 3600mhz but I have a feeling that will be a little bit tougher.

If anyone has any comments or suggestions regarding temps, settings etc. I would appreciate the insight. Thanks!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I can wrote whatever i want, and who don't like my post, he can simply skip it.
yes i got very surpised that cpu's range 1k$-2k$ use low TIM quality instead of indium which is a metal used to solder the die to the IHS.
It is like a BMW 2017 car with very low end tires.
Btw i am not planing to buy those skylake-x, my 6900k @4.3 is more than enough.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I can wrote whatever i want, and who don't like my post, he can simply skip it.
> yes i got very surpised that cpu's range 1k$-2k$ use low TIM quality instead of indium which is a metal used to solder the die to the IHS.
> It is like a BMW 2017 car with very low end tires.
> Btw i am not planing to buy those skylake-x, my 6900k @4.3 is more than enough.


Yeah, we know.


----------



## xurxo1975

Hey Guys!!!

After running my 6850K RealBench about 2.5 hours at 4.6 I´m getting this temps according HWinfo:

Core 0 till 5 max temp is in Core 4 *78 degrees*
CPU package max 84, only 22 hits in 2.5 hours
CPU Core Volt 1.45

Running this with my Noctua NH D15, think this is as high I can go, no I will try to start testing it with Asus Thermal Control.
As I don´t know how to manipulate AVX option in EUFI
Any advice guys

Thanks a lot!


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xurxo1975*
> 
> Hey Guys!!!
> 
> After running my 6850K RealBench about 2.5 hours at 4.6 I´m getting this temps according HWinfo:
> 
> Core 0 till 5 max temp is in Core 4 *78 degrees*
> CPU package max 84, only 22 hits in 2.5 hours
> CPU Core Volt 1.45
> 
> Running this with my Noctua NH D15, think this is as high I can go, no I will try to start testing it with Asus Thermal Control.
> As I don´t know how to manipulate AVX option in EUFI
> Any advice guys
> 
> Thanks a lot!


Yeah, downclock at once to 4.4 or max 4.5 ghz.
AVX downclock options depends on the mainboard you're using.


----------



## xurxo1975

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Yeah, downclock at once to 4.4 or max 4.5 ghz.
> AVX downclock options depends on the mainboard you're using.


Using asus sabertooth, just tried asus thermal control tool, but I gets to 4 MHz need to playa but more
Even I prefer to do it through EUFI


----------



## arrow0309

Do you have this option on your main AI Tweaker page, *"AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset"*?
If so just set the clock multy 1-2 step lower and also lower your vcore accordingly.
You should test the non avx max oc though with lots of heavy gaming sessions for instance since all the main stress tests use the avx.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I put My old vga fan to cool my cpu 6900k VRM
Connected to my fan controller to change its speed


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> 
> 
> I put My old vga fan to cool my cpu 6900k VRM
> Connected to my fan controller to change its speed


Nice, since the summer is coming I should do that as well, my vrm heatsink is made of heatpiped fins with double section but the top one is the hotter always








Btw:
What case you're using?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Nice, since the summer is coming I should do that as well, my vrm heatsink is made of heatpiped fins with double section but the top one is the hotter always
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw:
> What case you're using?


Thank u for your comment

Nzxt phantom 820
I read that the vrm efficiency is related to its temperature, and with cpu oc , it draw a lot of power, this is why the vrm must be at lowest temperature as possible.
Btw you can buy a fan controller if your case doesn't have it


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I think that all of us must install a small fan over the vrm without touching the heat sink because small fan will drop the temp of the vrm by a huge amout (this what i read on the internet).


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> small fan will drop the temp of the vrm by a huge amout (*this what i read on the internet*).


Not sure if serious, but I chuckled none-the-less...


----------



## ELIAS-EH

The fan that i installed was on my gtx 780 ghz from gigabyte, at full speed it run at 2000 rpm and it gives huge amount of air but with high noise, with fan controller , at lower speed, i don't hear it,
Btw for the vrm: Lower the temps the more consistent voltage it give


----------



## xurxo1975

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Do you have this option on your main AI Tweaker page, *"AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset"*?
> If so just set the clock multy 1-2 step lower and also lower your vcore accordingly.
> You should test the non avx max oc though with lots of heavy gaming sessions for instance since all the main stress tests use the avx.


I have this option available, so I need to put:

CPU Core Ratio, which of the 3 option do i need to select
Do I select *Sync all cores*, and the put 4.6 and *AVX Instruction Core Ratio* 2
For example

Thanks


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xurxo1975*
> 
> I have this option available, so I need to put:
> 
> CPU Core Ratio, which of the 3 option do i need to select
> Do I select *Sync all cores*, and the put 4.6 and *AVX Instruction Core Ratio* 2
> For example
> 
> Thanks


As I remember well you can set the exact freq multiplier so in your case is gonna be 45 for the avx negative offset.
And yeah, sync all cores.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> The fan that i installed was on my gtx 780 ghz from gigabyte, at full speed it run at 2000 rpm and it gives huge amount of air but with high noise, with fan controller , at lower speed, i don't hear it,
> *Btw for the vrm: Lower the temps the more consistent voltage it give*


Expected. Heat generally increases resistance and leakage in Si circuits. Energy is energy and semi-conductors are all about the "semi" (on vs off) and the corresponding energy required to overcome the barrier to movement of charge when desired.

I like mono blocks because removing the fan from the CPU with a water-block means the VRMs now need an alternate source of airflow. mono-blocks kill two-birds with one stone.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> That's what I was planning to do but I'm not sure if it will work that way yet because of the booting issues with m.2. I am torn between R6E and that new shiny EVGA Dark. It's a tossup between the 10GiB LAN on R6E and the M.2 primising cooling on the EVGA Dark. Maybe I'll get both for different rigs....


Right now with what I have seen from the other board manufactures I will go with the EVGA X299 Dark! I had a EVGA X99 Classified and it was a great board. The only thing is on the web site it says only supports up to 12 core processor. So I have messaged Jacob to see if they will have a Bios update for the 18 core when released.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Expected. Heat generally increases resistance and leakage in Si circuits. Energy is energy and semi-conductors are all about the "semi" (on vs off) and the corresponding energy required to overcome the barrier to movement of charge when desired.
> 
> I like mono blocks because removing the fan from the CPU with a water-block means the VRMs now need an alternate source of airflow. mono-blocks kill two-birds with one stone.


Agreed. I really like mine.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Right now with what I have seen from the other board manufactures I will go with the EVGA X299 Dark! I had a EVGA X99 Classified and it was a great board. The only thing is on the web site it says only supports up to 12 core processor. So I have messaged Jacob to see if they will have a Bios update for the 18 core when released.


I saw the 12 core also and posted it on his announcement but he or anyone from EVGA never responded, they probably put 12c because the person documenting it didn't update it but I'm sure it will work. One thing I don't like about the EVGA even though the x299 dark is cool is that it's still going to have 1GiB LANs where the R6E will have 10GiB I believe. Also I don't see anywhere that the dark has 802.11ad which is theorically 4.6GiB. I also don't know if the dark will overclock as smoothly as the rampage extreme series, maybe I'll put both on a test bench and test them both out and put the weaker one on a secondary rig.

By the way anyone else not getting alerts from OCN on threads that you're subscribed to? Mine does not seem to be working and I checked the settings it's correct. I loved those OCN email spam.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I saw the 12 core also and posted it on his announcement but he or anyone from EVGA never responded, they probably put 12c because the person documenting it didn't update it but I'm sure it will work. One thing I don't like about the EVGA even though the x299 dark is cool is that it's still going to have 1GiB LANs where the R6E will have 10GiB I believe. Also I don't see anywhere that the dark has 802.11ad which is theorically 4.6GiB. I also don't know if the dark will overclock as smoothly as the rampage extreme series, maybe I'll put both on a test bench and test them both out and put the weaker one on a secondary rig.
> 
> By the way anyone else not getting alerts from OCN on threads that you're subscribed to? Mine does not seem to be working and I checked the settings it's correct. I loved those OCN email spam.


I have not had good luck with Asus boards so I tend to stay away. The EVGA Classified I had before my MSi was awesome and did OC very well. I only went to MSI because EVGA did not provide a second gen board with the Classified designation and OC socket like the MSI. The MSI board I currently have is the best overclocking board I have had in a while so it will be a toss up between EVGA and MSI. Thanks for your input.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> I have not had good luck with Asus boards so I tend to stay away. The EVGA Classified I had before my MSi was awesome and did OC very well. I only went to MSI because EVGA did not provide a second gen board with the Classified designation and OC socket like the MSI. The MSI board I currently have is the best overclocking board I have had in a while so it will be a toss up between EVGA and MSI. Thanks for your input.


I have had the best of luck with the rampage extreme motherboards but I'll be testing and comparing EVGA Dark and R6E when they come out. My only beef with Asus at the moment is their RMA with 2nd owner boards.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I have had the best of luck with the rampage extreme motherboards but I'll be testing and comparing EVGA Dark and R6E when they come out. My only beef with Asus at the moment is their RMA with 2nd owner boards.


If you have a good board you should not have to RMA...right? The EVGA Dark is using Intel Gigabit NIC is that not 10GB?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> The EVGA Dark is using Intel Gigabit NIC is that not 10GB?


nope, that's 1Gigabit NIC as opposed to a 10Gigabit NIC. I'm just wondering how much cash Asus wants for this though because those NICs are not that cheap yet.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> nope, that's 1Gigabit NIC as opposed to a 10Gigabit NIC. I'm just wondering how much cash Asus wants for this though because those NICs are not that cheap yet.


How do you know this they are not specific? They just specify Intel Gigabit NIC. When you look this up intel only specifies this as 10GB speeds.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

It'd just be a novelty for me, 10G switches and routers are still pretty pricey, and none of the other components on my network are higher than 1G.

Netgear 10G 8 port switch

Netgear 1G 8 port switch


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> It'd just be a novelty for me, 10G switches and routers are still pretty pricey, and none of the other components on my network are higher than 1G.
> 
> Netgear 10G 8 port switch
> 
> Netgear 1G 8 port switch


Great point.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> How do you know this they are not specific? They just specify Intel Gigabit NIC. When you look this up intel only specifies this as 10GB speeds.


I'm going by the AQ NIC not intel that's on the R6E board according to this post.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11462/asus-unveils-x299-motherboards/2

I asked on the EVGA forum about the 10G NIC with no response and it does not say specifically that it has a 10G NIC it just says 2x intel. Don't get me wrong, I would love for those to be 2x 40GB NICs









https://www.evga.com/articles/01114/evga-x299-series-motherboards/

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> It'd just be a novelty for me, 10G switches and routers are still pretty pricey, and none of the other components on my network are higher than 1G.
> 
> Netgear 10G 8 port switch
> 
> Netgear 1G 8 port switch


Well some people run servers at home with iSCSI so 10GB would be very nice but I would get more ports myself.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> It'd just be a novelty for me, 10G switches and routers are still pretty pricey, and none of the other components on my network are higher than 1G.
> 
> Netgear 10G 8 port switch
> 
> Netgear 1G 8 port switch


10G NFS (file server) is awesome... Doooeeet...


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm going by the AQ NIC not intel that's on the R6E board according to this post.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/11462/asus-unveils-x299-motherboards/2
> 
> I asked on the EVGA forum about the 10G NIC with no response and it does not say specifically that it has a 10G NIC it just says 2x intel. Don't get me wrong, I would love for those to be 2x 40GB NICs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.evga.com/articles/01114/evga-x299-series-motherboards/


I noticed it has the Killer Ethernet 2500. This is what I currently have on my MSI board with two Ethernet connections and a wireless connection working together. It works great for monitoring network traffic as I have a lot of connections and it does not slow down my gaming. We will have to wait for full spec's from EVGA when they become available.


----------



## richiec77

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11487/lower-cost-10gbase-t-switches-coming

Relevant here. If these do work well, a 2-4 port 10G switch would be awesome. Most would only need a 2 10G port switch as most are just linking the main computer to something like a file server or Plex server.

May need to keep an eye out again for Mellanox10G NIC on eBay again.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richiec77*
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/11487/lower-cost-10gbase-t-switches-coming
> 
> Relevant here. If these do work well, a 2-4 port 10G switch would be awesome. Most would only need a 2 10G port switch as most are just linking the main computer to something like a file server or Plex server.
> 
> May need to keep an eye out again for Mellanox10G NIC on eBay again.


Don't need a switch for point-to-point. Just plug it in directly.

If you build your own server, you can get a 2-port 10G card for roughly the same price as a single port.

I filled up my 8port 10G faster than I had hoped.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Don't need a switch for point-to-point. Just plug it in directly.
> 
> If you build your own server, you can get a 2-port 10G card for roughly the same price as a single port.
> 
> I filled up my 8port 10G faster than I had hoped.


We are getting way out of topic here but whoa cool so you don't need a cross over cable for it? I would probably still buy a switch because I have a few servers but good to know that works on 10GiB

Here is something of topic. @[email protected] commented on the i9-7980XE to not actually come out until the beginning of 2018 according to this website, not sure about the reliability of this post though.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57849/intels-core-i9-7980xe-18c-36t-processor-2018-release/index.html

Correctons, it's reliable it's from the ROG forum.

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?93632-Late-June&p=653561&viewfull=1#post653561


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Except he doesn't say 2018, he says
Quote:


> The 18-core CPUs are not scheduled until later this year.


Later _this year_, as in 2017. May be later as in August, maybe later than that, but this year is 2017.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> We are getting way out of topic here but whoa cool so you don't need a cross over cable for it? I would probably still buy a switch because I have a few servers but good to know that works on 10GiB
> 
> Here is something of topic. @[email protected] commented on the i9-790XE to not actually come out until the beginning of 2018 according to this website, not sure about the reliability of this post though.
> 
> http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57849/intels-core-i9-7980xe-18c-36t-processor-2018-release/index.html
> 
> Correctons, it's reliable it's from the ROG forum.
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?93632-Late-June&p=653561&viewfull=1#post653561


I am going to wait for the i9-7980ex when ever it comes out 2017 or 2018.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Except he doesn't say 2018, he says
> Later _this year_, as in 2017. May be later as in August, maybe later than that, but this year is 2017.


Yep, it was tweaktown's author that said it and I tend to agree with the intel milking machine.


----------



## richiec77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Don't need a switch for point-to-point. Just plug it in directly.
> 
> If you build your own server, you can get a 2-port 10G card for roughly the same price as a single port.
> 
> I filled up my 8port 10G faster than I had hoped.


Yeah. Except just plugging them in and go!.....no where. It's harder to get the static routing and etc/hosts mods. At times it works, at times it's ***. A switch would make it more plug and play. Totally doable I understand, but at this stage sneakernet was a more efficient use of my time.

The 16-18 core was said by Raja in an interview. Someone screen captured what was said since it was edited later. Aka changed from a next year release to something less affirmative. I think it's very likely super late this year and then next year the rest of the i9's. Intel only planned for up to 10 cores and needs to bin and validate the higher end core counts and work with motherboard manufactures to support the greater core count and current.

Plus they're probably waiting for threadripper speeds to be known to them then at least match. I think AMD is about to steal all their thunder like a reversal of 1080 Ti vs Vega.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richiec77*
> 
> Yeah. Except just plugging them in and go!.....no where. It's harder to get the static routing and etc/hosts mods. At times it works, at times it's ***. A switch would make it more plug and play. Totally doable I understand, but at this stage sneakernet was a more efficient use of my time.


Never had such issues in linux, but if you are accustomed to relying on DHCP to set things for you, I can see where that could cause problems. If your route/gateway is set correctly, it "just works". You would need to have your overall setup correct to ensure that your default route didn't send packets to a dead-end 10GbE sub-net. That's where things usually get odd.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silicon Lottery*
> 
> This mirrors the feedback some customers are saying in emails I've been getting.
> 
> *We're either going to extend our warranty out and eat/merge the cost into the processors we sell, or offer a plan similar at launch to cover these chips delidded*. Crunching the numbers now, but about 5% of the CPU price should cover a 1 year warranty. Not as long as ITP, but it's something.
> 
> Side note: Broadwell-E had the most warranty claims and feedback of processors dying compared to everything else we've offered.


Now that will be very interesting! when the time comes, gonna check your site for sure.
Thanks for sharing here!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> I have a feeling that the CPU's above the 7900x will be soldered.


yeah - I'd expect that too... let's hope Intel doesn't have a aphasic moment.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Never had such issues in linux, but if you are accustomed to relying on DHCP to set things for you, I can see where that could cause problems. If your route/gateway is set correctly, it "just works". You would need to have your overall setup correct to ensure that your default route didn't send packets to a dead-end 10GbE sub-net. That's where things usually get odd.


okay.. now I know who to ask.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Now that will be very interesting! when the time comes, gonna check your site for sure.
> Thanks for sharing here!
> yeah - I'd expect that too... let's hope Intel doesn't have a aphasic moment.
> okay.. now I know who to ask.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


lol - I've been away for a few days and was hoping to see a press release saying Intel's New i9 Xtreme CPUs come with a soldered IHS. (did I miss it?







)


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> lol - I've been away for a few days and was hoping to see a press release saying Intel's New i9 Xtreme CPUs come with a soldered IHS. (did I miss it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


No, no they did not.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> /SPOILER]


OMG - I actually remember that on TV


----------



## chibi

With my new build finally complete, I can now work on some overclocking












Build pics aside, I was able to lock in the following:

Core Clock: 4.40GHz @ 1.325 vcore - RB 8hr stable.








Cache Clock: 3.60GHz @ 1.20 vcache - 3hr Aida64 Cache test

Time to head over to Scone's DDR4 Memory thread to do a little reading









30min snapshot


8hr pass!


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> With my new build finally complete, I can now work on some overclocking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build pics aside, I was able to lock in the following:
> 
> Core Clock: 4.40GHz @ 1.325 vcore - RB 8hr stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cache Clock: 3.60GHz @ 1.20 vcache - 3hr Aida64 Cache test
> 
> Time to head over to Scone's DDR4 Memory thread to do a little reading


Damn fine setup...


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Damn fine setup...


Yes, thank you cekim! I quite enjoy reading yours and JP's posts while I was in the building phase that by the time I was ready to overclock, it only took a few tries to lock in the CPU+Cache. My only gripe so far is that it took so long to build - X299 is just a few weeks away... LOL


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> Yes, thank you cekim! I quite enjoy reading yours and JP's posts while I was in the building phase that by the time I was ready to overclock, it only took a few tries to lock in the CPU+Cache. My only gripe so far is that it took so long to build - X299 is just a few weeks away... LOL


Ehh, its 6+ months before an x299 intel chip is out worth the hassle...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> With my new build finally complete, I can now work on some overclocking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build pics aside, I was able to lock in the following:
> 
> Core Clock: 4.40GHz @ 1.325 vcore - RB 8hr stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cache Clock: 3.60GHz @ 1.20 vcache - 3hr Aida64 Cache test
> 
> Time to head over to Scone's DDR4 Memory thread to do a little reading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30min snapshot
> 
> 
> 
> 8hr pass!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Very nice indeed! I see the Aida64 OSD panel - a man after my own heart







. I also open the Stability Test and show the Statistics panel without starting it when running RealBench, great for the Max readings.


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Very nice indeed! I see the Aida64 OSD panel - a man after my own heart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I also open the Stability Test and show the Statistics panel without starting it when running RealBench, great for the Max readings.


That's a great idea! I never even thought of using the Stability Test to monitor the max readings as that's my only gripe with the OSD Panel. Thank you djgar, that will be part of my OC procedure for future endeavors.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> With my new build finally complete, I can now work on some overclocking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build pics aside, I was able to lock in the following:
> 
> Core Clock: 4.40GHz @ 1.325 vcore - RB 8hr stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cache Clock: 3.60GHz @ 1.20 vcache - 3hr Aida64 Cache test
> 
> Time to head over to Scone's DDR4 Memory thread to do a little reading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30min snapshot
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8hr pass!


Very clean build yo.


----------



## arrow0309

Opened up an Italian X299 motherboards thread









http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showthread.php?t=2817841


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I have had the best of luck with the rampage extreme motherboards but I'll be testing and comparing EVGA Dark and R6E when they come out. My only beef with Asus at the moment is their RMA with 2nd owner boards.


After your post I will have to really compare all the boards equally. EVGA put 12 cores because none of the vendors have any information on the extreme processors.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> No, no they did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


is she mixing up a batch of TGIM for Intel?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> With my new build finally complete, I can now work on some overclocking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build pics aside, I was able to lock in the following:
> 
> Core Clock: 4.40GHz @ 1.325 vcore - RB 8hr stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cache Clock: 3.60GHz @ 1.20 vcache - 3hr Aida64 Cache test
> 
> Time to head over to Scone's DDR4 Memory thread to do a little reading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30min snapshot
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8hr pass!
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Damn fine 6950X!


----------



## Artah

Anyone thinking of trying out the 16c Ryzen Thread ripper? I just watched JayzTwoCent's video on his dissatisfaction with intel. Also I believe he mentioned that coffeecake release have been moved up 3 quarters.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Anyone thinking of trying out the 16c Ryzen Thread ripper?


Every AMD enthusiast on the planet?
Quote:


> I just watched JayzTwoCent's video on his dissatisfaction with intel. Also I believe he mentioned that coffeecake release have been moved up 3 quarters.


Oh, Jayz is dissatisfied with Intel - what to do, what to do? Be sure and check out Linus, I think he got his rant vid up first.


----------



## Silent Scone

Nobody with half a clue should care what JayZ2Cent thinks


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Every AMD enthusiast on the planet?
> Oh, Jayz is dissatisfied with Intel - what to do, what to do? Be sure and check out Linus, I think he got his rant vid up first.


well I was asking on this thread since this is where the people currently using intel chips are discussing things about the new and up coming battle for the cpu crown and how my predictions of costing around or more than 2k for the next ultimate consumer intel cpu would cost. I think I said $2,200 which is exactly what it's going to cost with California tax.

I don't really do things solely because of what jayz, linus, etc but I do take their opinions into consideration along with my own thoughts/research and personal testing with input from seasoned overlockers on this thread.

by the way you have a link or share what you have on what linus think about this?


----------



## SpeedyIV

Just go to YouTube and type in Linus Tech Tips. It's the latest episode. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TWFzWRoVNnE


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Nobody with half a clue should care what JayZ2Cent thinks


easy there buddy, I know what you're saying and I would weigh your opinion about 100 fold higher compared to what youtube fanatics are saying







. I'd like to think I have a point over half a clue









Now that we're on the subject, what are your thoughts?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> easy there buddy, I know what you're saying and I would weigh your opinion about 100 fold higher compared to what youtube fanatics are saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'd like to think I have a point over half a clue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that we're on the subject, what are your thoughts?


I've not used either platform, so naturally like most I'm reserving judgement. Most people in the media currently are scrutinising features a lot more aggressively due to the fact we now have products that can compete on some levels. For a lot of enthusiasts it will come down to price. However -if you're asking me personally - if we look at X370 and what Ryzen has to offer the enthusiast and overclockers combined, I honestly don't see the appeal of a 16 core platform based upon it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've not used either platform, so naturally like most I'm reserving judgement. Most people in the media currently are scrutinising features a lot more aggressively due to the fact we now have products that can compete on some levels. For a lot of enthusiasts it will come down to price. However -if you're asking me personally - if we look at X370 and what Ryzen has to offer the enthusiast and overclockers combined, I honestly don't see the appeal of a 16 core platform based upon it.


can't imagine a 16 core processor ham-stringed with AMDs current ram tech.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> can't imagine a 16 core processor ham-stringed with AMDs current ram tech.


And that's dual channel. With the vast success utter failure I have OCing RAM, I can't imagine me trying to OC a quad channel Ryzen Threadripper RAM.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've not used either platform, so naturally like most I'm reserving judgement. Most people in the media currently are scrutinising features a lot more aggressively due to the fact we now have products that can compete on some levels. For a lot of enthusiasts it will come down to price. However -if you're asking me personally - if we look at X370 and what Ryzen has to offer the enthusiast and overclockers combined, I honestly don't see the appeal of a 16 core platform based upon it.


Are you planning to try out any of those at all or skipping? All I can remember from my AMD experience is that I am sure I could have fried eggs on top of those processors.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> can't imagine a 16 core processor ham-stringed with AMDs current ram tech.


I hope AMD knows what they are getting into with those processors and memory control. I hope the Epyc performs well and end up on our servers at work but 8 memory channels sounds like it might run out of gas because it's spread too thin.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I hope AMD knows what they are getting into with those processors and memory control. I hope the Epyc performs well and end up on our servers at work but 8 memory channels sounds like it might run out of gas because it's spread too thin.


Yeah, this is what has me most curious... A Gen1 chip of this scale could have (we've already seen them on Ryzen) a fair number of growing pains that leave them well short of promise from the specs or synthetic benchmarks in real-world use where latency, arbitration and thread-to-thread communication are a bigger factor.

One of those, have to get your hands on it and use it how YOU use it to really know.

Intel steers the boat based on gross margin and seemingly nothing else. Unless its trying and failing to enter a new domain in which case, the appear to be using sacrificial chicken blood and bones in a bowl and chanting (and its working about as well as you'd expect it over the past 20 years).

So, they'll throw core-X against the wall and see if it sticks. All the yelling and screaming in the world won't matter in the least.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I've not used either platform, so naturally like most I'm reserving judgement. Most people in the media currently are scrutinising features a lot more aggressively due to the fact we now have products that can compete on some levels. For a lot of enthusiasts it will come down to price. However -if you're asking me personally - if we look at X370 and what Ryzen has to offer the enthusiast and overclockers combined, I honestly don't see the appeal of a 16 core platform based upon it.


It wouldn't be as much of an elephant in the room if it weren't for the fact Zen loves memory frequency.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I think skylake-x or amd ryzen are not worth it.

I will upgrade when the PCI-E 4.0 CPU's support will be release


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It wouldn't be as much of an elephant in the room if it weren't for the fact Zen loves memory frequency.


so is there an ASUS x299 thread yet? the New Apex looks pretty interesting...


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> so is there an ASUS x299 thread yet? the New Apex looks pretty interesting...


Time for you to take a walk on the wild side and try a different board manufacture.....








Asus boards looking like the lights at a carnival.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> It wouldn't be as much of an elephant in the room if it weren't for the fact Zen loves memory frequency.


What do you mean? Like you can overclock the hell out of your memory and it works fine?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> so is there an ASUS x299 thread yet? the New Apex looks pretty interesting...


Jpmboy looking to beat the 7.5GHz world record with Apex









https://rog.asus.com/articles/maximus-motherboards/rampage-vi-apex-breaks-8-world-records-and-reaches-7500mhz/

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Time for you to take a walk on the wild side and try a different board manufacture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus boards looking like the lights at a carnival.


Love dem lights! I want my motherboard to look like Night Rider a.k.a. Knight Industries Two Thousand (KIT).


----------



## tistou77

Waiting for confirmation,but the APEX is more oriented bench (LN2, etc ...) especially for the memory channels ?
To see if it will perform better than the R6E in h24


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> What do you mean? Like you can overclock the hell out of your memory and it works fine?
> Jpmboy looking to beat the 7.5GHz world record with Apex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/articles/maximus-motherboards/rampage-vi-apex-breaks-8-world-records-and-reaches-7500mhz/
> Love dem lights! I want my motherboard to look like Night Rider a.k.a. Knight Industries Two Thousand (KIT).


The Apex Jpm is looking at is not so bad but the Extreme has way to many lights! Just my opinion. Who knows I may end up with one.


----------



## Jbravo33

This thing just collecting dust waiting for x299. The bench not the bike







I'm going for rampage VI, apex, or evga dark. Not sure which but top 3. Wanted to steer away from getting same board but I've had no issues so we'll see. We still looking at August release for 10 + cores? Gives me time to gut and build new deck. That way no questions asked from the girl when there's multiple rigs.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> so is there an ASUS x299 thread yet? the New Apex looks pretty interesting...


Gosh, I think I'll get the Apex as well but I also kinda like the EVGA Dark and the ASRock OC Formula, all three with 4 ram slots only


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> What do you mean? Like you can overclock the hell out of your memory and it works fine?


No, meaning there are gains there, if you can achieve them.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I saw the 12 core also and posted it on his announcement but he or anyone from EVGA never responded, they probably put 12c because the person documenting it didn't update it but I'm sure it will work. One thing I don't like about the EVGA even though the x299 dark is cool is that it's still going to have 1GiB LANs where the R6E will have 10GiB I believe. Also I don't see anywhere that the dark has 802.11ad which is theorically 4.6GiB. I also don't know if the dark will overclock as smoothly as the rampage extreme series, maybe I'll put both on a test bench and test them both out and put the weaker one on a secondary rig.
> 
> By the way anyone else not getting alerts from OCN on threads that you're subscribed to? Mine does not seem to be working and I checked the settings it's correct. I loved those OCN email spam.


Do you think those look like 802.11 wireless connections?


----------



## richiec77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Do you think those look like 802.11 wireless connections?


Most likely. Doesn't look like RP SMA connections. Most likely SSMC/SSMB like what ASUS uses. The really small RF connector. And being Dual antenna it's most likely AC wireless.

Could be either Intel or Killer. The newest Killer 1535 is actual useful and had a good transponder built in for range.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Do you think those look like 802.11 wireless connections?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


it doesn't look like compared to the ones I see on R5E10 connectors but then again I don't know how an 802.11ad looks like so I don't know if that is it but it could be.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richiec77*
> 
> Most likely. Doesn't look like RP SMA connections. Most likely SSMC/SSMB like what ASUS uses. The really small RF connector. And being Dual antenna it's most likely AC wireless.
> 
> Could be either Intel or Killer. The newest Killer 1535 is actual useful and had a good transponder built in for range.


EVGA's website says Killer 2500 Ethernet ports so probably Killer Wireless. I currently have Killer 3X and it is fast and manages all data very well. Thanks for the input.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> it doesn't look like compared to the ones I see on R5E10 connectors but then again I don't know how an 802.11ad looks like so I don't know if that is it but it could be.


This new EVGA board looks like it is intended to compete with Asus's Apex board. I will get time to see some reviews since I will be waiting for i9 7980ex.


----------



## richiec77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> it doesn't look like compared to the ones I see on R5E10 connectors but then again I don't know how an 802.11ad looks like so I don't know if that is it but it could be.


Had to lookup pics of the R5E10 pics. Same wireless connection as the ASUS deluxe. Those are RP (reverse polarity) SSMB connectors. Rated at about 300 connections before material failure. Just an FYI.

The holes in the backplate looks like it could fit either SMA or SSMB bulkhead connections. So either an MSI style connector or ASUS style connector. Appears the card is not installed in that picture. So could go either way. Iirc, the EVGA X99 boards didn't have onboard wifi so no clue what style they'll choose. Hopefully it's SMA as it's much more robust.

AD spec is for 60GHz. That's microwave frequencies and physically a very very short wave length. Would most likely. Need a 3rd connector to work along side AC and the frequencies are different and cabling and connectors are different for that freq point. And yes. Connectors matter for the freq used. VSWR is an issue trying to place both 5 and 60 on the same plane and electrical path.

For any kind of distance past 10-15ft LOS (line of sight) it'll drop off rapidly in strength. Forget going thru walls easily. And just like microwave repeaters and transmission towers, it should use a parabolic reflector to increase gain. But then you run into serious and real health hazards at those power levels. Working on Satalittes and microwave towers, we have RF dosemeters!!! Like working around nuclear. It's that serious.

TLR it's AC tech not AD and AD isn't that useful except for close LOS like using a VR headset with-in a 10ft range. AC is useful for actual networking.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richiec77*
> 
> Had to lookup pics of the R5E10 pics. Same wireless connection as the ASUS deluxe. Those are RP (reverse polarity) SSMB connectors. Rated at about 300 connections before material failure. Just an FYI.
> 
> The holes in the backplate looks like it could fit either SMA or SSMB bulkhead connections. So either an MSI style connector or ASUS style connector. Appears the card is not installed in that picture. So could go either way. Iirc, the EVGA X99 boards didn't have onboard wifi so no clue what style they'll choose. Hopefully it's SMA as it's much more robust.
> 
> AD spec is for 60GHz. That's microwave frequencies and physically a very very short wave length. Would most likely. Need a 3rd connector to work along side AC and the frequencies are different and cabling and connectors are different for that freq point. And yes. Connectors matter for the freq used. VSWR is an issue trying to place both 5 and 60 on the same plane and electrical path.
> 
> For any kind of distance past 10-15ft LOS (line of sight) it'll drop off rapidly in strength. Forget going thru walls easily. And just like microwave repeaters and transmission towers, it should use a parabolic reflector to increase gain. But then you run into serious and real health hazards at those power levels. Working on Satalittes and microwave towers, we have RF dosemeters!!! Like working around nuclear. It's that serious.
> 
> TLR it's AC tech not AD and AD isn't that useful except for close LOS like using a VR headset with-in a 10ft range. AC is useful for actual networking.


Thanks for the information! Very helpful in deciding on which board I will choose.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richiec77*
> 
> Had to lookup pics of the R5E10 pics. Same wireless connection as the ASUS deluxe. Those are RP (reverse polarity) SSMB connectors. Rated at about 300 connections before material failure. Just an FYI.
> 
> The holes in the backplate looks like it could fit either SMA or SSMB bulkhead connections. So either an MSI style connector or ASUS style connector. Appears the card is not installed in that picture. So could go either way. Iirc, the EVGA X99 boards didn't have onboard wifi so no clue what style they'll choose. Hopefully it's SMA as it's much more robust.
> 
> AD spec is for 60GHz. That's microwave frequencies and physically a very very short wave length. Would most likely. Need a 3rd connector to work along side AC and the frequencies are different and cabling and connectors are different for that freq point. And yes. Connectors matter for the freq used. VSWR is an issue trying to place both 5 and 60 on the same plane and electrical path.
> 
> For any kind of distance past 10-15ft LOS (line of sight) it'll drop off rapidly in strength. Forget going thru walls easily. And just like microwave repeaters and transmission towers, it should use a parabolic reflector to increase gain. But then you run into serious and real health hazards at those power levels. Working on Satalittes and microwave towers, we have RF dosemeters!!! Like working around nuclear. It's that serious.
> 
> TLR it's AC tech not AD and AD isn't that useful except for close LOS like using a VR headset with-in a 10ft range. AC is useful for actual networking.


That would be a huge issue on cramming compatibility into this because of the electrical length difference compared to 2.4 or 5GHz. I actually have a practical application for a short distance LoS high speed wireless at the moment, that would be cool. I'd pair it up with this. https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AD7200-Wireless-Tri-Band-Talon/dp/B01FRP2758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496958700&sr=8-1&keywords=wifi+802.11ad I'm tired of my Linksys 1900ac fail router.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> That would be a huge issue on cramming compatibility into this because of the electrical length difference compared to 2.4 or 5GHz. I actually have a practical application for a short distance LoS high speed wireless at the moment, that would be cool. I'd pair it up with this. https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-AD7200-Wireless-Tri-Band-Talon/dp/B01FRP2758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496958700&sr=8-1&keywords=wifi+802.11ad I'm tired of my Linksys 1900ac fail router.


I currently use this router https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RT-AC88U/ and it's in the same room as my computer. I get a awesome wireless connection.


----------



## richiec77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> I currently use this router https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RT-AC88U/ and it's in the same room as my computer. I get a awesome wireless connection.


Oh. You would have use for 60GHz since it's close. But only really useful for data transfers between devices on the same network. For that and VR it's useful. But not for much else unless you have gigabit internet like google Fiber or FIOS.

So 802.11-AD is really limited overall. Better to focus on AC performance. And AD would require s new router to make use of it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Time for you to take a walk on the wild side and try a different board manufacture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus boards looking like the lights at a carnival.


Yeah - I agree, too many LEDs, but at least you can turn them off. I do find the CPU-based LED color thing on the z270 APEX to be "useful".
ANd no... I do not chase world records.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richiec77*
> 
> Oh. You would have use for 60GHz since it's close. But only really useful for data transfers between devices on the same network. For that and VR it's useful. But not for much else unless you have gigabit internet like google Fiber or FIOS.
> 
> So 802.11-AD is really limited overall. Better to focus on AC performance. And AD would require s new router to make use of it.


I have Killer dual Ethernet 2500 combined with Killer wireless-AC 1535 along with Killer networking software. This will be same as EVGA is offering on the Datk board. Works great and manages my network so I see no lag on any connections. I have Xfinity blast 250 seems fast enough.


----------



## tistou77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tistou77*
> 
> Hello
> 
> A PSU 750W is enough for a 6950X @4.4ghz and a GTX1070 (or 1080) ?
> 
> Thanks


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> Ah, I see it now. Yeah, I'd say 850+, especially if you're running all 9 of the MO-RA fans off the psu.


I tested with a Wattmeter, so

Realbench : ~390W (CPU + CG)
Aida64 : ~430W (CPU + CG)

A 750W is ample enough I think


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> With my new build finally complete, I can now work on some overclocking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build pics aside, I was able to lock in the following:
> 
> Core Clock: 4.40GHz @ 1.325 vcore - RB 8hr stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cache Clock: 3.60GHz @ 1.20 vcache - 3hr Aida64 Cache test
> 
> Time to head over to Scone's DDR4 Memory thread to do a little reading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30min snapshot
> 
> 
> 8hr pass!


*Beautiful and very clean







*


----------



## jsutter71

Wondering if the x299 will improve the slow boot problems that plague the x99 chipset. Get passed that silly business of memory training every time I boot up my system.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Wondering if the x299 will improve the slow boot problems that plague the x99 chipset. Get passed that silly business of memory training every time I boot up my system.


What slow boot?

Some have problems, but not all


----------



## tistou77

Yes, there is a boot time problem on the ROGs
Since the bios 3xxx on the R5E (and all the bios of the R5E10)
I went from 9 seconds to 21 seconds (total)

R5E => until bios 2xxx : ~9sec
R5E => since bios 3xxx : ~15sec
R5E10 => from 28 sec to 21 sec

It's getting better, but it's not yet the 9sec of the R5E with the bios 2xxx
The longer boot time is from the PCI checkup (white LED on the motherboard)


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> What slow boot?
> 
> Some have problems, but not all


It's not really a fix because it only improves your boot times by a few seconds but the workaround is to disable memory training in the BIOS. I can live with 30-45 second boot times so I just leave it alone. Another reason to not disable memory training is that it makes overclocking unstable. I prefer stable.


----------



## chibi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> *Beautiful and very clean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> It's not really a fix because it only improves your boot times by a few seconds but the workaround is to disable memory training in the BIOS. I can live with 30-45 second boot times so I just leave it alone. Another reason to not disable memory training is that it makes overclocking unstable. I prefer stable.


Thank you and yes, I agree with you regarding the memory training. I disabled it when I was overclocking the memory due to the constant reboots. But now that I'm finally stable in GSAT, I've re-enabled it for peace of mind. I honestly do not notice the boot times of X99, I normally start the PC and do something else for a bit before settling down. Normally make a coffee when I'm working from home or taking the dog outside for a bit.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys i need your help please,
I know that so many of you here have the x99 board from asus
I want to buy the asus x99 strix for my 6900k
Is it true that this board will damage the cpu caused by the oc socket or other issue like over voltage? Or a bug in the bios ? Or this issue is not true? Do you recommend me this board?
Thank u so much for your help


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys i need your help please,
> I know that so many of you here have the x99 board from asus
> I want to buy the asus x99 strix for my 6900k
> Is it true that this board will damage the cpu caused by the oc socket or other issue like over voltage? Or a bug in the bios ? Or this issue is not true? Do you recommend me this board?
> Thank u so much for your help


I don't know about that particular one but I know Asus optimization put my vcsa at around 1.3v. I set it to .984v on all 3 rampage v Edition 10 that we have and they've been fine for months at 4.4GHz.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys i need your help please,
> I know that so many of you here have the x99 board from asus
> I want to buy the asus x99 strix for my 6900k
> Is it true that this board will damage the cpu caused by the oc socket or other issue like over voltage? Or a bug in the bios ? Or this issue is not true? Do you recommend me this board?
> Thank u so much for your help


My Strix is running fine, though I've throttled down to 4500 / 3700 / 3400 ...

Getting overtly cautious in my old age?


----------



## xTesla1856

So, who's jumping ship to Sky-X?


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> So, who's jumping ship to Sky-X?


After seeing the reviews of the 7900X, I felt much happier with my 6950X. I would like to jump, but there are too many questions now...

- When will the R6E be released and at what price
- Will the 7920X, 7940X, 7960X, 7980XE use TIM or solder (based on i9-7900X I cannot think it is even possible with TIM only)?
- Delidding options and safety etc.
- It seems the platform is plagued by launch issues for now.

It might be a good time to enjoy the summer outside and let the dust settle a bit.







In case the R6E will be available soon, I'll jump to that and maybe the lowest end processor it supports before going for bigger models...also my 6950X+RVE10 works perfect.







Also I tried to sell my 6950X locally but in my country these are a rarity (maybe a handful of owners) and nobody was interested.


----------



## xTesla1856

They're all TIM now, AFAIK. I for one am going to wait until after Threadripper is launched and the accompanying boards and chips are released. Then, after taking everything in to consideration (reviews, pricing, performance, etc blabla), I will plan my upgrade. As for now, I'm happy with my 6800K and Edition 10 board. Also, I just finished my custom loop mere weeks ago and you couldn't force me to take it apart already, no matter how good the new chips are


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Long live our broadwell-e CPU's and my 6900K
Soldering is king
I don't want to see the number 100 DEGREE C on my PC with a Skylake-X CPU








thank u


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> So, who's jumping ship to Sky-X?


I'm thinking EVGA dark or R6E/Ap x and 7980xe but also torn about spending about 3K and skipping instead.


----------



## Jbravo33

I'm all in rampage vi apex. I'm start with that and probably 7740x for the time being until the big boys drop. Threadripper is enticing but 12 cores at potentially 4.6-4.8 sound like fun.


----------



## Jbravo33

They are up on amazon finally. The processors


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> So, who's jumping ship to Sky-X?


I think my 6950x will perform as well as the new i9-7900x. I am hoping the processors above the 7900x will be soldered. So I will wait for the i9-7980ex and choose either the EVGA Dark or Asus Apex after reviews.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> They're all TIM now, AFAIK. I for one am going to wait until after Threadripper is launched and the accompanying boards and chips are released. Then, after taking everything in to consideration (reviews, pricing, performance, etc blabla), I will plan my upgrade. As for now, I'm happy with my 6800K and Edition 10 board. Also, I just finished my custom loop mere weeks ago and you couldn't force me to take it apart already, no matter how good the new chips are


There is no information on processors above the 7900x so we don't know if they we'll be TIM.


----------



## 1033ruben

im not
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> So, who's jumping ship to Sky-X?


I sure am not jumping any ship. i will stay on x99 and my x370 for at least a few more years it just doesnt make sense to jump ship at least right now.
RUBEN


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys i need your help please,
> I know that so many of you here have the x99 board from asus
> I want to buy the asus x99 strix for my 6900k
> Is it true that this board will damage the cpu caused by the oc socket or other issue like over voltage? Or a bug in the bios ? Or this issue is not true? Do you recommend me this board?
> Thank u so much for your help


no, it's not true. And I'm not sure where you heard that BS.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> After seeing the reviews of the 7900X, I felt much happier with my 6950X. I would like to jump, but there are too many questions now...
> 
> - When will the R6E be released and at what price
> - Will the 7920X, 7940X, 7960X, 7980XE use TIM or solder (based on i9-7900X I cannot think it is even possible with TIM only)?
> - Delidding options and safety etc.
> - It seems the platform is plagued by launch issues for now.
> 
> It might be a good time to enjoy the summer outside and let the dust settle a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case the R6E will be available soon, I'll jump to that and maybe the lowest end processor it supports before going for bigger models...also my 6950X+RVE10 works perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I tried to sell my 6950X locally but in my country these are a rarity (maybe a handful of owners) and nobody was interested.


@Silicon Lottery seems to be offering a 1 year warranty on their SKL-X delids. Certainly worth considering.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> There is no information on processors above the 7900x so we don't know if they we'll be TIM.


I really hope you are right. A TIM-job on a 7980X should be punishable by...?
(complete the sentence







)


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no, it's not true. And I'm not sure where you heard that BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Silicon Lottery seems to be offering a 1 year warranty on their SKL-X delids. Certainly worth considering.
> I really hope you are right. A TIM-job on a 7980X should be punishable by...?
> (complete the sentence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Buying said perpetrator a beer? Or at least holding his while he does it...


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no, it's not true. And I'm not sure where you heard that BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Silicon Lottery seems to be offering a 1 year warranty on their SKL-X delids. Certainly worth considering.
> I really hope you are right. A TIM-job on a 7980X should be punishable by...?
> (complete the sentence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


"By cutting off their" leave it to your imagination?


----------



## Kimir

HEDT not soldered




































need moar emote to express my feeling about this. I'll not get the new toys anyway so don't really care.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> HEDT not soldered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> need moar emote to express my feeling about this. I'll not get the new toys anyway so don't really care.


Where did you see this I can't find any legitimate source that gives any spec's above 7900X?


----------



## Silent Scone

The 12 core won't be soldered. Still doesn't stop i9 from kicking Ryzen every which way to Sunday.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The 12 core won't be soldered. Still doesn't stop i9 from kicking Ryzen every which way to Sunday.


That's all that matters.


----------



## Hawkeye360

I don't like how Intel restricted the full 44 PCIe lanes to the 7900x and up. You could get the full complement of PCIe lanes with the 6850k at least. No solder too.









The 6850k has been going for about $699 CDN lately, compared to the 7900x (to get full amount of lanes) which is $1359 at my local store. The new x299 boards are expensive too.

I've been interested in the 6850k for a while and have been considering building a new PC with it. The new x299 boards are expensive too.

My current PC (sig) has been sold (minus the SSD and HDD) so I'm anxiously waiting to build a new PC. Been using my phone for internet stuff.









I'm deciding between the 6850k or waiting for Coffee Lake. The HEDT is probably overkill but I don't mind.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The 12 core won't be soldered. Still doesn't stop i9 from kicking Ryzen every which way to Sunday.


Yeah, but the Thread Ripper is just around the corner.
And it's just inadmissible that a hedt "X" cpu (i.e. 7820X i'm interested in) not only is not soldered but also lacks of the "hedt class" pcie lanes








Holy crap, a mere quad core hedt previously had 40 pcie (4820K), are you out of your F#####g brains ya blu knights?








And furthermore, it consumes in OC more than two 6950X systems











But you shouldn't have to run OCCT all day, innit?
*"It speaks volumes about the quality of the Intel silicon yield that our i7-7820X was capable of 4.8 GHz at 1.22v and 5 GHz at 1.3v."*

That's the only thing that matters


----------



## Kimir

Time will tell how they do perform and how well the overclock is.
The press batch being able to do 4.8/5Ghz means nothing to me. Is there a Skylake-X thread already so we don't "pollute" BW-E with all that.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

You are right, 4.8 ghz on which stability test? Running cinebench means nothing.
I have a big hate to skylake-x after intel deside to use some potato between the ihs and cpu die


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Buying said perpetrator a beer? Or at least holding his while he does it...












crazy crew here.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crazy crew here.


If it appears the only thing standing between me and 18 cores @4.5GHz is TIM... Tim should be be very, very worried...









Not sure I have much faith that will be the case though, but... If it can hack the current, I'll handle the heat.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> You are right, 4.8 ghz on which stability test? Running cinebench means nothing.
> I have a big hate to skylake-x after intel deside to use some potato between the ihs and cpu die


That's the 7820X review the above pic and quote was taken from:

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i7_7820x_skylake_x_review/3

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i7_7820x_skylake_x_review/17

It seems the OC stability test they used was OCCT


----------



## Kimir

The power draw was taken with OCCT, there is no mention or screenshot showing OCCT stable or any AVX based stress test (der8auer used prime with AVX disabled for example).


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Lol that comment from someone : "looks like i don´t need to shop wood for the winter when i have this skylake-x."
400 watt power with oc !!!! Lol and without die solder


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> im not
> I sure am not jumping any ship. i will stay on x99 and my x370 for at least a few more years it just doesnt make sense to jump ship at least right now.
> RUBEN


Yes me too till pci e 4.0


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Time will tell how they do perform and how well the overclock is.
> The press batch being able to do 4.8/5Ghz means nothing to me. Is there a Skylake-X thread already so we don't "pollute" BW-E with all that.


start it up!!


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> im not
> I sure am not jumping any ship. i will stay on x99 and my x370 for at least a few more years it just doesnt make sense to jump ship at least right now.
> RUBEN
> 
> 
> 
> Yes me too till pci e 4.0
Click to expand...

I've had a crush for the 7820X (and a new mobo like X299 OC Formula) but I have to admit, it's a nonsense swapping to make as a beta tester onto this new Mesh architecture.
I think I'll try to find myself a nice 6900K as well


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Yes me too till pci e 4.0


yeah i agree!!


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> start it up!!


Did it for him









http://www.overclock.net/t/1632870/skylake-x-kabylake-x-combined-discussion


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> If it appears the only thing standing between me and 18 cores @4.5GHz is TIM... Tim should be be very, very worried...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure I have much faith that will be the case though, but... If it can hack the current, I'll handle the heat.


18 unlocked cores has got to be crazy. I'm in when the SKU is available.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schoolofmonkey*
> 
> Did it for him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1632870/skylake-x-kabylake-x-combined-discussion


thank you! +1


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I am reading some reviews concerning skylake-x:

"we have noticed that there are a handful of applications where the Broadwell-E part is comparable or faster than the Skylake-X part. These inversions are a result of the "mesh" architecture on Skylake-X vs. the "ring" architecture of Broadwell-E"

"those wanting multicore chips to play games should look elsewhere. It is equal or slower than broadwell-E (6900K) due to increased core communication latency (basically same as Ryzen) and that despite increased clock speeds."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-2.html


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I am reading some reviews concerning skylake-x:
> 
> "we have noticed that there are a handful of applications where the Broadwell-E part is comparable or faster than the Skylake-X part. These inversions are a result of the "mesh" architecture on Skylake-X vs. the "ring" architecture of Broadwell-E"
> 
> "those wanting multicore chips to play games should look elsewhere. It is equal or slower than broadwell-E (6900K) due to increased core communication latency (basically same as Ryzen) and that despite increased clock speeds."
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-2.html


HEDT has never been about strictly gaming. We've always known a strictly gaming build should stick with the mainstream offerings. This is for those who want heavily threaded workstations, that can also game at the same time due to the still very high single threaded performance offered.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seijitsu*
> 
> HEDT has never been about strictly gaming. We've always known a strictly gaming build should stick with the mainstream offerings. This is for those who want heavily threaded workstations, that can also game at the same time due to the still very high single threaded performance offered.


And most important bench marking!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Not true, looks at battlefield 1 and watch dogs 2 how a 6 and 8 cores outperform the 7700k, gaming are start using more than 4 cores.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seijitsu*
> 
> HEDT has never been about strictly gaming. We've always known a strictly gaming build should stick with the mainstream offerings. This is for those who want heavily threaded workstations, that can also game at the same time due to the still very high single threaded performance offered.


I thought that's why they stick the republic of gamers stickers and lights to HEDT motherboards.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> And most important bench marking!


That's my favorite part of HEDT the rest is just fluff.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Not true, looks at battlefield 1 and watch dogs 2 how a 6 and 8 cores outperform the 7700k, gaming are start using more than 4 cores.


HEDT probably outperforms mainstream also on GTAV


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Not true, looks at battlefield 1 and watch dogs 2 how a 6 and 8 cores outperform the 7700k, gaming are start using more than 4 cores.


Right, same games perform a little better, but anything is perfectly playable on a 7700K (and soon, 8700K.)


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I don't know why you still buy 4 cores cpu while you can buy a 6 cores with same price, maybe the motherboard a little higher in price but you get a quad channel memory and 12 thread cpu, btw dx12 can use up to 8 cores cpu.
Get a 6 cores cpu and you will have peace in mind for any game. Btw blizzard confirm that overwatch use up to 6 cores CPU.
HEDT FTW! HEDT is ? ! We live in HEDT platform ERA ✌


----------



## Vellinious

We're not there quite yet.....there are precious few games out there that use DX12 and utilize high core count CPUs. The mainstream i7s with their higher clocks are still the kings for gaming.


----------



## CrazyElf

If you do other non-gaming tasks on your X99 rig (ex: game and workstation tasks), then it justified its cost, although now with Ryzen, the priceerformance has fallen drastically. The 6 core may have a case for it, but the 8 core and 10 core X99 chips are of course not very competitive from a priceerformance POV.

There are a few games that do use the many cores:

Crysis (and likely all CryEngine games)
Overwatch (up to 6 cores, so a 5820k/6800k seems like the sweet spot here)
Battlefield series
Total War Warhammer sees small gains: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/total-war-warhammer-directx-12-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,8.html
With 3600 MHz RAM, you will find a Ryzen 1700 @ 4 GHz outperforming a 7700k at 5 GHz. The same should apply to Broadwell E, only it's a BDE @ 4.3 - 4.4 GHz rather than 4 GHz.

There are other games too that are not AAA that use more than 4 cores:

Cities Skylines
Star Ruler 2
Ashes of Singularity (and Escalation)
I believe that all games from the recent Frostbite 3 Engine can hypothetically do so, but all the games made so far are not too CPU demanding

With DX12 and Vulkan, we now have the potential for more cores.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> If it appears the only thing standing between me and 18 cores @4.5GHz is TIM... Tim should be be very, very worried...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure I have much faith that will be the case though, but... If it can hack the current, I'll handle the heat.


I'm very skeptical about 4.5 GHz with 18 cores.

I would like to see how stable the 4.7 GHz on the 7900X is before jumping to conclusions. I think that 4.5 - 4.6 GHz is the limit with more stringent stability testing on the 10 core.

We don't know how well the MCC dies overclock.



I suspect that it may require way too much power to be able to do more than 4.3 GHz on the 18 cores. The 10 core though is an LCC die like the Broadwell E. I suspect that there will be penalties to clock, perhaps 300 MHz. That's about the penalty from a 4790k to a 5960X. We are talking about 80% more cores here, so I'd expect a comparable penalty. Maybe 250 MHz less on average if you are lucky. Keep in mind too that there may be power limits. 80% more cores = 80% more current draw at a given clock. Current draw really goes up at 1.25V. The other risk is that the bigger the die, the bigger the risk of a "bad core".

Then there's this 28 core HCC monster:



There's actually 6 memory controllers on this (the CPU in theory could do 6 channel RAM). 2 of them must be disabled. The Intel server platform Purley will of course have the full 6 channel RAM.

I'd love to be wrong and later found too pessimistic about this, but I suspect that 4.5 GHz with 18 cores might not happen - at least not a very stable overclock anyways on 24--7 voltages.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I am reading some reviews concerning skylake-x:
> 
> "we have noticed that there are a handful of applications where the Broadwell-E part is comparable or faster than the Skylake-X part. These inversions are a result of the "mesh" architecture on Skylake-X vs. the "ring" architecture of Broadwell-E"
> 
> "those wanting multicore chips to play games should look elsewhere. It is equal or slower than broadwell-E (6900K) due to increased core communication latency (basically same as Ryzen) and that despite increased clock speeds."
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-2.html


Yep. It looks like the ring design has a lower latency level. I would like to see independent testing of the latencies.

Here is a Ryzen vs a 5960X.

 

Notice how within the CCX, Ryzen's latency (communication times between cores) is about half that of the 5960X. But to access the cores in the other CCX, it's about double the 5960X.

I would like to see what penalties Threadripper suffers. Keep in mind that a 1700 Ryzen @ 4 Ghz @ DDR4 3600 will hold its own against a 5 GHz 7700k. Equally interesting would be to test this again, only with more aggressive Uncore clocks on the Haswell chip and the Ryzen's RAM (which controls the Infinity Fabric) clocked up to 3600 MHz.

I think that if this test were repeated again, only with Broadwell E vs Skylake X, Broadwell E's latency might do very well. The reason why Intel moved was because the ring architecture on Braodwell EP would not have scaled very well past 24 cores. It also works a lot better for 2P platforms.

Still, check out gaming performance of a 7700k vs a Ryzen @ 4 GHz. Tested with a GTX 1070.





Note the 0.1% and 1% frame times. They are more important than averages.

Tested with a 1080Ti.




The 1700 is a good comparison point, since it costs around the same as a 7700k. Spend the difference on top binned RAM IMO.

Broadwell E versus the 7700k should have similar performance. That's especially true for the 6900k which also has 8 cores. Of course Broadwell E costs a lot more than Ryzen.

Edit: Here's the figures for the 7900X - slower than the 5960X it seems: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-10-core-Skylake-X-Processor-Review/Thread-Thread-Latency-and-
 

The higher latency in X299 CPUs does not bode well for Skylake X vs Threadripper for gaming, unless Threadripper also incurs big penalties. It might because this time it's not just off CCX, but off die. Maybe with an aggressive Uncore or whatever they call it now, OC, it might be mitigated, but it's likely that the platform will have a permanent "gaming penalty" due to slower inter-core communications.

In that regard, those of us who bought X99 might have a pretty decent deal. If X299 CPUs are regressing, then X99 CPUs should be able to hold their own at gaming, even with inferior IPC in other aspects. Of course the Skylake X seems to clock slightly better than Haswell E (typically 4.4 - 4.6 GHz 24-7, with a few golden chips @ 4.7 GHz), but we need more strict stability tests to see.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CrazyElf*
> 
> If you do other non-gaming tasks on your X99 rig (ex: game and workstation tasks), then it justified its cost, although now with
> I'm very skeptical about 4.5 GHz with 18 cores.
> 
> I would like to see how stable the 4.7 GHz on the 7900X is before jumping to conclusions. I think that 4.5 - 4.6 GHz is the limit with more stringent stability testing on the 10 core.
> 
> We don't know how well the MCC dies overclock.
> 
> I suspect that it may require way too much power to be able to do more than 4.3 GHz on the 18 cores. The 10 core though is an LCC die like the Broadwell E. I suspect that there will be penalties to clock, perhaps 300 MHz. That's about the penalty from a 4790k to a 5960X. We are talking about 80% more cores here, so I'd expect a comparable penalty. Maybe 250 MHz less on average if you are lucky. Keep in mind too that there may be power limits. 80% more cores = 80% more current draw at a given clock. Current draw really goes up at 1.25V. The other risk is that the bigger the die, the bigger the risk of a "bad core".


I am skeptical as well....

Though there are degress of success in the middle. 4.5 on 8-10 cores and 4.0 all core would lay waste to a Ryzen/Epyc based chip of similar core count.

Here's what I know today. I know Haswell 18 cores xeons can run without issue at 3.8GHz on 10 cores at full load for days at a time with nothing more than an H80i v2 (via ucode hack).

I know they can BCLK OC to 3.95 as well.

So, given Skylake vs HW in the past, a WAG says 4.0 all-core should not be impossible and 8-10 core between 4 and 4.5 should also not be impossible, but... we shall see.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys your help please
I saw in newegg two different x99 strix board with different prices: here are some screenshots:






There are two versions of x99 strix? One with rgp strip by deepcool and one without?
Thank u


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I am skeptical as well....
> 
> Though there are degress of success in the middle. 4.5 on 8-10 cores and 4.0 all core would lay waste to a Ryzen/Epyc based chip of similar core count.
> 
> Here's what I know today. I know Haswell 18 cores xeons can run without issue at 3.8GHz on 10 cores at full load for days at a time with nothing more than an H80i v2 (via ucode hack).
> 
> I know they can BCLK OC to 3.95 as well.
> 
> So, given Skylake vs HW in the past, a WAG says 4.0 all-core should not be impossible and 8-10 core between 4 and 4.5 should also not be impossible, but... we shall see.


the problems with x370/ryzen are not rolled into anyone's "analysis". Ryzen IMC is frankly, bad. And 4.0 on an 1800X is a rare chip which suffers severe thermal issues. I've run both, and right now, the 6950X still reigns. Pricing of ryzen is justified considering how dual channel cripples a 16 thread chip, and the fact that AMD has a very long way to go with memory management. Just check OCN's Ryzen OC thread (by Elmor). It's "one flew over the cookoo's nest" for nearly a 1000 pages just trying to get folks to run 16GB dual channel ram at 3466 with a latency in the 60ns range - unbelievable. 3600 is not common and only a few have been able to get 3600 c15 stable with 16 or 32GB (Praz). It's a complete cluster-F as far as ram in concerned.
SKL-X will likely do quad channel 4000.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the problems with x370/ryzen are not rolled into anyone's "analysis". Ryzen IMC is frankly, bad. And 4.0 on an 1800X is a rare chip which suffers severe thermal issues. I've run both, and right now, the 6950X still reigns. Pricing of ryzen is justified considering how dual channel cripples a 16 thread chip, and the fact that AMD has a very long way to go with memory management. Just check OCN's Ryzen OC thread (by Elmor). It's "one flew over the cookoo's nest" for nearly a 1000 pages just trying to get folks to run 16GB dual channel ram at 3466 with a latency in the 60ns range - unbelievable. 3600 is not common and only a few have been able to get 3600 c15 stable with 16 or 32GB (Praz). It's a complete cluster-F as far as ram in concerned.
> SKL-X will likely do quad channel 4000.


I've been playing with my memory...I'm up above 3600 stable with stock timings...had to use a small voltage bump, though, to 1.38v. The increased memory clocks really do help with Ryzen's performance. I've got a 1600X on the way to play with...on the low end of the HEDT market, they seem like they're trading blows with Intels offerings.

There's nothing AMD has that'll hold a candle to a 6950X, though.


----------



## verovdp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys your help please
> I saw in newegg two different x99 strix board with different prices
> ...
> There are two versions of x99 strix? One with rgp strip by deepcool and one without?
> Thank u


Well, one listing is just the X99 Strix motherboard package and the other listing is just a bundle with the rgb strip. It's pretty similar in a way to the ROG Maximus VIII Hero / Whetstone bundle they sell that includes that mousepad with the VIII Hero. So if you want the X99 Strix with an RGB strip to go with it, hey more power to you!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I've been playing with my memory...I'm up above 3600 stable with stock timings...had to use a small voltage bump, though, to 1.38v. The increased memory clocks really do help with Ryzen's performance. I've got a 1600X on the way to play with...on the low end of the HEDT market, they seem like they're trading blows with Intels offerings.
> 
> There's nothing AMD has that'll hold a candle to a 6950X, though.


yeah. the thing with 3600 (if by "stock" you mean microcode/bios auto = c16?) is that the new microcode release has 3600c16 performing worse than 3466c14 by many measures. Some of the second and third timings need adjustment - but we do not have access on the c6h anyway. 3600c15 looks good (on 3600 divider), but my z270 B-die kits can't get stable to gsat - could be the kits, but they run very well on the APEX. If you can, 3605 on the 2666/130+ bclk divider is pretty snappy, but stil has latency above 50ns. IMO, DDR4 dual channel should be capable of at least 3866c16 if the memory controller was up to it on Ryzen.
No doubt, from a bang for the buck perspective, AMD did exactly what they intended and really hit a home run on the core performance, but daaum, it's like they went aphasic on Ram.








You'll enjoy the 1600X, I think it's the best in their current line up.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the problems with x370/ryzen are not rolled into anyone's "analysis". Ryzen IMC is frankly, bad. And 4.0 on an 1800X is a rare chip which suffers severe thermal issues.


They are certainly rolled into mine which is why I'm waiting to see specifics and the release of the 16 and 18 core chips. For my compute purposes, even Intel has some work to do to best a chip they released on accident 2 generations back.









(not kidding BTW - as a practical matter I can put 36 cores on a dual socket MB for less $ than SKLX 18 core single chip and I end up with 18-20 cores running at 3.8GHz stable, cool, at even less than stock voltages (so they can run all day and night like that). Yeah, its applesranges to a degree, but bottom line is 18 cores @ 3.8GHz worth of HW computes is what SKLX has to beat (with some margin to justify price) or no sale to me... If 18 cores runs at 3.2GHz or less then its going to be neck and neck...

So, whether AMD or Intel, they both have to provide me with 16+ cores with clocks they've refused to allow (Intel) and not been able to reach (AMD) in the past with xeon and ryzen respectively.

BTW, do the thermal issues you mention account for the borked temperature values on ryzenX? I haven't circled back to that as I had already decided not to bother with anything dual channel from what I've seen before with my use cases.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> They are certainly rolled into mine which is why I'm waiting to see specifics and the release of the 16 and 18 core chips. For my compute purposes, even Intel has some work to do to best a chip they released on accident 2 generations back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, whether AMD or Intel, they both have to provide me with 16+ cores with clocks they've refused to allow (Intel) and not been able to reach (AMD) in the past with xeon and ryzen respectively.
> 
> BTW, do the thermal issues you mention account for the borked temperature values on ryzenX? I haven't circled back to that as I had already decided not to bother with anything dual channel from what I've seen before with my use cases.


yeah, you can adjust the sensor skew to reflect reality. T_die is accurate otherwise. T_ctrl is high, but can be ignored AFAI concerned.









I'm really looking forward to an unlocked 18 core chip.. but frankly, not one I have to bang the lid off of.









edit: been *squeezing* this 1600X pretty hard - can't top the LN2 guys with water tho.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, you can adjust the sensor skew to reflect reality. T_die is accurate otherwise. T_ctrl is high, but can be ignored AFAI concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really looking forward to an unlocked 18 core chip.. but frankly, not one I have to bang the lid off of.


To be honest, that would be a last resort... I'd need to convince myself or have someone else do so, that it was going to be a big gain...

zapping a $2K chip with PTP is a pain, but hey.... delidding and lappnig mean you broke it you bought it. It's a commitment to be sure...


----------



## cekim

Not to mention power. I ignore it most of the time, but full tilt everything in the house going 100% for days did show me I have my limits. I was reminded of the virtue of that 36 core system pulling well under 500W from the wall (often more like 400) where I expect SKLX is going to be 50-100% more for even just a single chip from what I've seen...


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah. the thing with 3600 (if by "stock" you mean microcode/bios auto = c16?) is that the new microcode release has 3600c16 performing worse than 3466c14 by many measures. Some of the second and third timings need adjustment - but we do not have access on the c6h anyway. 3600c15 looks good (on 3600 divider), but my z270 B-die kits can't get stable to gsat - could be the kits, but they run very well on the APEX. If you can, 3605 on the 2666/130+ bclk divider is pretty snappy, but stil has latency above 50ns. IMO, DDR4 dual channel should be capable of at least 3866c16 if the memory controller was up to it on Ryzen.
> No doubt, from a bang for the buck perspective, AMD did exactly what they intended and really hit a home run on the core performance, but daaum, it's like they went aphasic on Ram.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll enjoy the 1600X, I think it's the best in their current line up.


I couldn't find a setting in the bios above 3200, so I started adjusting the bclk to bump memory clock. I didn't alter the timings, so they're still at 14. At 1.38v I have them running 3616 (3200 / 113 bclk). I might try the 2666/130 and see if that makes any difference. I'm just absolutely shocked it'll run here at all.....honestly, it's a little confusing. These memory kits wouldn't run on my Intel system at these clocks and timings.

Yeah, after playing with this 1500X a while, I've come to the conclusion that it just doesn't have enough bite. The 1600X looks to compare favorably with the 5820k I had, so I thought I'd give that a shot for a while.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I couldn't find a setting in the bios above 3200, so I started adjusting the bclk to bump memory clock. I didn't alter the timings, so they're still at 14. At 1.38v I have them running 3616 (3200 / 113 bclk). I might try the 2666/130 and see if that makes any difference. I'm just absolutely shocked it'll run here at all.....honestly, it's a little confusing. These memory kits wouldn't run on my Intel system at these clocks and timings.
> 
> Yeah, after playing with this 1500X a while, I've come to the conclusion that it just doesn't have enough bite. The 1600X looks to compare favorably with the 5820k I had, so I thought I'd give that a shot for a while.


wow! 3616c14 on that chipset is really exceptional for 16GB, nevermind 32GB!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I couldn't find a setting in the bios above 3200, so I started adjusting the bclk to bump memory clock. I didn't alter the timings, so they're still at 14. At 1.38v I have them running 3616 (3200 / 113 bclk). I might try the 2666/130 and see if that makes any difference. I'm just absolutely shocked it'll run here at all.....honestly, it's a little confusing. These memory kits wouldn't run on my Intel system at these clocks and timings.
> 
> Yeah, after playing with this 1500X a while, I've come to the conclusion that it just doesn't have enough bite. The 1600X looks to compare favorably with the 5820k I had, so I thought I'd give that a shot for a while.


I think you'll like the 1600X as a 5820K replacement. More than enough threads for a gaming rig.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Day after day, i love more and more my 6900k, thx god I didn't wait for the skylake-x. 4.3 ghz, 40 cpi e and the most important think, it is soldered instead of toothpaste, i love low temperature.
In my opinion, skylake-x is a fail, btw in some applications skylake-x is slower than broadwell-e due to mesh architecture that increased the latency between cpu cores, can someone explain to me how the **** intel made the 7740x with only 16 pcie?!?!?! Only able to run 1 graphica card ? So no additional M.2 NVME SSD!


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Day after day, i love more and more my 6900k, thx god I didn't wait for the skylake-x. 4.3 ghz, 40 cpi e and the most important think, it is soldered instead of toothpaste, i love low temperature.
> In my opinion, skylake-x is a fail, btw in some applications skylake-x is slower than broadwell-e due to mesh architecture that increased the latency between cpu cores, can someone explain to me how the **** intel made the 7740x with only 16 pcie?!?!?! Only able to run 1 graphica card ? So no additional M.2 NVME SSD!


so if i use a samsung 950 nvme as a boot drive i wont be able to use the gpu slot @ x16?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

They will share the bandwidth, I don't know if current gpu like pascal takes full advantage of all the bandwidth of the pci e x16. Some benchmarks of pci e x8 vs x16 of currents gpu will be interesting. If you want to buy a x299 system , don't buy 7740x cpu, it will be the most waste of money you will ever made, get a 7800x, at least you will have 28 pci e and quad chanel ram, and a 6 cores cpu for gaming and rendering will be amazing.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> so if i use a samsung 950 nvme as a boot drive i wont be able to use the gpu slot @ x16?


You'll have to run your gpu at 8x if you want nvme. Kills me that they slapped the X at the end of the name of that CPU.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> so if i use a samsung 950 nvme as a boot drive i wont be able to use the gpu slot @ x16?
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to run your gpu at 8x if you want nvme. Kills me that they slapped the X at the end of the name of that CPU.
Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily since the X299 chipset itself supports up to 24 pcie 3.0 lanes and up to 3 pcie x4 storage (with raid and IRST support):


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Well, not necessarily since the X299 chipset itself supports up to 24 pcie 3.0 lanes and up to 3 pcie x4 storage (with raid and IRST support):


Some MBs even route one M.2 through the chipset and another is DMI on the same board. So, read carefully if you get one of Intel's gimped X processors (those with less than 40/44).


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I bought the x99 strix, i want to use the cpu installation tool from asus for one purpose, because i have thermal grizzly conductonaut liquid metal, that i need to use it between my cpu ihs and water cooler pump, so it will protect the cpu socket pins from the liquid metal, did anyone tried it? It is easy to use?


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I bought the x99 strix, i want to use the cpu installation tool from asus for one purpose, because i have thermal grizzly conductonaut liquid metal, that i need to use it between my cpu ihs and water cooler pump, so it will protect the cpu socket pins from the liquid metal, did anyone tried it? It is easy to use?


I don't know mate, I've just use the CLP, applying in classical (Coollaboratory) manner with their little brush, didn't exceed to cover the whole cpu (till the edges) but did a square area of coverage let's say 80% of the whole Ihs area. Also applied as thin metal film on the block's base as well.
Carefully applying = zero risks whatsoever


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> I don't know mate, I've just use the CLP, applying in classical (Coollaboratory) manner with their little brush, didn't exceed to cover the whole cpu (till the edges) but did a square area of coverage let's say 80% of the whole Ihs area. Also applied as thin metal film on the block's base as well.
> Carefully applying = zero risks whatsoever


Thank u so much for your help because i feel it safer to use the normal method to install cpu, but from what you said, the pressure on the liquid metal from the water block will not make it go down outside the cpu ?, and lets say you keep 2mm from each side without liquid metal, right? And other question, can i put the liquid metal on the water block from the residue left on the Q-tip ?
Thank u


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> [
> Thank u so much for your help because i feel it safer to use the normal method to install cpu, but from what you said, the pressure on the liquid metal from the water block will not make it go down outside the cpu ?, and lets say you keep 2mm from each side without liquid metal, right? And other question, can i put the liquid metal on the water block from the residue left on the Q-tip ?
> Thank u


Even 4mm
And yes, in case add a very small drop on the block as well.
You'll be OK


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Okk thank u
it will affect the temperature performance to not cover all the cpu?
Thank u


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Okk thank u
> it will affect the temperature performance to not cover all the cpu?
> Thank u


Not at all IMHO
Look how small the die is:

http://cdn.overclock.net/b/bf/bf1ad974_IMG_0783.jpeg


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Thank u so much for your help.
really appreciated


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Hello all
Dis anyone use auto oc with dual intelligent processor 5 by asus? I know all of you including me prefer manual oc, but your feedback please, did it gives a stable oc result? Did you crashed in any games after the oc done that was specified by this software? Thank u so much


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Hello all
> Dis anyone use auto oc with dual intelligent processor 5 by asus? I know all of you including me prefer manual oc, but your feedback please, did it gives a stable oc result? Did you crashed in any games after the oc done that was specified by this software? Thank u so much


Be careful especially in the vcsa area with asus. I've used it as a baseline but would never leave those settings that auto OC sets. They are made so it could successfully OC almost any chip as high as possible at a cost of applying too much voltage everywhere.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Thank u for your informations, after oc my cpu i will oc my ram with manual voltage vccsa and vccio as low as possible using hci memtest as stability test, but i think auto oc not worth it


----------



## ELIAS-EH

http://overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/a_critical_flaw_has_been_found_in_intel_s_skylake_and_kaby_lake_s_hyperthreading/1


----------



## xarot

Wrong thread bro.


----------



## arrow0309

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/964-6/piledriver-zen-broadwell-e-skylake-x-3-ghz.html
























Guys, I've just bought myself an "used-like new" amazon (wearhousedeals bargain) ASRock X99 OC Formula / 3.1 (my always oc formula)








Will assemble the atx rig at the end of August and (hopefully) I'll gonna throw in a 6900K as well


----------



## ELIAS-EH

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/251882-overclocker-claims-x299-vrm-temperatures-disaster-limit-skylake-x-potential


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> https://www.extremetech.com/computing/251882-overclocker-claims-x299-vrm-temperatures-disaster-limit-skylake-x-potential


So the easy solution is to not jump on the x299 bandwagon until the heat issues are resolved. Perfectly content with my 6950x.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> https://www.extremetech.com/computing/251882-overclocker-claims-x299-vrm-temperatures-disaster-limit-skylake-x-potential


Ouch... its one thing to not have sufficient heat-sink for the air-flow, its quite another to have it behave like an insulator to an otherwise stable system (i.e. he mentioned it functioned fine without the sink and a 120mm fan).

Imagine a CPU cooler that functioned worse than a bare chip with a 120mm fan blowing on it. It would be worth less than $5 on ebay (plus $19.95 in shipping).


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> https://www.extremetech.com/computing/251882-overclocker-claims-x299-vrm-temperatures-disaster-limit-skylake-x-potential


This is the Broadwell-E thread, there are no X299 Broadwell-E chips.

Luckily, there are both X299 and SK-X/KL-X threads where your always insightful postings might be better placed.


----------



## Hawkeye360

Would buying the 6850k now be a bad move? I'm just hesitant to go for Skylake-X considering all the heat problems, plus having to spend $1400 CDN just to get the 7900x in order to have all 44 PCIe lanes. I can get the 6850k for a bit less than half that price.


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hawkeye360*
> 
> Would buying the 6850k now be a bad move? I'm just hesitant to go for Skylake-X considering all the heat problems, plus having to spend $1400 CDN just to get the 7900x in order to have all 44 PCIe lanes. I can get the 6850k for a bit less than half that price.


If you just need the 40 PCIe lanes, go for it.


----------



## Hawkeye360

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seijitsu*
> 
> If you just need the 40 PCIe lanes, go for it.


I probably wouldn't need them but nice to have. I don't ever plan on having more than one graphics card, only PCIe stuff I would have are some M.2 SSDs. Probably overkill but that's fine with me.









Of course now Amazon Canada (they had lowest price for the 6850k) doesn't have it available anymore...


----------



## xTesla1856

The 6850K now costs as much I paid for my 6800K here. If only I needed more lanes


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hawkeye360*
> 
> I probably wouldn't need them but nice to have. I don't ever plan on having more than one graphics card, only PCIe stuff I would have are some M.2 SSDs. Probably overkill but that's fine with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course now Amazon Canada (they had lowest price for the 6850k) doesn't have it available anymore...


Really 28 lanes seems perfectly fine for your use case. Even after 16 for the graphics card, that still leaves you with 12.


----------



## 1033ruben

i have a 6800k with 2 gpus running in x8 slots plus a m.2 ssd and everything works fine and is super snappy.
RUBEN


----------



## Hawkeye360

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seijitsu*
> 
> Really 28 lanes seems perfectly fine for your use case. Even after 16 for the graphics card, that still leaves you with 12.


Yeah it's probably sufficient for now and the future based on what I would use. So I could have a graphics card and 3 SSDs running off the CPU lanes correct? Then I would still have the chipset lanes available?

I'm not well versed in PCIe lanes and how they are allocated and such. I get the general idea though.

I'm just a bit hesitant to go for x299 because of all the heat and VRM problems I've been reading about.


----------



## Hawkeye360

The 7820x is $819 at my local store. So potentially I could get that, or a 6850k when it hopefully drops back down to $699. Either less cores and more PCIe lanes or less lanes and more cores. More cores would be better for me I'm pretty sure, I imagine I probably wouldn't benefit from the 40 lanes on the 6850k, nice to have but probably not necessary.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hawkeye360*
> 
> The 7820x is $819 at my local store. So potentially I could get that, or a 6850k when it hopefully drops back down to $699. Either less cores and more PCIe lanes or less lanes and more cores. More cores would be better for me I'm pretty sure, I imagine I probably wouldn't benefit from the 40 lanes on the 6850k, nice to have but probably not necessary.


Depends on how long you plan on holding on to it...

Between 10GbE, NVMe, Optane and GPUs with 11-16GB those lanes are getting precious quickly depending on your use.


----------



## Hawkeye360

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Depends on how long you plan on holding on to it...
> 
> Between 10GbE, NVMe, Optane and GPUs with 11-16GB those lanes are getting precious quickly depending on your use.


I would imagine a few years maybe, but who knows I might get the upgrade itch.









That's the only thing holding me back from Skylake-X really. I would rather have the lanes than need them at some point and not have them.


----------



## Yellowchewgum

I have the 6800K and worth the purchase. Great CPU and cost effective compared to the new CPU coming out of Intel.


----------



## GXTCHA

Finally got around to benching my 6900k:

6900k - 4.3ghz @ 1.20v
32gb g.skill RAM @ 3200mhz w/ 1.35v

Passed 1 hour of Real Bench:



Not bad... if I have more time I'll dive back in and see if playing with the DRAM or SA/IO voltages can up this RAM to 3600mhz or if I can get the CPU stable at 4.5ghz.

I'm interested in seeing how x299 matures once the R6A and R6E come out. I don't think it would be worthwhile swapping the 6900k for a 7820x so I'd be looking at running a 7900x.


----------



## djgar

You should be able to get 4.5GHz stable, but ram at 3600 will not - if you're lucky mid 3400s.

Good luck and have fun!


----------



## Scotty99

6850k is 299 at microcenter now.

Still not near as good of a deal as the ryzen 5 1600, but hey moving in the right direction


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> 6850k is 299 at microcenter now.
> 
> Still not near as good of a deal as the ryzen 5 1600, but hey moving in the right direction


It's sure a cheap way to get those 40 PCIe lanes for those that need it!


----------



## arrow0309

Hi, I'm gonna soon upgrade to a new motherboard (X99 OC Formula /3.1) case and some extra (water) cooling powa (add an external 560mm monsta).
Cpuwise do you think will make any difference in gaming at 1440p, 165hz swapping from my 4.4ghz 6850k to a 6900k (don't know about the OC, let's suppose at the same clocks and cache)?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, I'm gonna soon upgrade to a new motherboard (X99 OC Formula /3.1) case and some extra (water) cooling powa (add an external 560mm monsta).
> Cpuwise do you think will make any difference in gaming at 1440p, 165hz swapping from my 4.4ghz 6850k to a 6900k (don't know about the OC, let's suppose at the same clocks and cache)?


there will be a difference if you run scrutinizing benchmarks but while gaming I really doubt you'll notice it.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> 6850k is 299 at microcenter now.
> 
> Still not near as good of a deal as the ryzen 5 1600, but hey moving in the right direction


Damn!! I have NEVER seen a 6850K for anywhere near that low. In store pickup only and there is not one anywhere in my state (sucks). I have a 5820K now and the 6850K was my upgrade choice until the whole X299 i9 Thread Ripper crazyness started up. I would build a BW-E rig now with a 6850K or higher, if all of their prices start dropping like that, and sit X299 out a while, while they sort out the bugs. Maybe Micro Center just wants to flush their stock of these. I think they will sell out quickly.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> Damn!! I have NEVER seen a 6850K for anywhere near that low. In store pickup only and there is not one anywhere in my state (sucks). I have a 5820K now and the 6850K was my upgrade choice until the whole X299 i9 Thread Ripper crazyness started up. I would build a BW-E rig now with a 6850K or higher, if all of their prices start dropping like that, and sit X299 out a while, while they sort out the bugs. Maybe Micro Center just wants to flush their stock of these. I think they will sell out quickly.


I mean sure its a good price if you compare it to what intel was charging previously, but why would anyone choose a 6850k over a cheaper ryzen 1700? A 1700 walks all over a 6850k in pretty much anything that isnt a game from 2005 lol.


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I mean sure its a good price if you compare it to what intel was charging previously, but why would anyone choose a 6850k over a cheaper ryzen 1700? A 1700 walks all over a 6850k in pretty much anything that isnt a game from 2005 lol.


walks all over in what exactly? elaborate please


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> Damn!! I have NEVER seen a 6850K for anywhere near that low. In store pickup only and there is not one anywhere in my state (sucks). I have a 5820K now and the 6850K was my upgrade choice until the whole X299 i9 Thread Ripper crazyness started up. I would build a BW-E rig now with a 6850K or higher, if all of their prices start dropping like that, and sit X299 out a while, while they sort out the bugs. Maybe Micro Center just wants to flush their stock of these. I think they will sell out quickly.


for that price its a no brainer but its in store only and prices on amazon and newegg went down just 50 bucks. local one near me had two and they sold out. its a way to get people in their stores everyone shops online now. so of course they will blowout a product or two for just that reason. i do the same in my business. you want people in the door. bottom line.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> walks all over in what exactly? elaborate please


Its an 8 core cpu vs 6 on the 6850k...


----------



## xkm1948

How much would you pay for a used 6950X? I need the extra threads for work, but the new Threadripper price looks very promising. Currently rocking a 5820K with mild OC.


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I think at 1440p most of the recent chips in games have only small fps differences. $299 for 6850k is great, even if it might top at 4.4GHz it still within 1440p differences and AMD's new line up. If you can get a cheap 6950x, a few will be floating around.


----------



## xkm1948

Pulled the trigger on one used 6950X for a really good price, I mean REALLY good price. Do you guys think my current Noctua D15 can handle the 6950X overclocking to 4.2GHz~4.3GHz? Board is Sabertooth X99.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Pulled the trigger on one used 6950X for a really good price, I mean REALLY good price. Do you guys think my current Noctua D15 can handle the 6950X overclocking to 4.2GHz~4.3GHz? Board is Sabertooth X99.


Eh....maybe, but I doubt it.


----------



## mus1mus

I think it should.

BE runs cooler than HE.

EDIT:
Vell, maybe you can check if there's some bench that might require your hardware for the Team Cup.










http://www.overclock.net/t/1633281/hwbot-team-cup-2017-team-organization/100_100#post_26233457


----------



## Jbravo33

after running realbench on a newly built pc for my nephew using a 7740 i can run stable with realbench for 2 hours using 16gb of memory which is total of system memory. anyone know why when i run realbench on my pc x99 i cant use the full 32 gb of mem or else the app will detect instability? i can only run at 16gb which i will pass 2hr but not sure why i cant max out memory like on x299 rig. thx


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mus1mus*
> 
> EDIT:
> Vell, maybe you can check if there's some bench that might require your hardware for the Team Cup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1633281/hwbot-team-cup-2017-team-organization/100_100#post_26233457


I've got most of my old stuff sold now, but I'll take a look tonight.


----------



## Tlow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> after running realbench on a newly built pc for my nephew using a 7740 i can run stable with realbench for 2 hours using 16gb of memory which is total of system memory. anyone know why when i run realbench on my pc x99 i cant use the full 32 gb of mem or else the app will detect instability? i can only run at 16gb which i will pass 2hr but not sure why i cant max out memory like on x299 rig. thx


are all the ram sticks on the rigth side of the socket?


----------



## xkm1948

Well any good AIO for recommendations?


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thiloke*
> 
> are all the ram sticks on the rigth side of the socket?


nope, 2 on each side. that the instability?


----------



## Tlow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> nope, 2 on each side. that the instability?


with the 7740 only the right slots will work as far as i know, take a look into the manual


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> nope, 2 on each side. that the instability?


The left 4 memory slots are all disabled when using Kaby Lake-X, you need to put your sticks on the right side.


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thiloke*
> 
> with the 7740 only the right slots will work as far as i know, take a look into the manual


Sorry I don't think I explained it properly. So I put a rig together for my nephew x299 and when running real bench to find stable and final overclock I can max out the memory. I have gskill trident 16gb so within realbench I can run it at the full 16gb. No issues there.

On my personal rig x99 6850k 32gb corsair I cannot run real bench at the 32gb. I can only run it at 16gb. Wondering why that is?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> Sorry I don't think I explained it properly. So I put a rig together for my nephew x299 and when running real bench to find stable and final overclock I can max out the memory. I have gskill trident 16gb so within realbench I can run it at the full 16gb. No issues there.
> 
> On my personal rig x99 6850k 32gb corsair I cannot run real bench at the 32gb. I can only run it at 16gb. Wondering why that is?


It's probably not stable.


----------



## adobepro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vibraslap*
> 
> Bring VCCIO down to 1.05 and VCCSA down to 1.0 and see if you are still stable.
> 
> If this causes instability(doubtful) I would adjust VCCSA within a range of 0.95-1.1 and VCCIO between 1.05 and 1.1 and see what works. Those seem to be pretty standard ranges for these voltages across the overclock's I've seen on here and from my own experience on these chips.
> 
> The other voltages you listed all seem fine. The other I would look at to make sure it is not on auto is VCCIN. I think for most people 1.92 has been sufficient but It can range from 1.9-1.95 depending on your overclock.
> 
> As always, make one change at a time and ensure stability along each step of the way to make the source of any problems that may arise more apparent.


OMG, I hope this is ok. Tracking a few days of my 6800K, I hit 2.028 VCCIO, is it normal to get that high?

I have the following:
X99-UDP3
6800K, default clock 3.4, Turbo at 3.7 ( I kept everything auto, except LLC, which I set to 1/Standard.)
750 PSU G3 EVGA
32 GB Crucial 2400

Does anything look bad from what you can see on my HWinfo screenshot? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## adobepro

sorry, duplicate, can't delete it.


----------



## adobepro

Sorry, duplicate, can't delete it.


----------



## Hawkeye360

If I have one graphics card, a sound card and perhaps 2-3 PCIe NVME drives, would it be a good idea to pick up a 6850k over x299? Considering the 7900x with 44 lanes is $1400 in Canada and the 6850k is less than half of that.

I will be mostly gaming but wouldn't mind having the extra lanes offered by HEDT. I've been waiting for Coffee Lake but I would still be limited by the 16 lanes.

I mean I certainly am not against buying a 7900x as money is not really an issue, but just wondering if it would be worth it to spend so much more. Would SL-X be much better than BW-E for gaming?


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hawkeye360*
> 
> If I have one graphics card, a sound card and perhaps 2-3 PCIe NVME drives, would it be a good idea to pick up a 6850k over x299? Considering the 7900x with 44 lanes is $1400 in Canada and the 6850k is less than half of that.
> 
> I will be mostly gaming but wouldn't mind having the extra lanes offered by HEDT. I've been waiting for Coffee Lake but I would still be limited by the 16 lanes.
> 
> I mean I certainly am not against buying a 7900x as money is not really an issue, but just wondering if it would be worth it to spend so much more. Would SL-X be much better than BW-E for gaming?


I have 6850k and looking back I'm totally happy with getting that instead of 6900k or the 6950x. Single core performance on 6850 is the best of all 4 broadwell e cpus. I can bench 4.6 @ 1.44 but my daily is 4.3 @1.299. Passes 4 hours of realbench which is more than enough for me. Coffee lake looks good 100MHz more base than 6850 but having 40 lanes is awesome. As my Titan Xp's are running at x16. I'm gonna build an x299 rig and the 7820 would have been my choice but I see myself using dual cards in that one as well. Until we get a single card to drive 4k @144 I will be sli ing. So considering anything less than 7900 is not an option for me. I'm personally waiting on the 12 core. Just waiting to see clock speeds. Not just the base that been floating around on web. For me I only feel the 7900 and 7920 would be the only choice for second rig as 6850 does plenty in my first. I think the 12 would feel like a huge performance boost. So I'm patiently waiting for specs. Oh and I just built a x299 for my nephew with a 7740 and only 3000 on ram and have to say that rig is a punchy lil bstard, but not for me. Good luck.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hawkeye360*
> 
> If I have one graphics card, a sound card and perhaps 2-3 PCIe NVME drives, would it be a good idea to pick up a 6850k over x299? Considering the 7900x with 44 lanes is $1400 in Canada and the 6850k is less than half of that.
> 
> I will be mostly gaming but wouldn't mind having the extra lanes offered by HEDT. I've been waiting for Coffee Lake but I would still be limited by the 16 lanes.
> 
> I mean I certainly am not against buying a 7900x as money is not really an issue, but just wondering if it would be worth it to spend so much more. Would SL-X be much better than BW-E for gaming?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> I have 6850k and looking back I'm totally happy with getting that instead of 6900k or the 6950x. Single core performance on 6850 is the best of all 4 broadwell e cpus. I can bench 4.6 @ 1.44 but my daily is 4.3 @1.299. Passes 4 hours of realbench which is more than enough for me. Coffee lake looks good 100MHz more base than 6850 but having 40 lanes is awesome. As my Titan Xp's are running at x16. I'm gonna build an x299 rig and the 7820 would have been my choice but I see myself using dual cards in that one as well. Until we get a single card to drive 4k @144 I will be sli ing. So considering anything less than 7900 is not an option for me. I'm personally waiting on the 12 core. Just waiting to see clock speeds. Not just the base that been floating around on web. For me I only feel the 7900 and 7920 would be the only choice for second rig as 6850 does plenty in my first. I think the 12 would feel like a huge performance boost. So I'm patiently waiting for specs. Oh and I just built a x299 for my nephew with a 7740 and only 3000 on ram and have to say that rig is a punchy lil bstard, but not for me. Good luck.


I am in kind of the same boat as you. I have an Asus X9-Deluxe II and an I7-5820K. I was doing Crossfire with 2 AMD RX-290X GPUs but ran into PCIe lane headaches when trying to use the Thunderbolt Card and add an M.2 drive, since my I7-5820K is limited to 28 PCIe lanes. I said never again will I go with less than 40 lanes. So, I had picked the 6850K as my upgrade path as I can keep my MOBO and 32GB of G.Skill RAM. And the prices of the 6850K are dropping. Micro Center had them on sale (in store only) for $299! They are back to $500 now but Amazon has then for $360. BW-E Prices are volatile right now but they are coming down for sure.

I am playing around with the idea of doing an X299 build with an I9-7900X, which is more cores than I need but I will NOT buy a 28 lane CPU again. It really ticks me off (and a lot of other people) that you have to spring for a 10-Core CPU to get over 28 PCIe lanes. Frickin' Intel!!. I am reading everything I can find on X299 (and Thread Ripper), especially the thread on this forum as it is full of guys with X299 hardware in hand. I fear that the X299 MOBOs that have been released to date may have under-designed VRMs and have buggy BIOS. Asus is taking their time releasing the ROG Rampage VI Extreme and the Rampage VI Apex. Hopefully they are beefing up the VRMs, providing proper heat sinks / cooling, and working out the BIOS bugs. Those boards are going to be top dollar expensive. So an X299 rig with a high end MOBO and a 44-lane 10-Core CPU, and a new set of RAM, cooling system, and new massive power supply is going to get expensive fast!!

The BW-E CPUs are great, and a 6850K is really more than I need. Want has to duke it out with my Wallet. I keep reading that going to Thread Ripper is SUCH a better deal than X299, but I just don't know if I would make that transition. Intel are slime bags for sure, but I still respect the product they produce, even though they have been gouging HEDT customers for years. Tough decision.


----------



## Hawkeye360

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> I have 6850k and looking back I'm totally happy with getting that instead of 6900k or the 6950x. Single core performance on 6850 is the best of all 4 broadwell e cpus. I can bench 4.6 @ 1.44 but my daily is 4.3 @1.299. Passes 4 hours of realbench which is more than enough for me. Coffee lake looks good 100MHz more base than 6850 but having 40 lanes is awesome. As my Titan Xp's are running at x16. I'm gonna build an x299 rig and the 7820 would have been my choice but I see myself using dual cards in that one as well. Until we get a single card to drive 4k @144 I will be sli ing. So considering anything less than 7900 is not an option for me. I'm personally waiting on the 12 core. Just waiting to see clock speeds. Not just the base that been floating around on web. For me I only feel the 7900 and 7920 would be the only choice for second rig as 6850 does plenty in my first. I think the 12 would feel like a huge performance boost. So I'm patiently waiting for specs. Oh and I just built a x299 for my nephew with a 7740 and only 3000 on ram and have to say that rig is a punchy lil bstard, but not for me. Good luck.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> I am in kind of the same boat as you. I have an Asus X9-Deluxe II and an I7-5820K. I was doing Crossfire with 2 AMD RX-290X GPUs but ran into PCIe lane headaches when trying to use the Thunderbolt Card and add an M.2 drive, since my I7-5820K is limited to 28 PCIe lanes. I said never again will I go with less than 40 lanes. So, I had picked the 6850K as my upgrade path as I can keep my MOBO and 32GB of G.Skill RAM. And the prices of the 6850K are dropping. Micro Center had them on sale (in store only) for $299! They are back to $500 now but Amazon has then for $360. BW-E Prices are volatile right now but they are coming down for sure.
> 
> I am playing around with the idea of doing an X299 build with an I9-7900X, which is more cores than I need but I will NOT buy a 28 lane CPU again. It really ticks me off (and a lot of other people) that you have to spring for a 10-Core CPU to get over 28 PCIe lanes. Frickin' Intel!!. I am reading everything I can find on X299 (and Thread Ripper), especially the thread on this forum as it is full of guys with X299 hardware in hand. I fear that the X299 MOBOs that have been released to date may have under-designed VRMs and have buggy BIOS. Asus is taking their time releasing the ROG Rampage VI Extreme and the Rampage VI Apex. Hopefully they are beefing up the VRMs, providing proper heat sinks / cooling, and working out the BIOS bugs. Those boards are going to be top dollar expensive. So an X299 rig with a high end MOBO and a 44-lane 10-Core CPU, and a new set of RAM, cooling system, and new massive power supply is going to get expensive fast!!
> 
> The BW-E CPUs are great, and a 6850K is really more than I need. Want has to duke it out with my Wallet. I keep reading that going to Thread Ripper is SUCH a better deal than X299, but I just don't know if I would make that transition. Intel are slime bags for sure, but I still respect the product they produce, even though they have been gouging HEDT customers for years. Tough decision.


Thanks guys. Yeah I really don't like how Intel restricted the 7820x and 7800x to 28 lanes. Shame on Intel for that one. I almost bought a 7700k recently, but I just don't want to build a system with 16 lanes. Same with Coffee Lake, would only have 16 lanes. I don't really want to go with the 7820x cause of Intel gimping it. I would consider the 7900x as a result, but my goodness the price here. I can certainly pay for it, but is worth more than double what a 6850k costs?

I really like that Asus x99 rampage v edition 10 motherboard but it's just under $700 unfortunately. I imagine the Asus x299 extreme will be expensive too.


----------



## clarifiante

hi guys i seem to be having a slight issue with my pc, im not sure what is going on. 1 out of 3 times my PC will restart instead of waking from sleep. power settings are set to make sure that hard disk never goes to sleep. i recently reset windows10 to a clean version, all drivers are up to date. appreciate any help!

6900k [email protected] at 1.34V adaptive LLC6 also tested 7 (passed stability test with prime95 with flying colours)
CPU cache 35 @ 1.175V
16gbx2 Corsair Dominator 3200mhz
Asus maximus V edition 10 BIOS 1701 (latest)
950 pro 512gb nvme for OS (firmware up to date)
850 pro 1TB SSD for games (firmware up to date)
1000w superflower leadex PSU
1080ti AORUS extreme SLI (happens when i run at stock, OC, or undervolt)

SINGLE screen acer 1440p 144hz gsync


----------



## adobepro

Hi Everyone,

I recently bought a GB X99-UD3P Motherboard and 6850K and have a few questions, esp. on CPU Core Voltage.

By default, if VRIN is set with Auto and you set the clock from 3.6 to 3.8 and disable turbo, the VRIN floats between 1.89 and 1.903. I then set the value to 1.82, the nom value based on the Intel datasheet and so far so good, with an LLC of Standard (can't turn it off, but Standard is the lowest + I set VRIN current protection to it's lowest value). So, I'm wondering if GB is over volting by default if everything is set to "Auto" but my real questions are:

1 If you supply 1.82 VRIN (hard value, not "Auto") and set "Auto" for CPU Core Voltage, does the CPU determine from the given 1.82 VRIN what voltage to use for each core, based on the core's VID value (or VID curve, not sure how the curve works yet) or does the motherboard use the CPU VID values and tell FIVR to use that (based on a given clock frequency) or do some motherboards decide on their own what voltage to use based, dynamically, on frequency AND load and tell FIVR to use that?

2. If I don't use CPU Core Voltage "Auto", should I use the highest core VID as the CPU Core Voltage or should I use an average of all core as the vcore, e.g.
Reported VID 6850K:
#1 1.238
#2 1.227
#3 1.234
#4 1.243
#5 1.242
#6 1.236

Use 1.236 vcore?

3. Lastly, if I use the highest reported VID for vcore, in my case, 1.243, will FIVR use 1.243 for all cores or is FIVR smart enough to give each core it's requested VID if the voltage allowed is high enough, e.g., if you set 1.238 for vcore, the FIVR can't give 1.243 to core #4 so it will give it the max it can, which is 1.238, but it could give less to core #2, which has a VID of 1.227?

I just want this CPU to last for at least 6 years, with a very slight overclock (from 3.4 to 3.8 and no turbo but still want c-state to save on power) and want to specify the voltages that are very close within nom spec, not close to the Intel's Absolute Max and want to understand the difference between "Auto" and "Adaptive". If "auto" obeys the VID values, I'm fine with that, but I'm curious about q#1, does each core get it's VID or is it one voltage applied to all cores.

Thanks!


----------



## Foxrun

Possible deal
http://www.ebay.com/itm/391618240175
They are also new!


----------



## SpeedyIV

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foxrun*
> 
> Possible deal
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/391618240175
> They are also new!


That's a good price. Micro Center had the 6850K on sale for *$299* about a week ago (in store only). If there was a Micro Center within 100 miles of me, I would have made a road trip for that price. They are dropping everywhere. Amazon had them listed for $449 a week ago. Today they are $418. New Egg has them for $399, which has been steady for a while.


----------



## xkm1948

New 6950X plugged into my Sabertooth X99, finally joining the ranks of BWE.

With a D15 I am only managing a mild 4.2GHz OC with around 1.21V full load vcore. 3.5GHz Uncore and DDR4-3000 RAM on 100BCLK. Full load temp during stress test is about 80C. Not too bad for a 10 core.

Quick question though, do you guys use the Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 with manual OC? If not how to disable it? It keeps loading itself during starting up. Every single time I uninstall it Windows update will try to install it again.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> New 6950X plugged into my Sabertooth X99, finally joining the ranks of BWE.
> 
> With a D15 I am only managing a mild 4.2GHz OC with around 1.21V full load vcore. 3.5GHz Uncore and DDR4-3000 RAM on 100BCLK. Full load temp during stress test is about 80C. Not too bad for a 10 core.
> 
> Quick question though, do you guys use the Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 with manual OC? If not how to disable it? It keeps loading itself during starting up. Every single time I uninstall it Windows update will try to install it again.


I just let it run. It hasn't caused me any issues.


----------



## adobepro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foxrun*
> 
> Hey guys I just picked up a 6850k from ebay for a pretty cheap price 369.99
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/391618240175
> They are also new!
> 
> Pretty pumped to get some 10% gains and 40 pci lanes!


Keep an eye out on Microcenter if you have one near you. I got my 6850K two weeks ago for $299.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> That's a good price. Micro Center had the 6850K on sale for *$299* about a week ago (in store only). If there was a Micro Center within 100 miles of me, I would have made a road trip for that price. They are dropping everywhere. Amazon had them listed for $449 a week ago. Today they are $418. New Egg has them for $399, which has been steady for a while.


I got mine that way too, for $299 at MC -- but the store I got mine at, when you search for 6850K, you get product not found.


----------



## hadesfactor

This kills me on how cheap 6850ks dropped lol I bought mine while they were still $599...luckily Ill get $120 back from my credit card for buyer protection I wonder if I can get them to give me back even more on the same item lol


----------



## adobepro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> New 6950X plugged into my Sabertooth X99, finally joining the ranks of BWE.
> 
> With a D15 I am only managing a mild 4.2GHz OC with around 1.21V full load vcore. 3.5GHz Uncore and DDR4-3000 RAM on 100BCLK. Full load temp during stress test is about 80C. Not too bad for a 10 core.
> 
> Quick question though, do you guys use the Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 with manual OC? If not how to disable it? It keeps loading itself during starting up. Every single time I uninstall it Windows update will try to install it again.


Not sure on the TBM 3, but if you disable Turbo and set your clock to stock, you'll get a message ITBM driver is not available (at least in my case)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hadesfactor*
> 
> This kills me on how cheap 6850ks dropped lol I bought mine while they were still $599...luckily Ill get $120 back from my credit card for buyer protection I wonder if I can get them to give me back even more on the same item lol


Don't feel too bad, last year, Intel with Retail Edge offered the 6850K as low as $169. However, I heard, they use to offer better deals than that, including a Motherboard + OS, now it's just the chip, and you'll spend so much of your time earning "chips" to get this discount, it's just cheaper to wait until they go EOL and buy one, or now, when there's finally competition. Also, I spent $30 more for a 6800K







Yep, I have a 6800K and now a 6850K. https://slickdeals.net/f/9396647-retail-employees-only-intel-retail-edge-2016-holiday-deal-i7-6850k-starting-169-00-ship-i7-6700k-starting-109-00-ship


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *adobepro*
> 
> Not sure on the TBM 3, but if you disable Turbo and set your clock to stock, you'll get a message ITBM driver is not available (at least in my case)
> Don't feel too bad, last year, Intel with Retail Edge offered the 6850K as low as $169. However, I heard, they use to offer better deals than that, including a Motherboard + OS, now it's just the chip, and you'll spend so much of your time earning "chips" to get this discount, it's just cheaper to wait until they go EOL and buy one, or now, when there's finally competition. Also, I spent $30 more for a 6800K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I have a 6800K and now a 6850K. https://slickdeals.net/f/9396647-retail-employees-only-intel-retail-edge-2016-holiday-deal-i7-6850k-starting-169-00-ship-i7-6700k-starting-109-00-ship


Still not as bad as Nvidia literally screwing Titan X owners with the 1080ti, THEN the updated titan xp. I'd be way more pissed over that.

I bought my 6900k last august for 1k and MC has them at 800 now if they're even there still. It sucks, but that's what happens when a year goes by these days.


----------



## xTesla1856

299 is a freaking steal for a 6850K, pair that with a decent board and for 500-ish you have a platform that still has tons of life left in it.


----------



## Steve R

Really thinking about getting the 6850k for $400 on amazon. Though after seeing reviews on amazon and newegg of these cpu's dieing after 4-5 months is a bit worrying. The vast majority of the reviews were mostly positive.


----------



## xkm1948

After selling my 5820k, the final cost of upgrading to 6950x is about $300. Not too bad!


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steve R*
> 
> Really thinking about getting the 6850k for $400 on amazon. Though after seeing reviews on amazon and newegg of these cpu's dieing after 4-5 months is a bit worrying. The vast majority of the reviews were mostly positive.


I hav 4 of them all overclock d to 4.4GHz. I have not lost any for months, make sure the motherboard don't inject 1.3v+ into your CPU.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steve R*
> 
> Really thinking about getting the 6850k for $400 on amazon. Though after seeing reviews on amazon and newegg of these cpu's dieing after 4-5 months is a bit worrying. The vast majority of the reviews were mostly positive.


You guys do realize a ryzen 1700 is 270 bucks and when overclocked beats the snot out of a 6900k....right?


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I hav 4 of them all overclock d to 4.4GHz. I have not lost any for months, make sure the motherboard don't inject 1.3v+ into your CPU.


I havnt heard of any issues with the 6850ks having reliability issues either.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> You guys do realize a ryzen 1700 is 270 bucks and when overclocked beats the snot out of a 6900k....right?


As far as AMD goes. I was an AMD purist for the longest time. Their stagnation and failures left me at a point where I have zero trust in their product or them as a company.
Yes I know Intel is overpriced. I also know my system runs as good as ever and im extremely happy with the performance. I have built some of the Ryzen systems for
people and they are still not without their issues. So I for one will still not touch AMD yet. They have a lot of trust to earn back, at least from me. I doubt im the only one that feels that way.
On another note, people who build systems like these in the Broadwell-E or comparable products probably do not care how much you can get the Ryzen for. $100 dollars or so isnt going to buy AMD respect from those it utterly failed previously. I hope you enjoy your Ryzen. seriously I do, I hope they get back on track and at some point I consider them again. For now, screw em.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> You guys do realize a ryzen 1700 is 270 bucks and when overclocked beats the snot out of a 6900k....right?


no. I don't. and don't compare an OC 1700 or 1800 to a stock 6900 like most "reviews" have.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no. I don't. and don't compare an OC 1700 or 1800 to a stock 6900 like most "reviews" have.


I havent even pushed my system yet and i get over 1700 in cinebench. People are in here contemplating buying as 6 core broadwell E for 400 dollars, just makes no sense to me.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultisym*
> 
> I havnt heard of any issues with the 6850ks having reliability issues either.
> As far as AMD goes. I was an AMD purist for the longest time. Their stagnation and failures left me at a point where I have zero trust in their product or them as a company.
> Yes I know Intel is overpriced. I also know my system runs as good as ever and im extremely happy with the performance. I have built some of the Ryzen systems for
> people and they are still not without their issues. So I for one will still not touch AMD yet. They have a lot of trust to earn back, at least from me. I doubt im the only one that feels that way.
> On another note, people who build systems like these in the Broadwell-E or comparable products probably do not care how much you can get the Ryzen for. $100 dollars or so isnt going to buy AMD respect from those it utterly failed previously. I hope you enjoy your Ryzen. seriously I do, I hope they get back on track and at some point I consider them again. For now, screw em.


x99 boards are way more expensive than AMD stuff, not to mention that 100 dollars you speak of is comparing a 6 core cpu to an 8 core...

This is the first AMD chip ive owned since college (2002, athlon xp), people should not be considering broadwell E ryzen has put it out of its misery.


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> x99 boards are way more expensive than AMD stuff, not to mention that 100 dollars you speak of is comparing a 6 core cpu to an 8 core...
> 
> This is the first AMD chip ive owned since college (2002, athlon xp), people should not be considering broadwell E ryzen has put it out of its misery.


I owned multiple AMD systems through the DX days through to the FX series. FX is where I left AMD in disgust. Ive spent more than enough money on their products to realize I dont want anymore of their products. At least for now.

As i clearly said, I hope you enjoy your Ryzen. I realize Ryzen is cheaper for new builders. Its ok that your an AMD fanboy. But just because Ryzen performs well doesnt put my system "out of its misery". It does every single thing I want, it does it fast, and it doesnt fail. Im happy.


----------



## djgar

I love my misery ...


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultisym*
> 
> I owned multiple AMD systems through the DX days through to the FX series. FX is where I left AMD in disgust. Ive spent more than enough money on their products to realize I dont want anymore of their products. At least for now.
> 
> As i clearly said, I hope you enjoy your Ryzen. I realize Ryzen is cheaper for new builders. *Its ok that your an AMD fanboy.* But just because Ryzen performs well doesnt put my system "out of its misery". It does every single thing I want, it does it fast, and it doesnt fail. Im happy.


Eh what? I havent owned an AMD chip in over 15 years...

Only reason i posted in here was i saw people actually considering buying a 6 core broadwell e chip for 400 dollars, that is just insanity with ryzen on the market. You would need to find a 6900k for that price in order to consider broadwell e.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> I love my misery ...


My entire PC cost what your CPU did....

Whatever, ill just step out of here because clearly ive ruffled too many feathers with logic.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> My entire PC cost what your CPU did....
> 
> Whatever, ill just step out of here because clearly ive ruffled too many feathers with logic.


Your opinions are valid for you, and other people that have similar goals, but you shouldn't rip people that have different goals. Your "logic" is applicable to your goals, not necessarily to mine.

For many of us this is an overclocking hobby, we pay for performance, adventure, thrills and the challenge - practicality doesn't come into the picture to a large extent.


----------



## GXTCHA

Getting really bored of all the "price/performance" discussions and people trying to justify their purchases to others.

Enjoy what you have. Nobody cares.


----------



## The EX1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> After selling my 5820k, the final cost of upgrading to 6950x is about $300. Not too bad!


I wish I could sell my 6800k and get the same deal you did


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GXTCHA*
> 
> Getting really bored of all the "price/performance" discussions and people trying to justify their purchases to others.
> 
> Enjoy what you have. Nobody cares.


Im not bashing people that have broadwell e, there was nothing better at the time. Ryzen launched changed the entire landscape, and it pains me to see people considering 400 dollar 6 cores....


----------



## xkm1948

Well keep your eyes open for good deals then!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I havent even pushed my system yet and i get over 1700 in cinebench. People are in here contemplating buying as 6 core broadwell E for 400 dollars, just makes no sense to me.


if you haven;t pushed it... what are ya doin' with the thing?








(and why are you trolling a BWE thread?)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> *My entire PC cost what your CPU did*....
> 
> Whatever, ill just step out of here because clearly ive ruffled too many feathers with logic.


you gotta remember, cost is relative. eg, I don't shop with coupons.


----------



## hadesfactor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Im not bashing people that have broadwell e, there was nothing better at the time. Ryzen launched changed the entire landscape, and it pains me to see people considering 400 dollar 6 cores....


Yes and no...there are still reasons to get them there are a lot of people that need more then the 24 lanes that ryzen has...but yeah it wouldve been more of a decision if it was out when I purchased mine. But if I could've got the 6950x for around $500 I wouldve lol....There were a lot of things that stopped people for their intial purchase 1 being a brand new architecture with certain issues that always happen on new launches and people wanted tried and true. That being said I am waiting to build a nice threadripper workstation for my VM's


----------



## SpeedyIV

I feel like jumping in here with my 2 cents. If I could have walked into a Micro Center and walked out with a 6850K for $299, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Before Ryzen, Thread Ripper, and SKL-E, I had already decided that a 28-lane HW-E CPU was a mistake, and the 6850k was my preferred upgrade choice. I can upgrade my 5820K to a 6850K, stay on my X99-Deluxe II and keep my G.Skill F4-3333C16Q-32GTZB RAM kit, that I have never been able to get past 3000MHz stable with HW-E. BW-E is a mature platform and includes some great CPUs IMHO. The release of Ryzen is causing prices on BW-E to drop, and SKL-E prices to start off lower than they would have been, which is good for everybody (except maybe Intel).

I don't want to get into an AMD verses Intel fanboy contest with anybody. I seriously considered Ryzen, but I have concerns about the relatively limited 24 PCIe lanes, and from what I have read, Ryzen can't support high RAM speeds like BW-E and SKL-E. Also, every Ryzen benchmark I see is almost always Cinebench, which I have read Ryzen does really well on. To more fully evaluate a CPU / platform, I think it is prudent to run a number of stress tests and benchmarks. Different benchmarks test different portions of the overall system. A single benchmark or stress test does not fully reveal all possible system limitations. Ryzen does great in Cinebench, and AMD uses it to showcase their product.

Ryzen is cheaper. There is no debate about that. Does that make it better in every situation? I don't think so. For me, if I was going to be rendering all day long or trans-coding high resolution video, I would seriously be considering a Thread Ripper, as I think that CPU will really excel at these multi-thread heavy tasks. If I was going to build a gaming machine, I would still consider a 7700K, which is a tried and true performer in that realm. For every day mixed use, a 6850K coupled with 32 Gig of solid 3200MHz+ DDR4 RAM is still my first choice. (Well my wallet's first choice).


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyIV*
> 
> I feel like jumping in here with my 2 cents. If I could have walked into a Micro Center and walked out with a 6850K for $299, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Before Ryzen, Thread Ripper, and SKL-E, I had already decided that a 28-lane HW-E CPU was a mistake, and the 6850k was my preferred upgrade choice. I can upgrade my 5820K to a 6850K, stay on my X99-Deluxe II and keep my G.Skill F4-3333C16Q-32GTZB RAM kit, that I have never been able to get past 3000MHz stable with HW-E. BW-E is a mature platform and includes some great CPUs IMHO. The release of Ryzen is causing prices on BW-E to drop, and SKL-E prices to start off lower than they would have been, which is good for everybody (except maybe Intel).
> 
> I don't want to get into an AMD verses Intel fanboy contest with anybody. I seriously considered Ryzen, but I have concerns about the relatively limited 24 PCIe lanes, and from what I have read, Ryzen can't support high RAM speeds like BW-E and SKL-E. Also, every Ryzen benchmark I see is almost always Cinebench, which I have read Ryzen does really well on. To more fully evaluate a CPU / platform, I think it is prudent to run a number of stress tests and benchmarks. Different benchmarks test different portions of the overall system. A single benchmark or stress test does not fully reveal all possible system limitations. Ryzen does great in Cinebench, and AMD uses it to showcase their product.
> 
> Ryzen is cheaper. There is no debate about that. Does that make it better in every situation? I don't think so. For me, if I was going to be rendering all day long or trans-coding high resolution video, I would seriously be considering a Thread Ripper, as I think that CPU will really excel at these multi-thread heavy tasks. If I was going to build a gaming machine, I would still consider a 7700K, which is a tried and true performer in that realm. For every day mixed use, a 6850K coupled with 32 Gig of solid 3200MHz+ DDR4 RAM is still my first choice. (Well my wallet's first choice).


Cinebench or any other bench is ok, I am currently using intel but does not mean I'll stick with it forever. Now about Cinebench, I obliterated the Threadripper 16 core with my 7900X if we are talking about core per core performance. Someone posted 3064 Cinebench for the 16 core thread ripper but if my CPU had 16 cores it would be around 4228. AMD does not stand a chance what so ever if the intel 16 core performs like the skylake-e that I have.

Just found this, if these comparisons are all base clocks then it's not a fair comparison that I just did. We'll have to see how the 16 core threadripper performs overclocked. If we can overclock it enough to do 4228 or close then intel is at a disadvantage because of the price delta.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3207747/components/amd-threadripper-prices-and-release-date.html


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Cinebench or any other bench is ok, I am currently using intel but does not mean I'll stick with it forever. Now about Cinebench, I obliterated the Threadripper 16 core with my 7900X if we are talking about core per core performance. Someone posted 3064 Cinebench for the 16 core thread ripper but if my CPU had 16 cores it would be around 4228. AMD does not stand a chance what so ever if the intel 16 core performs like the skylake-e that I have.
> 
> *Just found this, if these comparisons are all base clocks then it's not a fair comparison that I just did.* We'll have to see how the 16 core threadripper performs overclocked. If we can overclock it enough to do 4228 or close then intel is at a disadvantage because of the price delta.
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3207747/components/amd-threadripper-prices-and-release-date.html


yeah - you're comparing your OCd 7900K to a stock TR in cinebench....


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - you're comparing your OCd 7900K to a stock TR in cinebench....


Not like TR is going to oc much higher anyway.


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steve R*
> 
> Really thinking about getting the 6850k for $400 on amazon. Though after seeing reviews on amazon and newegg of these cpu's dieing after 4-5 months is a bit worrying. The vast majority of the reviews were mostly positive.


ive had one since december and most of time been overcloced to 4.6 no issues here. for 299 i think its the best cpu. if you game and care about single threaded perf there is nothing faster besides 4 core kaby lakes. i do have 3 rads so cooling is a bit much


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> ive had one since december and most of time been overcloced to 4.6 no issues here. for 299 i think its the best cpu. if you game and care about single threaded perf there is nothing faster besides 4 core kaby lakes. i do have 3 rads so cooling is a bit much


I agree. I not only game, I do multithreaded work as well and the 6850k still performs well for me.

I have heard of no issue with reliability on these chips and know several people running them as well as having several in service where I work. I am only running mine at 4.5 with a simple H110 keeping it cool. If people are trying to overclock these chips without putting decent coolers on them then that would explain it. Other than that, I have to question these "reviews on amazon and newegg", their timing etc.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Not like TR is going to oc much higher anyway.


yeah, the question is will the higher core count i9s OC too.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steve R*
> 
> Really thinking about getting the 6850k for $400 on amazon. Though after seeing reviews on amazon and newegg of these cpu's dieing after 4-5 months is a bit worrying. The vast majority of the reviews were mostly positive.


I'm about to unload some 6850Ks with Asus Rampage V Edition 10s, I have two brand new boards and 1 testing purposes 6850k and a couple of used ones. I'll have Corsair dominator platinum 3000MHz/C16 ddr4 also 4x4gb.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I'm about to unload some 6850Ks with Asus Rampage V Edition 10s, I have two brand new boards and 1 testing purposes 6850k and a couple of used ones. I'll have Corsair dominator platinum 3000MHz/C16 ddr4 also 4x4gb.


Make sure you let us know when they go up for sale. I'd be interested in an RVE10.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, the question is will the higher core count i9s OC too.


I'm sitting here listening to every broad-cast with my Ovaltine decoder ring...

Asking Santa for a Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle, er 18 core CPU all-core turbo @ 4GHz+ with 8core turbo at 4.5 and a MB that doesn't explode in either of those cases...

Is that too much?


----------



## Steve R

Managed to get a i7 6900k for $650 and the msi gaming pro carbon ac x99 motherboard for $160. I must say not bad. Paired with a gtx 1080 ti I can run most games at 1440p @ 144hz easily.


----------



## Shiftedx

Hey guys, I just jumped on the 6850k bandwagon when I saw the prices drop. I have a couple of questions though.

First my specs

6850k @ 4.4GHz @ 1.3V (is this okay for this CPU?) have a 5930k that I run 4.3GHz @ 1.3v but I've read these chips are a bit more sensitive to voltages
Asus strix x99 MOBO latest bios v 1701
32gb Gskill Trident z RGB 3200 mhz 16-18-18-38 @ 1.35V
Corsair RM850 PSU

So I've had a ton of difficulty getting my ram running at the rated speed of 3200mhz, I've tried just about everything I can think of from manually inputting the timings in the bios to increasing the voltage and overclocking the uncore. I'm wanting to see if there's anyone here running 3200mhz and did you have to do anything other than just toggle XMP? Thats another thing... my Corsair Dominator at 3000mhz when I toggled XMP changed a bunch of settings. The Gskill ram when toggling XMP flashes like it did something but it doesn't even set the voltages to what its rated for.

Any help would be appreciated, I'm in my return period for both the ram and the cpu so if you think I just got a bad one or the other let me know so I can consider returning.


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftedx*
> 
> Hey guys, I just jumped on the 6850k bandwagon when I saw the prices drop. I have a couple of questions though.
> 
> First my specs
> 
> 6850k @ 4.4GHz @ 1.3V (is this okay for this CPU?) have a 5930k that I run 4.3GHz @ 1.3v but I've read these chips are a bit more sensitive to voltages
> Asus strix x99 MOBO latest bios v 1701
> 32gb Gskill Trident z RGB 3200 mhz 16-18-18-38 @ 1.35V
> Corsair RM850 PSU
> 
> So I've had a ton of difficulty getting my ram running at the rated speed of 3200mhz, I've tried just about everything I can think of from manually inputting the timings in the bios to increasing the voltage and overclocking the uncore. I'm wanting to see if there's anyone here running 3200mhz and did you have to do anything other than just toggle XMP? Thats another thing... my Corsair Dominator at 3000mhz when I toggled XMP changed a bunch of settings. The Gskill ram when toggling XMP flashes like it did something but it doesn't even set the voltages to what its rated for.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated, I'm in my return period for both the ram and the cpu so if you think I just got a bad one or the other let me know so I can consider returning.


Setup sounds fine to me. If the ram is rated at that speed via XMP it should be as simple as toggling the XMP on. Now it does change some other settings sometimes, assuming XMP does in deed give you your rated speed, what did it change that has you concerned? Apologies if i missed in in the above,


----------



## Shiftedx

So when I toggle XMP the only thing that changes is the frequency to 3200mhz, I've even tried the physical XMP switch on the mobo. Which is whats got me sort of confused and looking for a solution.

I've currently got the ram running at 2666Mhz with manually setting the specified timings in the BIOS however I can't get it any further than that. I've had it occasionally give me a "bf" code which through research seems to indicate low voltage for the system agent but when I offset that +.350mv (furthest I've ever gone I suppose I could go higher?) it still spits the error out.

For anyone with Asus MOBO its been either code bd or bf depending on settings I've input. Selecting XMP results in bd as the only thing I've noticed it change is the frequency up to 3200mhz


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftedx*
> 
> So when I toggle XMP the only thing that changes is the frequency to 3200mhz, I've even tried the physical XMP switch on the mobo. Which is whats got me sort of confused and looking for a solution.
> 
> I've currently got the ram running at 2666Mhz with manually setting the specified timings in the BIOS however I can't get it any further than that. I've had it occasionally give me a "bf" code which through research seems to indicate low voltage for the system agent but when I offset that +.350mv (furthest I've ever gone I suppose I could go higher?) it still spits the error out.
> 
> For anyone with Asus MOBO its been either code bd or bf depending on settings I've input. Selecting XMP results in bd as the only thing I've noticed it change is the frequency up to 3200mhz


All I use are ASUS boards. Ive never really paid a whole lot of attention to what all the XMP may alter as I either choose to run XMP and move on or I am setting it manually from the beginning. ASUS is pretty bad, or good if you will in some cases about making several changes to the settings and not all memory related. There QVL is also rather specific and limited on some of their boards. The Vanguard B85 TUF board in my wifes machine is using a brand of memory ive never used personally before. It had an XMP of 2400 which was perfect for maxing out her daily driver and gaming rig with the 4790k it has which is a nice CPU. It was a pleasant surprise that with the XMP that,at least with her combination, the CPU was clocking 4.6 and the memory of course was hitting 2400. Being a B-85, it is not an overclocking board so while im not sure or interested enough to research why it runs at a higher max clock, i certainly wasnt complaining.

Anyway, with ASUS its best to stick with the QVL. With the XMP set on my memory 3000GHz the memory ran at 2933 so I did have to play with the settings which was fine as I was taking the CPU clock higher anyway. Ive overclocked a lot of computers in my time but the X99 setup and 6850k has been one of the more interesting and time consuming ones. It was a lot of fun though.


----------



## Shiftedx

I know there was a thread on here somewhere talking about the Trident z RGB on x99 because they took forever to release proper quad channel kits. I may have to check back there.. otherwise I'll pick something from the QVL on my board. I appreciate your time Ultisym


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftedx*
> 
> I know there was a thread on here somewhere talking about the Trident z RGB on x99 because they took forever to release proper quad channel kits. I may have to check back there.. otherwise I'll pick something from the QVL on my board. I appreciate your time Ultisym


I run a 32GB 3000MHz CL14 kit of Trident RGB's on X99 and I have no issues. Just make sure you get a quad channel binned kit. Also, I would recommend using manual timings instead of XMP, becuase mine wants to set the CPU strap to 125MHz


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> I'm sitting here listening to every broad-cast with my Ovaltine decoder ring...
> 
> Asking Santa for a Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle, er 18 core CPU all-core turbo @ 4GHz+ with 8core turbo at 4.5 and a MB that doesn't explode in either of those cases...
> 
> Is that too much?


hey - you stole my wish list! (Be careful, you'll shoot your eye out kid







)


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hey - you stole my wish list! (Be careful, you'll shoot your eye out kid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*












(one of our favorite holiday movies)


----------



## mcg222

Hi,

This is my first post and first overclock. I accidentally posted this in the wrong spot earlier today.

My CPU package temps are often 5-10 degrees hotter than my core temps, and I have read this is normal for Broadwell-E. My question is when running stress tests (Aida64 or Prime95 v26.6), how high can package temps safely reach? ASUS says to keep them under 80 degrees - is this common practice or is this just being extra cautious?

My package temps are hitting 80 degrees (in Aida64) at 4.3GHz / 1.22v. Are these temps to be expected with a Dark Rock Pro 3?

Intel 6850K
Asus X99 Deluxe II
Be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Fractal Design R5 (2 front intake, 1 rear exhaust)
32GB RAM
500GB 850 EV0 (OS)
1TB EVO 850 (Cache)
4x 3TB Seagate Barracuda (RAID0 Storage)
Nvidia Geforce 1080 Ti
Windows 10


----------



## hadesfactor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg222*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is my first post and first overclock. I accidentally posted this in the wrong spot earlier today.
> 
> My CPU package temps are often 5-10 degrees hotter than my core temps, and I have read this is normal for Broadwell-E. My question is when running stress tests (Aida64 or Prime95 v26.6), how high can package temps safely reach? ASUS says to keep them under 80 degrees - is this common practice or is this just being extra cautious?
> 
> My package temps are hitting 80 degrees (in Aida64) at 4.3GHz / 1.22v. Are these temps to be expected with a Dark Rock Pro 3?
> 
> Intel 6850K
> Asus X99 Deluxe II
> Be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
> Fractal Design R5 (2 front intake, 1 rear exhaust)
> 32GB RAM
> 500GB 850 EV0 (OS)
> 1TB EVO 850 (Cache)
> 4x 3TB Seagate Barracuda (RAID0 Storage)
> Nvidia Geforce 1080 Ti
> Windows 10


Im assuming this is while under load during Aida Bench? Those temps are to be expected if overclocking to 4.3 while only air-cooling. My temps will hit that high under Prime95 after about an hr or so and thats under water but usually never past 45c under real world load.

Im running the same set-up except for the cooling.

What are your ambient temps?

Also Im a bit confused. Your Aida says you're running a 4670 but you state you are running a 1080ti...also looking at your temps shown in your upload...the look normal for air-cooling


----------



## mcg222

Thanks hadefactor. Yes - this log is taken while running Aida64 stress test. Ambient temps are 26 degrees Celsius. Yeah - the ATI 4670 is a temp video card in there now - the 1080ti is on order.

Does anyone else know if it is common practice to keep package temps below 80 degrees under load, or is this just ASUS being extra cautious?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg222*
> 
> Thanks hadefactor. Yes - this log is taken while running Aida64 stress test. Ambient temps are 26 degrees Celsius. Yeah - the ATI 4670 is a temp video card in there now - the 1080ti is on order.
> 
> Does anyone else know if it is common practice to keep package temps below 80 degrees under load, or is this just ASUS being extra cautious?


I try to keep package temp as low as possible (and below 80c) This is the highest temp on the die... cores, or any other substructure. As said, air cooling these chips will limit your overclock, and that's fine... just know that aircoolers have limitations.









Welcome to OCN !


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg222*
> 
> Thanks hadefactor. Yes - this log is taken while running Aida64 stress test. Ambient temps are 26 degrees Celsius. Yeah - the ATI 4670 is a temp video card in there now - the 1080ti is on order.
> 
> Does anyone else know if it is common practice to keep package temps below 80 degrees under load, or is this just ASUS being extra cautious?


FYI - modern xeon's are generally set to throttle at 75C.

Both 75 and 80C are well shy of the specified limit of the chip, but particularly higher-core-count dies can cook themselves in a hurry owing to very high heat-density possible (because of the sheer volume of heat producing gates in proximity).

So, its not really over-caution, it is entirely reasonable caution. You can go from 80 to 105C in a hurry...


----------



## KCDC

I've just noticed my cores fluctuating different voltages.

Using HWInfo, while idle, High Performance Power profile.

I have adaptive voltage set to 1.31, LLC7

is this normal? my voltages per core are different. Is this due to LLC?


----------



## Driller au

]I've just noticed my cores fluctuating different voltages.

Using HWInfo, while idle, High Performance Power profile.

I have adaptive voltage set to 1.31, LLC7

is this normal? my voltages per core are different. Is this due to LLC?[I[/quote]

It is normal, my 6850k is the same and the screen shots i have seen other users post do it to


----------



## 1033ruben

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> ]I've just noticed my cores fluctuating different voltages.
> 
> Using HWInfo, while idle, High Performance Power profile.
> 
> I have adaptive voltage set to 1.31, LLC7
> 
> is this normal? my voltages per core are different. Is this due to LLC?[I


im not sure but mine are the same way but in my case i believe it is because i have different oc's on each of the cores like i have 4.4 on my 3 best cores and 4.3 on the remaining cores and on the 4.4 cores it is .25V higher than the 4.3. i too have it set to adaptive.
Hope this helps.
RUBEN


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Driller au*
> 
> ]I've just noticed my cores fluctuating different voltages.
> 
> Using HWInfo, while idle, High Performance Power profile.
> 
> I have adaptive voltage set to 1.31, LLC7
> 
> is this normal? my voltages per core are different. Is this due to LLC?[I


It is normal, my 6850k is the same and the screen shots i have seen other users post do it to[/quote]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1033ruben*
> 
> im not sure but mine are the same way but in my case i believe it is because i have different oc's on each of the cores like i have 4.4 on my 3 best cores and 4.3 on the remaining cores and on the 4.4 cores it is .25V higher than the 4.3. i too have it set to adaptive.
> Hope this helps.
> RUBEN


Ok, thank you


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> I've just noticed my cores fluctuating different voltages.
> 
> Using HWInfo, while idle, High Performance Power profile.
> 
> I have adaptive voltage set to 1.31, LLC7
> 
> is this normal? my voltages per core are different. Is this due to LLC?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> It is normal, my 6850k is the same and the screen shots i have seen other users post do it to


Ok, thank you[/quote]

you are looking at the per core VID, not the actual voltage applied (vcore). Yes, each core can/will have different VIDs, that's normal.


----------



## StreekG

Hi guys,

I've recently upgraded my X58 990X to a 6850K. I've been excited testing results with my old 6 core vs my new one.

I want to start overclocking it, unfortunately the search button isn't working for me on this forum, weird. It just does nothing. Is there an OC guide for Broadwell-E

I had my 990X running reliable 4.5ghz for 6 years so i am keen to get some good performance out of the 6850K

My 6850K is running water.


----------



## Driller au

good place to start
http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/06/17/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## Iceman2733

ok this is going to come off a little odd as I have had this system built for quite some time and never really paid attention to this before. Idling temps how accurate are the temps Broadwell-E puts out?

Room/Ambient Temp 20.5c Idle temps using HWinfo & Coretemp are reporting between 16-18c, I am on water with a rather large loop 480mm just for CPU but that doesn't mean anything. You can't cool below ambient with water cooling, I have never paid attention but I think this has always idled this low and until building a 7700k system which idled in the 22-24c range which makes sense with ambient. Just odd to be honest load temps at [email protected] will hit 52-56c range


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> ok this is going to come off a little odd as I have had this system built for quite some time and never really paid attention to this before. Idling temps how accurate are the temps Broadwell-E puts out?
> 
> Room/Ambient Temp 20.5c Idle temps using HWinfo & Coretemp are reporting between 16-18c, I am on water with a rather large loop 480mm just for CPU but that doesn't mean anything. You can't cool below ambient with water cooling, I have never paid attention but I think this has always idled this low and until building a 7700k system which idled in the 22-24c range which makes sense with ambient. Just odd to be honest load temps at [email protected] will hit 52-56c range


As you've seen - not very...









I see 18-19 too... Treat them as relative numbers only when you get to significant digits. Leave some fudge room at the top correspondingly.


----------



## MelonGx

Has anyone got any OEM CPU's motherboard compatibility list?

Want to buy an OEM CPU like 2696v4, 2679v4 which is NOT inside ASUS X99-M WS CPU compatiblity list...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MelonGx*
> 
> Has anyone got any OEM CPU's motherboard compatibility list?
> 
> Want to buy an OEM CPU like 2696v4, 2679v4 which is NOT inside ASUS X99-M WS CPU compatiblity list...


I guess I'd be surprised to ever see such list...

That said, you should not have a problem. The OEM CPUs generally have the same ID (family, version, stepping), so the BIOS uCode and setup is compatible (assuming a given board already lists the non-OEM xeon versions of your chips). Just make sure your BIOS is recent enough to support BW generally.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

any 6850K brethren can help out at what voltage their cpus reach 4.5GHz stable ?


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> any 6850K brethren can help out at what voltage their cpus reach 4.5GHz stable ?


Most stop @ 4.4ghz, and some will manage to run 4,5ghz.. Mine 6850k does 4.4 @ 1.36v and is mostly folding @ home. I've seensome 6850k and 6900k @ 4500mhz @ 1,38-1,39v.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

unfortunately same is my case my 6850k only runs at 4.4GHz max at 1.355


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> any 6850K brethren can help out at what voltage their cpus reach 4.5GHz stable ?


1.375v for mine never getting above 61c


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> any 6850K brethren can help out at what voltage their cpus reach 4.5GHz stable ?


1.299 @ 4.3 24/7
1.35 @ 4.4
1.43 @ 4.5
1.46 @ 4.6

I wonder what my temps would have been if I had separate loops. Heavy benching at 4.6 temps are high 80's. But it does pass them all


----------



## xTesla1856

My 6800K does 4.3 at 1.32v and 4.4 at 1.375v


----------



## gh0stp1rate

Is 1.415V for 4.5GHz on my 6950X too high for everyday use? This is the default voltage that was given in my BIOS for the OC, and is stable. Haven't played around with it yet to see if I can lower it.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gh0stp1rate*
> 
> Is 1.415V for 4.5GHz on my 6950X too high for everyday use? This is the default voltage that was given in my BIOS for the OC, and is stable. Haven't played around with it yet to see if I can lower it.


Adaptive or manual? Any OC on the Cashe/Ring? How about memory OC? The Classified board does not have a OC socket so cashe will be harder and need more voltage.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> My 6800K does 4.3 at 1.32v and 4.4 at 1.375v


I am stable using occt ( the only software i trust for core oc) at 1.32 v i7 6900k @ 4.3 and cache 3.3
But when i oc cache to 35, i need 1.33v on core to be stable on occt, if i lower cache to 33, i need again 1.32v on core


----------



## gh0stp1rate

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Adaptive or manual? Any OC on the Cashe/Ring? How about memory OC? The Classified board does not have a OC socket so cashe will be harder and need more voltage.


Currently adaptive, I haven't played around with the core voltage yet to see if I could lower it. Also, no OC on the cache/ring and I actually had to down clock my memory from 2800MHz (XMP) to 2666MHz to get 4.5GHz on my 6950X stable, which isn't really a big deal to me. But is 1.415V too high or about average for 4.5GHz on the 6950X? I'm currently waiting on my CaseLabs SMA8 to re-do my liquid cooling setup in dual loop and as of right now I only have a Corsair H100i cooling my CPU which isn't OC'ed at the moment because I had already sold most of my previous liquid cooling hardware. I initially tested the 4.5GHz OC when I still had my CPU cooled in a custom loop. So I won't be able to play around with it until I get my new setup running.


----------



## arestavo

There were some reports of Broadwell CPUs dying at 1.4 and higher volts. Specifically the 6950X if I remember correctly, and even when temperatures were just fine.

I'm keeping my 6950X at 4.4GHz and 1.375V adaptive, a 36X ring, and 8 sticks/64GB of 3200MHz RAM. Mainly because I plan on keeping this rig for several years.

Per http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/ :

Percentage of capable CPUs Frequency Vcore
20% 4.4GHz 1.38V
75% 4.3GHz 1.35V
5% 4.2GHz 1.35V

If you don't care if your CPU dies quickly, then run that sum***** ragged!


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> There were some reports of Broadwell CPUs dying at 1.4 and higher volts. Specifically the 6950X if I remember correctly, and even when temperatures were just fine.
> 
> I'm keeping my 6950X at 4.4GHz and 1.375V adaptive, and a 36X ring. Mainly because I plan on keeping this rig for several years.


I killed a 6950x









I just died together with RVE. Got new RVE 10 and cpu back from RMA. Why it died, noone knows. My 6900k still running @ 4,4 1,37v from releasedate


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> There were some reports of Broadwell CPUs dying at 1.4 and higher volts. Specifically the 6950X if I remember correctly, and even when temperatures were just fine.
> 
> I'm keeping my 6950X at 4.4GHz and 1.375V adaptive, a 36X ring, and 8 sticks/64GB of 3200MHz RAM. Mainly because I plan on keeping this rig for several years.
> 
> Per http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/ :
> 
> Percentage of capable CPUs Frequency Vcore
> 20% 4.4GHz 1.38V
> 75% 4.3GHz 1.35V
> 5% 4.2GHz 1.35V
> 
> If you don't care if your CPU dies quickly, then run that sum***** ragged!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> I killed a 6950x
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just died together with RVE. Got new RVE 10 and cpu back from RMA. Why it died, noone knows. My 6900k still running @ 4,4 1,37v from releasedate


I had a 6950x die on me at 1.4v but R5E10 set the VCSA at 1.3v I didn't notice it in time. The next one I had I kept it below 1.3v and it was fine with VCSA offset at .001v. I was running it at 4.4v, I sold that chip and they are running it at 4.5GHz but don't know what voltage.

Edit: corrected CPU voltage that I kept the next one under.


----------



## PowerK

I've been running my 6950X at 4.4GHz with 1.365V (adaptive) for almost a year now. (Cache at 3.7GHz with RAM at 3200CL14).
I have never tried 4.5GHz though.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gh0stp1rate*
> 
> Currently adaptive, I haven't played around with the core voltage yet to see if I could lower it. Also, no OC on the cache/ring and I actually had to down clock my memory from 2800MHz (XMP) to 2666MHz to get 4.5GHz on my 6950X stable, which isn't really a big deal to me. But is 1.415V too high or about average for 4.5GHz on the 6950X? I'm currently waiting on my CaseLabs SMA8 to re-do my liquid cooling setup in dual loop and as of right now I only have a Corsair H100i cooling my CPU which isn't OC'ed at the moment because I had already sold most of my previous liquid cooling hardware. I initially tested the 4.5GHz OC when I still had my CPU cooled in a custom loop. So I won't be able to play around with it until I get my new setup running.


You have a good CPU I need 1.485v core for 4.5 GHz and 1.375v for 38 MHz Cashe/Ring. Memory at 3200 14-16-16-43 CR 1T. My 24/7 OC is 4.2 core 1.275v and 34 Cashe 1.250v with the same memory. I can go 4.6 core with 1.575v on chilled water at 8c. I would stay below 1.350v core and 1.30v Cahe/Ring for 24/7 overclock.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys, I need 1.32V 6900K @ 4.3 and 1.37V 6900K @4.4
Do you think 1.37V is safe ? I upgrade usually every 3 years.
Also, if I OC my cache to 3.5-3.6, I need to increase core voltage a bit (0.01), which is more important core or cache ?
best regards

i7 6900K
ROG STRIX X99
GTX 1080TI
32GB RAM @ 3200 C16
H115i (push pull with liquid metal as thermal paste)


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys, I need 1.32V 6900K @ 4.3 and 1.37V 6900K @4.4
> Do you think 1.37V is safe ? I upgrade usually every 3 years.
> Also, if I OC my cache to 3.5-3.6, I need to increase core voltage a bit (0.01), which is more important core or cache ?
> best regards
> 
> i7 6900K
> ROG STRIX X99
> GTX 1080TI
> 32GB RAM @ 3200 C16
> H115i (push pull with liquid metal as thermal paste)


Broadwell-E only has been out for a year now. Who knows. All you're going to hear is opinions. Some are comfortable under 1.30V while others are ok under 1.35V and/or 1.40V.


----------



## mypickaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> 
> 
> Broadwell-E only has been out for a year now..
Click to expand...

What does that matter? This is the Broadwell-E thread.

Are you implying the longevity of the chip can't be determined based on enough time passing since its release?

I'd say I'd be more concerned about heat than anything. If you can keep it cool enough, shouldn't matter if it's 1.3 or 1.35 if you're upgrading every three years anyway.


----------



## PowerK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mypickaxe*
> 
> What does that matter? This is the Broadwell-E thread.
> 
> Are you implying the longevity of the chip can't be determined based on enough time passing since its release?
> 
> I'd say I'd be more concerned about heat than anything. If you can keep it cool enough, shouldn't matter if it's 1.3 or 1.35 if you're upgrading every three years anyway.


If you follow this thread and/or any recent discussions on overclocking Intel CPUs, it's apparent that temperature is only part of the story. Brutalizing uncore, high VCCSA may well leads to a dead CPU.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> If you follow this thread and/or any recent discussions on overclocking Intel CPUs, it's apparent that temperature is only part of the story. Brutalizing uncore, high VCCSA may well leads to a dead CPU.


^ This.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys is it true that core is king?
It is better to sacrifice some ram performance to have higher cpu core frequency? Especially for gaming
Thank u so much


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mypickaxe*
> 
> What does that matter? This is the Broadwell-E thread.
> 
> Are you implying the longevity of the chip can't be determined based on enough time passing since its release?
> 
> I'd say I'd be more concerned about heat than anything. If you can keep it cool enough, shouldn't matter if it's 1.3 or 1.35 if you're upgrading every three years anyway.


^^^^^







Keep it under 80c and you will not see degeneration of ypur CPU over time.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys is it true that core is king?
> It is better to sacrifice some ram performance to have higher cpu core frequency? Especially for gaming
> Thank u so much


I would say so. Ram speed does not help as much as having faster ram on haswell anyway. Still testing skylake-x.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys is it true that core is king?
> It is better to sacrifice some ram performance to have higher cpu core frequency? Especially for gaming
> Thank u so much


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> I would say so. Ram speed does not help as much as having faster ram on haswell anyway. Still testing skylake-x.


Signal core performance is King in gaming. Only a couple of games out right know utilize multi-core performance. It's best to have a all your hardware fast and stable.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it under 80c and you will not degeneration of the CPU over time.


Temp always under 45 degree under normal load


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys is it true that core is king?
> It is better to sacrifice some ram performance to have higher cpu core frequency? Especially for gaming
> Thank u so much


Core is King!


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys is it true that core is king?
> It is better to sacrifice some ram performance to have higher cpu core frequency? Especially for gaming
> Thank u so much


If you were on a Z270 platform, then I would tell you that RAM speed is a lot more important. But for the X99 platform and HEDT CPUs, memory speed isn't as important because of quad channel memory, and the CPUs come furnished with much larger L3 caches than mainstream CPUs. I haven't seen a single game yet that will stress the bandwidth provided by the X99 platform!

That being said, I have my RAM running at DDR4 3400 CL15, just because I can


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> If you were on a Z270 platform, then I would tell you that RAM speed is a lot more important. But for the X99 platform and HEDT CPUs, memory speed isn't as important because of quad channel memory, and the CPUs come furnished with much larger L3 caches than mainstream CPUs. I haven't seen a single game yet that will stress the bandwidth provided by the X99 platform!
> 
> That being said, I have my RAM running at DDR4 3400 CL15, just because I can


Also the difference is often measured in a few frames per second.


----------



## devilhead

Have 6850k, and old ram g.skill 3000mhz cl15, but have runned those ram more than one year with 5960x 3200mhz 15-15-15-35 1t 1.35v, no problem. Last half year used with 5930k at same speeds - no problem. But now with 6850k, can't even boot over 2800mhz.... chip by itself it's not so bad 1.39v 4.5ghz.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *devilhead*
> 
> Have 6850k, and old ram g.skill 3000mhz cl15, but have runned those ram more than one year with 5960x 3200mhz 15-15-15-35 1t 1.35v, no problem. Last half year used with 5930k at same speeds - no problem. But now with 6850k, can't even boot over 2800mhz.... chip by itself it's not so bad 1.39v 4.5ghz.


the best stable ram speed for my 6900k 4.3 is 2933 mhz


----------



## hadesfactor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *devilhead*
> 
> Have 6850k, and old ram g.skill 3000mhz cl15, but have runned those ram more than one year with 5960x 3200mhz 15-15-15-35 1t 1.35v, no problem. Last half year used with 5930k at same speeds - no problem. But now with 6850k, can't even boot over 2800mhz.... chip by itself it's not so bad 1.39v 4.5ghz.


Was your RAM using XMP or wast it set to manual? Was it rated for 3200mhz? What mobo do you have? This shouldn't have anything to do with your proc.

Make sure youre running the up to date bios and make sure you have the required voltage for your ram. Also, lots of times anything over 3000mhz requires a different CPU Strap


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *devilhead*
> 
> Have 6850k, and old ram g.skill 3000mhz cl15, but have runned those ram more than one year with 5960x 3200mhz 15-15-15-35 1t 1.35v, no problem. Last half year used with 5930k at same speeds - no problem. But now with 6850k, can't even boot over 2800mhz.... chip by itself it's not so bad 1.39v 4.5ghz.


The robustness of each IMC is individual to the chip itself. Some chips will always be better or worse than average. But the IMC in Broadwell-E is generally better than it was with Haswell-E, because Broadwell-E had Intel's first 100% DDR4 memory controller; hence why the memory performance in Broadwell-E is much better than for Haswell at comparable uncore frequencies. Haswell-E's DDR4 performance was subpar, especially when it came to writes.

That said, have you tried to increase the voltage for the system agent? My 6900K is running at 4.2ghz, and my RAM is running at DDR4 3400 CL15-15-15-34 CR1 timings, with the uncore at 3.2ghz and the voltage set to offset 0.160v. So it's slightly above stock voltage, but still very low considering the speed of my RAM.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I think it is better for ram bandwith performance to increase cache speed and decrease ram speed than increase ram speed and decrease cache


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys i am stable occt 3 hours with 1000% hci memtest and 8 hours realbench but with cache at 31
If i increase the cache to 37 at 1.2v i am stable at aida64 for 3 hours all checked including cache atress test, but occt crash withing 30 min when cache is at 37, do i need to increase cache voltage or input voltage or both? Thank u.
And occt stress test cache also? Note that i am not using avx to drop frequency in the bios


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I think it is better for ram bandwith performance to increase cache speed and decrease ram speed than increase ram speed and decrease cache


What makes you say that? Cache is limited in terms of its size and performance impact. The only way I can see this being true is if the application you are using runs completely in cache. Ironically, this is exactly what makes faster RAM so important for CPUs with smaller cache sizes. CPUs with smaller caches are more likely to go to system memory, as the application cannot fit entirely within the cache.

But while overclocking the uncore can increase its speed, it doesn't necessarily increase its efficiency. Here's a good example. My first X99 CPU was a 5930K, which I overclocked to 4.4ghz and ran the uncore as high as 4ghz. Here's an Aida64 memory and cache benchmark for the 5930K with DDR4 3200 CL16 and the uncore at 4ghz:



Now compare that to my 6900K at 4.2ghz with the uncore at 3.2ghz, but with the memory running at DDR4 3400 CL15. As you can see, despite the much slower uncore frequency, the 6900K put up much better memory and cache performance. Some of it is due to the fact that the benchmark is multithreaded and scales accordingly, but the other is that the 6900K is running faster RAM, and also has a much more efficient DDR4 memory controller than the 5930K.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

A benchmark from my pc


----------



## lilchronic

5820k


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> A benchmark from my pc


This kind of proves my point. Your uncore is 500mhz faster than mine, and yet your copy and latency scores are lower, and the write score is barely faster than mine. The only real gain you have from the faster uncore is with read speed, which is about 4GB/s faster than mine, which is still minimal.

Now what voltage is your cache running at?


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> 5820k


Now that's a balls to the wall tweaked setup if I've ever seen one









What kind of RAM are you using, and what voltage is it running at? The memory latency scores in particular are very impressive!


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> Now that's a balls to the wall tweaked setup if I've ever seen one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of RAM are you using, and what voltage is it running at? The memory latency scores in particular are very impressive!


3200Mhz CL14 4x8GB kit
Samsung B-die @ 1.45vDRAM, 1.28VCORE, 1.25VRING and 1.9VCCIN under load


----------



## mypickaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artah*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PowerK*
> 
> If you follow this thread and/or any recent discussions on overclocking Intel CPUs, it's apparent that temperature is only part of the story. Brutalizing uncore, high VCCSA may well leads to a dead CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> ^ This.
Click to expand...

Note he said, and I pointed out, he upgrades every three years anyway. Unless chief concern is resale value, not sure it matters much.


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> 3200Mhz CL14 4x8GB kit
> Samsung B-die @ 1.45vDRAM, 1.28VCORE, 1.25VRING and 1.9VCCIN under load


That's the exact same RAM I have. The Samsung B-die ram is the best RAM on the market, in that it is very capable of handling not only high frequency, but low timings as well. My kit does DDR4 3400 CL 15-15-15-34 CR1 at stock voltage, ie 1.35v. For me to hit lower timings, I would have to increase my voltage, which to me is unnecessary as the memory performance is already exceptional at these settings.

Have you ever tried to hit DDR4 3600? I'm curious as to how the absolute highest frequency you can attain with relaxed timings, would compare to the frequency with the tightest timings.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> That's the exact same RAM I have. The Samsung B-die ram is the best RAM on the market, in that it is very capable of handling not only high frequency, but low timings as well. My kit does DDR4 3400 CL 15-15-15-34 CR1 at stock voltage, ie 1.35v. For me to hit lower timings, I would have to increase my voltage, which to me is unnecessary as the memory performance is already exceptional at these settings.
> 
> Have you ever tried to hit DDR4 3600? I'm curious as to how the absolute highest frequency you can attain with relaxed timings, would compare to the frequency with the tightest timings.


----------



## Carfax83

Interesting. It just goes to show that while maximum frequency is very important, timings are as well. In fact, you need more than a 200mhz advantage to offset the penalties from running more relaxed timings. You probably need DDR4 3800 to completely outperform the DDR4 3467 with aggressive timings.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> This kind of proves my point. Your uncore is 500mhz faster than mine, and yet your copy and latency scores are lower, and the write score is barely faster than mine. The only real gain you have from the faster uncore is with read speed, which is about 4GB/s faster than mine, which is still minimal.
> 
> Now what voltage is your cache running at?


1.2v cache manual at 37, but still testing, passed 1200% hci memtest and passed occt.
Now real bench 8 hour 32 gb, this is the most challenge one.
ram @2933 c14 the best stable i can go.
VCCSA 0.9v VCCIO 1.05V
I can 3200c16 but gives me some trouble maybe because my corsair ram are rated @2400mhz when i bought them, that was my mistake.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys please help with hwbot x265 , how to know if i passed the test, and overkill now 2x, should i need to go to x4 x8 x12... ? and what is the correction factor

Results





Is this good?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> What makes you say that? Cache is limited in terms of its size and performance impact. The only way I can see this being true is if the application you are using runs completely in cache. Ironically, this is exactly what makes faster RAM so important for CPUs with smaller cache sizes. CPUs with smaller caches are more likely to go to system memory, as the application cannot fit entirely within the cache.
> 
> But while overclocking the uncore can increase its speed, it doesn't necessarily increase its efficiency. Here's a good example. My first X99 CPU was a 5930K, which I overclocked to 4.4ghz and ran the uncore as high as 4ghz. Here's an Aida64 memory and cache benchmark for the 5930K with DDR4 3200 CL16 and the uncore at 4ghz:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now compare that to my 6900K at 4.2ghz with the uncore at 3.2ghz, but with the memory running at DDR4 3400 CL15. As you can see, despite the much slower uncore frequency, the 6900K put up much better memory and cache performance. Some of it is due to the fact that the benchmark is multithreaded and scales accordingly, but the other is that the 6900K is running faster RAM, and also has a much more efficient DDR4 memory controller than the 5930K.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


you should be able to tighten things up further. this rig has been running 64GB 24/7 at these timings and freq for well over a year now.


vdimm = 1.45V, VSA = 1.00 (+.140), Vccio = 1.02V
tight secondaries:

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys please help with hwbot x265 , how to know if i passed the test, and overkill now 2x, should i need to go to x4 x8 x12... ? and what is the correction factor
> 
> Results
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this good?


yes - correction factor > 0.995 is the criteria - run only as much overkill as your ram will permit. Too much and you'll hit th page file pretty hard.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Wow nice ram speed with cache, my system don't boot with ram @3400 1.35v, my ram are rated @2400 when i bought them, maybe this is the issue maybe my IMC cannot support it.
1.45V ram is not dangerous for CPU IMC?

These are my ram: CMK32GX4M4A2400C14
Do you think i can go to 1.4 v and it is safe for ram and cpu? Maybe i can hit 3200 or 3400?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Wow nice ram speed with cache, my system don't boot with ram @3400 1.35v, my ram are rated @2400 when i bought them, maybe this is the issue maybe my IMC cannot support it.
> 1.45V ram is not dangerous for CPU IMC?


with 2400 rated ram... 3000 or 3200 is an amazing OC. 1.45V...? well after more than a year, no problem so far. If you would be concerned about running that voltage, you shouldn't. 1.375-1.4V is well within the AOR for broadwell and haswell. 1.45V is close to the top of he AOR (acceptable operating range).


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Yes my ram are rated at 2400 c14, perfectly stable @2933c14 1.35v , 3200 sometimes stable sometimes not.
I dont like the number 2933☹
I will try 3200c14 @1.375-1.38v


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Yes my ram are rated at 2400 c14, perfectly stable @2933c14 1.35v , 3200 sometimes stable sometimes not.
> I dont like the number 2933☹
> I will try 3200c14 @1.375-1.38v


2933c14 is very good. nothing wrong with standing pat.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 2933c14 is very good. nothing wrong with standing pat.


thank u you are amazing

btw this is 12X overkill max software permit



left 8 hours realbench 32gb
if i pass it, i am rock ultra stable (after occt, hci memtest, HWBOT H265 and realbench), then i will mentioned my final OC in details


----------



## devilhead

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hadesfactor*
> 
> Was your RAM using XMP or wast it set to manual? Was it rated for 3200mhz? What mobo do you have? This shouldn't have anything to do with your proc.
> 
> Make sure youre running the up to date bios and make sure you have the required voltage for your ram. Also, lots of times anything over 3000mhz requires a different CPU Strap


i using preset in asus rampage 5 for 4x4 hynix memory, ram rated for 3000mhz, but ran for an 2 years 3200mhz 15-15-15-35-1t , even tested this ram with ryzen 1700 build, it works 3200mhz








Now have taken my g.skill 4266mhz ram kit, result are same, max out at 2800mhz, i;m using latest rampage 5 bios .


----------



## hadesfactor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *devilhead*
> 
> i using preset in asus rampage 5 for 4x4 hynix memory, ram rated for 3000mhz, but ran for an 2 years 3200mhz 15-15-15-35-1t , even tested this ram with ryzen 1700 build, it works 3200mhz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now have taken my g.skill 4266mhz ram kit, result are same, max out at 2800mhz, i;m using latest rampage 5 bios .


If your ram kits is actually rated for 3200, I would write down your specs i.e bclck, cpu strap, etc. After that, try enabling XMP and note what your setting changed to, what your timing are etc. From here, depending on if you OC your system or not, if it is running at 3200 run some bench to determine stability. Usually anything over 3000 causes the strap to go to 125 which could cause issues with your CPU OC. You can try just change the strap back to 100 see if it stays the same. Also, make sure you are using the required voltage for your ram i.e. 1.35. If that doesnt work you can take the timings that were applied via XMP and manually adjust them.


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you should be able to tighten things up further. this rig has been running 64GB 24/7 at these timings and freq for well over a year now.


Yeah I bet I could get some more aggressive timings with higher voltage, but I'm OK with my current settings which are pretty good considering that my RAM is still running at stock voltage. The only thing I might tweak a little bit more is my uncore frequency. I think I'm going to give it a little bump.


----------



## Carfax83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hadesfactor*
> 
> Usually anything over 3000 causes the strap to go to 125 which could cause issues with your CPU OC.


DDR4 3200 uses bclk 100. Not sure what the next highest speed bracket is above that for bclk 100. Probably 3600 or so.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carfax83*
> 
> DDR4 3200 uses bclk 100. Not sure what the next highest speed bracket is above that for bclk 100. Probably 3600 or so.


3400 on strap 100. (bclk 100)


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Please help, what is the best stress test for CPU oc cache?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I found that input voltage is very important for cache, i increase cache 37 1.2v and vccin 1.84 crash occt after 17 min. I increase input voltage to 1.88, and pass it 3 hours, put it back fo 1.84 then crash, now at 1.89 LLC level 6, under load 1.87V, better then 1.88 and LCC level 7 that go up to 1.905V. Read them using aida64.


----------



## djgar

Which makes sense - VCCIN is supplying voltage to the cache AFAIK. I've had similar experiences and play with VCCIN, LLC and VCACHE.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Another interesting thing, more vccin than needed introduce instability, 1.89v occt crash, 1.88 v llc 6 stable


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Btw are you imagine that intel 7980XE will use tim instead of soldering the IHS to the die??


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Btw are you imagine that intel 7980XE will use tim instead of soldering the IHS to the die??


If the 7960 is eating paste, then it's a safe bet the 7980 is as well...

The painful truth is that at stock voltages and rated frequencies the paste approach simply isn't problematic for Intel. Particularly hcc/xcc binned dies run remarkably cool in prior generations of similar process technology.

So, yes, it screws OCers, but they had no compelling reason to solder given its added complexity and cost. So, they didn't.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I dont understand intel to not solder the cpu due to cost, amd threadripper has 4 die in 1 cpu and all of them are soldered to the IHS. i am reading that skylake-x needs a custom loop, even AIO water is not enough. Thx god our broadwell-e cpu are soldered


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I dont understand intel to not solder the cpu due to cost, amd threadripper has 4 die in 1 cpu and all of them are soldered to the IHS. i am reading that skylake-x needs a custom loop, even AIO water is not enough. Thx god our broadwell-e cpu are soldered


TR/Ryzen/Epyc has a very different cost structure owing to reuse and mutli-die setup. So they are not directly comparable. Indium costs more both in raw material and application tech. It requires plating of the underside of the spreader, treatment of the die and then higher temp to fix the IHS and lower tolerance all around (space between spreader and die can generally have more variance with paste.

AMD with 2 dummy dies and TR sharing a package with Epyc as well as Ryzen dies with different features enabled is clearly going for and achieving some economy of scale. Intel does use fuses to enable/disable features and cores but has a greater diversity of actual masks/unique dies for the x86 family.


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ THIS GUY IS GOOD!!


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Btw are you imagine that intel 7980XE will use tim instead of soldering the IHS to the die??


Really? First I've heard of that! Do you have any more info on the subject?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

My final stable OC:

My system:

I7 6900K
H115I AIO (2x ML140 PRO LED PUSH, and 2x SP140L PULL)
Thermal grizzly conductonaut liquid metal between CPU IHS and Pump block
32 GB RAM 2400MHZ
GTX 1080TI STRIX OC edition
ROG STRIX X99
SSD 960 EVO 256 GB
SSD 850 EVO 256 GB
SSD HYPERX SAVAGE 512 GB
HDD 1TB
S2417DG G-SYNC Monitor
Phantom 820 case (total 16 fans in the case including the fans of the GPU and CPU)
1000WATT V1000 PSU
PCE VX Online 2 KVA UPS

Max GPU temp 52 Degree C (99% usage)
Max CPU temp during normal load (no stress test): 45 Degree C
Max CPU temp during stress test: 65 Degree C
Max temp SSD 960 EVO M.2 : 34 Degree C under full load
Max VRM temp under full stress load OCCT : 52 Degree C.

Bios:

CPU @ 4.3 Ghz 1.33 V adaptive
RAM @ 2933 Mhz C14 1.35V
Cache 1.2V Manual @ 3700Mhz
VCCIO : 1.1 V
VCCSA : 1.0 V (0.108 Offset)
VCCIN : 1.86V (LLC Level 6) (low value or high value more than needed affect cache stability)

Passed: OCCT large data set 3 hours, HCI memtest pro: 1500%, Realbench 8 hours 32 Gb stress test, Hwbot x265 4K overkill 12X (correction factor 0.998)

Thank u for all of you here in this thread for helping me in overclocking.









My only Advice based on my small experience: OCCT large data set in the best CPU stress tester (3 hours for golden stability)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Really? First I've heard of that! Do you have any more info on the subject?


at this point the "preponderance of evidence" is that they are not soldered.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> at this point the "preponderance of evidence" is that they are not soldered.


I know, as Elias has posted that very thing in post after post after post in the Broadwell-E / Other Intel / Probably AMD threads (and likely threads on gardening, dog grooming, and pottery, as well - it's a bit of an obsession with him). That's why he at least got a


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> I know, as Elias has posted that very thing in post after post after post in the Broadwell-E / Other Intel / Probably AMD threads (and likely threads on gardening, dog grooming, and pottery, as well - it's a bit of an obsession with him). That's why he at least got a


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Help please
Is it normal that when i increase cache speed i need to increase not only cache voltage but also core voltage?
I need to increase cpu core voltage from 1.32 to 1.335 to be stable at 37 cache 1.2v and 3200 ram speed
Thank u so much


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Help please
> Is it normal that when i increase cache speed i need to increase not only cache voltage but also core voltage?
> I need to increase cpu core voltage from 1.32 to 1.335 to be stable at 37 cache 1.2v and 3200 ram speed
> Thank u so much


You may just need to increase LLC to counter the extra voltage/current draw.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Help please
> Is it normal that when i increase cache speed i need to increase not only cache voltage but also core voltage?
> I need to increase cpu core voltage from 1.32 to 1.335 to be stable at 37 cache 1.2v and 3200 ram speed
> Thank u so much


how much was the cache speed increased? are you talking from stock to 37? If yes... then yes, you may need to increase vcore.. and vccin.


----------



## Jbravo33

So I just get home from work and I do what I normally do tap my keyboard to wake up pc that I put to sleep about 8 hours ago and nothing happens. I press power button and system doesn't post so I hit the safe boot button and I get a message saying the bios was updating. It then reboots and now everything is at stock settings along with the bios returning back to the very first one (1003 build date 9/2016) I was using 1701 and I have never had any issues. Has this ever happens to anyone? Source of problem? To just reset itself last I did was put it to sleep? No one was home so it wasn't tampered with

Edit now I'm getting this. Wth


safe booted again after that screen and all boot priorities were on networks instead of drives and there we 5 or 6 in a row strictly to network which is weird. i loaded defaults and everything seems fine, but what would be the cause for the bios to revert back to original and all boots priorities be changed to lan?


----------



## Jpmboy

bios musta got corrupted and automatically enter recovery mode.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

which is the best software to monitor CPU temps ... is real temp good or HWmonitor ?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> which is the best software to monitor CPU temps ... is real temp good or HWmonitor ?


You can't go wrong with Aida64


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Aida64 best for monitoring temp, voltages and speed of everything, using sensor and overclock tab in it.


----------



## richiec77

How common are 6850k running 4.7GHz? Currently one I'm testing is running RealBench at 4.6GHz @1.335v. Thinking about pushing it up to 4.7 depending on voltage.

Edit: needed 1.375v for 4.6GHz. But it does run 4.7GHz at 1.445v VCore. Seems I found a unicorn as I haven't seen much at all about 4.7GHz BW-E CPUs.


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> So I just get home from work and I do what I normally do tap my keyboard to wake up pc that I put to sleep about 8 hours ago and nothing happens. I press power button and system doesn't post so I hit the safe boot button and I get a message saying the bios was updating. It then reboots and now everything is at stock settings along with the bios returning back to the very first one (1003 build date 9/2016) I was using 1701 and I have never had any issues. Has this ever happens to anyone? Source of problem? To just reset itself last I did was put it to sleep? No one was home so it wasn't tampered with
> 
> Edit now I'm getting this. Wth
> 
> 
> safe booted again after that screen and all boot priorities were on networks instead of drives and there we 5 or 6 in a row strictly to network which is weird. i loaded defaults and everything seems fine, but what would be the cause for the bios to revert back to original and all boots priorities be changed to lan?


Oof, that is _some_ IPS glow


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Oof, that is _some_ IPS glow


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Hello, hep please,
I passed 10 hours google stress test GSAT stressapptest -W -s 36000
Running linux mint bootable from usb.

But what is this: please verify no corrected errors?


----------



## Kimir

It says PASS, you are fine.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richiec77*
> 
> How common are 6850k running 4.7GHz? Currently one I'm testing is running RealBench at 4.6GHz @1.335v. Thinking about pushing it up to 4.7 depending on voltage.
> 
> Edit: needed 1.375v for 4.6GHz. But it does run 4.7GHz at 1.445v VCore. Seems I found a unicorn as I haven't seen much at all about 4.7GHz BW-E CPUs.


well i would personally say rarely my 6850k is at 4.4GHz at 1.355 , as soon as i take it to 4.5GHz at 1.400V it crashes ... you are very lucky


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*


She blinded me with Science ...

SCIENCE!!!!


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Oof, that is _some_ IPS glow


Haha. I didn't even notice that. That's pretty bad. That's what steered me away from ips to begin with. Got this 4k el cheapo to test games, but I use all three. Va, tn, ips. I don't discriminate.








Until those new monitors drop if they ever do I'm stuck with these


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> She blinded me with Science ...
> 
> SCIENCE!!!!


Great reference, great artist. +REP


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Guys, why if a cpu is stable at certain voltage at stock cache speed, if the cache is increased to 37 with the needed cache voltage, a higher Vcore is needed to maintain cpu stability? 0.01-0.015v?? why cache affect core stability? More cache speed need not only more cache voltage but also more core voltage?


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Guys, why if a cpu is stable at certain voltage at stock cache speed, if the cache is increased to 37 with the needed cache voltage, a higher Vcore is needed to maintain cpu stability? 0.01-0.015v?? why cache affect core stability? More cache speed need not only more cache voltage but also more core voltage?


That's because if you need more juice for cache it's going to drag down your VCCIN/Current so you have to counter it with LLC levels or increasing the voltage.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I accept vcore increase of 0.01v and have a cache from 31 to 37. I think it worth it.


----------



## Artah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I accept vcore increase of 0.01v and have a cache from 31 to 37. I think it worth it.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Going back to 4.2 ghz 1.27v and 37 cache instead of 4.3 ghz 1.34v and 37 cache stable in both settings without issue.
But +100 mhz oc not noticeable especially in gaming, i love safevoltage.net, because if i degradade or killed my 1100$ cpu i will kill my self. Thank u overclock.net back to safevoltage.net


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hi people,

Is there any specification of highest safe voltage values?
I would like to know the vCore and vCache. I do have great cooling so just wondering about max safe values I should not go beyond that.

I am testing:

6900K
4.4 @ 1.395
3.7 @ 1.3

Regards


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Voltage is much more dangerous than temperature, voltage is the first killer of CPU's
Cache safe <= 1.2v
Core<=1.35v ( i have a 6900k can go 4.3 ghz at 1.33v but i go back to 1.27v 4.2 ghz, not worth +100mhz to loose or degrade my 1100$ cpu).
Vcore total safe <1.3V
note that 14 nm cpu's support less voltage than 22nm cpu's.
Keep an eye of VCCSA, on auto it will kill the CPU, no need and don't go over 1.05-1.06V and VCCIO 1.1V max.

Btw, why cache 1.3V @ 37? I am fully cache stable 1.2V manual @ 37.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nikos4Life*
> 
> Hi people,
> 
> Is there any specification of highest safe voltage values?
> I would like to know the vCore and vCache. I do have great cooling so just wondering about max safe values I should not go beyond that.
> 
> I am testing:
> 
> 6900K
> 4.4 @ 1.395
> 3.7 @ 1.3
> 
> Regards


You're at the limit but OK IMHO.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

He is above limit in cache voltage, asus said the fastest way to degradade cpu is to increase cache to 1.3v and at very high load stress test, drop it down to 1.2v


----------



## SauronTheGreat

my post is slightly OT, as far as i have seen till now AMD has really marketed their Ryzen platform really well and of course the price over performance as compared to intels over priced cpus .... but i personally believe if i would have money i would still buy the 7900x for 1000 dollars rather than buying the threadripper for the same price... i would pay more for less performance for buying a reliable brand such as intel ... but then i read on facebook that the i9 processors are over heating etc .. please guys help a poor soul out who is being brainwashed on facebook ... or its true AMD has beaten intel in the processor race .. i did not start this post in the CPU section because AMD fan boys are very arrogant these days :'(


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> my post is slightly OT, as far as i have seen till now AMD has really marketed their Ryzen platform really well and of course the price over performance as compared to intels over priced cpus .... but i personally believe if i would have money i would still buy the 7900x for 1000 dollars rather than buying the threadripper for the same price... i would pay more for less performance for buying a reliable brand such as intel ... but then i read on facebook that the i9 processors are over heating etc .. please guys help a poor soul out who is being brainwashed on facebook ... or its true AMD has beaten intel in the processor race .. i did not start this post in the CPU section because AMD fan boys are very arrogant these days :'(


What is your use for high core count CPUs? If it is needed for productivity then go for 1950X, more threads are better. If for gaming I would wait for coffee like. If just for a bigger e-pen*is grab the most expensive intel processor available.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

BUY INTEL ONLY, AMD cpu is bad for gaming, and stutter like hell, buy only intel, if you are affraid from high temp skylake-x and you cant go with custom water loop, get a broadwell-e cpu, runs ultra cool


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> BUY INTEL ONLY, AMD cpu is bad for gaming, and stutter like hell, buy only intel, if you are affraid from high temp skylake-x and you cant go with custom water loop, get a broadwell-e cpu, runs ultra cool


yeah calming without facts. Fanboy much?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> BUY INTEL ONLY, AMD cpu is bad for gaming, and stutter like hell, buy only intel, if you are affraid from high temp skylake-x and you cant go with custom water loop, get a broadwell-e cpu, runs ultra cool


/ahem....your fan boy is showing....


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> my post is slightly OT, as far as i have seen till now AMD has really marketed their Ryzen platform really well and of course the price over performance as compared to intels over priced cpus .... but i personally believe if i would have money i would still buy the 7900x for 1000 dollars rather than buying the threadripper for the same price... i would pay more for less performance for buying a reliable brand such as intel ... but then i read on facebook that the i9 processors are over heating etc .. please guys help a poor soul out who is being brainwashed on facebook ... or its true AMD has beaten intel in the processor race .. i did not start this post in the CPU section because AMD fan boys are very arrogant these days :'(


Intel has the edge in IPC....and it's not even close. So for gaming, or lightly threaded tasks, Intel is the clear winner. For multiple threads, it's really a toss up....AMD / Intel, doesn't really matter at this point. I'd probably still lean toward Intel because the IPC is better. However, if you need a very, very high core count because you're going to use ALL those threads, AMD is probably where I'd look. They have a clear advantage in heat tranfer and dissipation.

That, and delidding a $1000+ cpu and voiding the warranty just isn't something I'm putting on my bucket list.


----------



## xTesla1856

Love how cheap BW-E is getting here, the 6800K can be had for 299 and the 6850K for 349. If only the 6900K and 6950X came down in price too


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Still BW-E best cpu especially for gaming.
Soldered, very low temp, and ring cache
My 6900K 4.2 3.7 cache run BF1 any map 64 players 130-150 fps constant with my gtx 1080ti with only 40% usage, temp 40 degree C


----------



## tps3443

Idk


----------



## ELIAS-EH

You are right, i love L3 cache, my 6900k can do 4.3 at 1.33v but i like to play it completly safe 4.2 ghz 1.27V. Rare to find BWE cpu 4.5 ghz with voltage bellow 1.4 V, i think above 1.4v is very dangerous to damage the CPU


----------



## tps3443

Oh yea


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Your x79 8 cores cpu runs for 5 year at 4.8ghz? At which voltage? I begin to think that cpu degradation is a propaganda and not true.


----------



## Kimir

I've been running my Ivy-E (6cores) for a few years now at [email protected]


----------



## xarot

I degraded my i7-965 and QX6850 years ago, but both run still fine at stock and a bit lighter OC in family PCs.







Just keep the voltage at sane levels, and I think you're good. Most of us don't keep the chips long enough to see degradation or don't run them 24x7.

Just remember that you can't keep the same voltage limits in each generation. I mean I think we were used to keep 32nm chips at below 1.4 V and now we are on 14nm process.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> Best batch code 6950X? Id love 4.4-4.5Ghz with 1.25 or 1.30..Not much info out there like the 5960X's and J series and all.
> 
> Heres what im looking at doing...
> 
> Also, Hey everyone! Just sold off 1680 V2, and X79 setup it ran a 4.8Ghz day to day..
> 
> Looking to improve single core, and multithread power substaintially. And memory bandwidth!
> 
> Looking at grabbing a 6950X for roughly $1,000 used.. And a nice X99 motherboard, and memory..
> 
> I like the L3 cache of 25MB vs. Only 13.75mb on a 7900X.. In gaming which i will still enjoy, shows huge advantages with a 6950X!
> 
> So ive found I can get a better X99 motherboard for less money.. and pickup a 6950X and its top tier performance! Seems some people are silly thinking these chips are dead? Huh? Its a year old...
> 
> Man id love 4.5Ghz.. which one guys?


not much binning info on 6950x. And a 24/7 4.5 6950X is very rare. Figure on 4.2-4.4, with 3.5 cache as a "common" 6950X. 3200-3400 ram. Very capable cpu! Mine's been running 4.3/3.7 at under 1.3V (-1 AVX offset) since launch.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> I've been running my Ivy-E (6cores) for a few years now at [email protected]


I know right? the IB-E is very strong! 4960X here at 4.6 with 1.34V - it's on 24/7/365.


----------



## djgar

I've been running my 6900K at 1.37 vcore and 1.29 vcache for months, no problems here.


----------



## anticommon

Just a quick question here guys.

I have a choice between a 6800k (unknown oc potential) and a 7700k delidded and verified @ 5.1ghz.the 7700k is about $60 more.

I'm upgrading from a 4.2ghz 4770k and mostly use my PC for games but there's a bit of workstation stuff going on there too. Probably about 15% of the time I use my PC.

What would you guys suggest I get?


----------



## mus1mus

5.1 7700K is kind of common.
Will benefit single threaded games.

6800K being cheaper must be a steal.
Will be better for highly multithreaded games and workstation duties.
You also will have more room to upgrade the memory capacity if needed.

Both should be EOL in their respective ways from being bleeding edge.

IMO, pick the 6800K if you need the PC now. Else, wait for the upcoming CPUs in a couple of weeks or so.

Coffee Lake will come in with a 6C/12T variant that will offer more than Skylake and Kaby Lake IPC for around the same price. Clocks may be identical too.


----------



## tps3443

Beast


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> I ha
> I did not have my 1680 V2 for 5 years, I mean it's a 5 year old CPU since launch. I owned it for about a year 24/[email protected] on all 8/16cores. The previous owner though, he did own it for about 3 years. He ran it at 4.7Ghz on a server farm or something. It was always pegged 100% load I'm sure lol.
> 
> I paid $650 used a year ago, and sold it for $580.00. It's still rolling strong, and outpaced or ran neck n neck with a 4.5Ghz clocked 5960X in most scenarios.. gaming performance was great because it actually had a 25MB L3 cache even only being a 8 core, it had 2 disabled cores based on the larger 2687W v2 (10) core die, but the L3 was fully intact with 8 cores, Vs the 5960X only having a 20MB L3. But the IPC was significantly slower so, they kinda evened out once I was running 300mhz-400mhz faster than Haswell-E, and I had 25% more L3 cache. Fortunately the Xeon counterparts were binned well, and could all usually click past a 5960X. That's why I dealt with the lack of X79 support and new tech. It was just like a Old diesel that could pull anything
> 
> I've never been afraid of heavily overclocked chips. If it works, and you overclock smart, it'll keep pumping!
> 
> I benched it at 4.9+ghz thousands of times..
> 
> Im looking forward to a 6950X, it's a huge improvement!


please help
this is my oc 6900K on my x99 strix
4.2 Ghz 1.27V adaptive
Cache 37 at 1.2V
VCCSA : 1.056V
VCCIO 1.1 V
VCCIN : 1.87 V
LLC : Level 6
DDR4 32 GB @ 2933 C14 1.35V

*I need 1.34V for 4.3 Ghz on my CPU with OC cache and RAM*

stability tested for both oc on OCCT large data set, realbench 2.54, HCI memtest, GSAT, and X265 overkill 12X, all passed and many hours gaming without issue.
Do you think it is safe? usally i upgrade every 3 years.
My temp is max 42 Degree C under full load (h115i push pull wiht liquid metal between CPU and Pump)

thank u


----------



## tps3443

Yea it looks good to me! Your under 1.4 volts which seems to be the danger zone. I'd say your system is good, and safe.

But, I'd ask Jpmboy.. I sold my CPU, and board. Trying to get a Broadwell E, 6950X, X99 myself! I'm unfamiliar with Broadwell E overclocking , and voltages..

Jpmboy is highly knowledgeable, and he will have a more thorough answer.


----------



## josephimports

Sold the 6800K and replaced it with a 6850K.








Batch # J627B406
4400mhz @ 1.34v


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *josephimports*
> 
> Sold the 6800K and replaced it with a 6850K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batch # J627B406
> 4400mhz @ 1.34v


Congrats









Have you tried for 4.5?


----------



## josephimports

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Congrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried for 4.5?


Thanks. Cinebench required 1.37v but I dont plan to test stability for it. Not with an aio.


----------



## xkm1948

Need your help folks!

A quick recap of event:

CPU: 6950X at 4.2GHz
Board: ASUS TUF X99
RAM: 128GB GSKILL
GPU: FuryX
PSU: Tried both EVGA G2-850 and Seasonic Prime Focus 850

I was trying to install Windows 10 onto the new NVMe SSD. Installed fine. Booted up fine. Then after I installed the drivers and thought to reinstall softwares the machine crashed. Then this refuse to boot problem started.

Waited overnight, eventually it will allow me to boot up again. Run good for about half a day and then dead again. This time it refuse to boot up.

Fast forward a week. Got the replacment PSU. Hooked up. Stuck in boot loop. If I unplug the VRM 8+4 plug it will stay on buy no signal display over monitor.

This board does not have a Q-CODE and the TUF detective requires an Andriod. RMA filed with ASUS.

Before the attempted Windows 10 Reinstallation everything was perfect. Honestly I have no freaking idea what went wrong.


----------



## Vellinious

Dumb question. Will the 6850k do single core overclocking? Boost 3.0 capable?


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Dumb question. Will the 6850k do single core overclocking? Boost 3.0 capable?


Yes, it has Turbo Boost Technology 3.0: http://ark.intel.com/products/94188/Intel-Core-i7-6850K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> please help
> this is my oc 6900K on my x99 strix
> 4.2 Ghz 1.27V adaptive
> Cache 37 at 1.2V
> VCCSA : 1.056V
> VCCIO 1.1 V
> VCCIN : 1.87 V
> LLC : Level 6
> DDR4 32 GB @ 2933 C14 1.35V
> 
> *I need 1.34V for 4.3 Ghz on my CPU with OC cache and RAM*
> 
> stability tested for both oc on OCCT large data set, realbench 2.54, HCI memtest, GSAT, and X265 overkill 12X, all passed and many hours gaming without issue.
> Do you think it is safe? usally i upgrade every 3 years.
> My temp is max 42 Degree C under full load (h115i push pull wiht liquid metal between CPU and Pump)
> 
> thank u


Yes, that is a very good overclock for 24/7. With max. temp at 42 degrees shoild last you a long time.







What is the base clock and timings for your memory?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Yes, it has Turbo Boost Technology 3.0: http://ark.intel.com/products/94188/Intel-Core-i7-6850K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz


Thank you


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Yes, that is a very good overclock for 24/7. With max. temp at 42 degrees shoild last you a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the base clock and timings for your memory?


Thank u so much
Bclk 100
Ram 2933 14-16-16-31-312
I can't go to higher memory frequency.
Do you mean 1.34v is safe???

I have an AC in my room always and 14 fans total in my case, i dont care about noise while gaming, i put the headset. And while normal use, put all of them at silence, At max all fans speed while stress test, it is like F16 aircraft motor?. I like low temp.
Btw i mean full load normal use, but stress test like in occt large data set which use avx, it is max 65 degree C


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Dumb question. Will the 6850k do single core overclocking? Boost 3.0 capable?


Dont use Turbo boost 3.0, disable it in windows, it cause so much stutter in games, dont uninstall it windows 10 will reinstall it automaticaly, just disable it.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Thank you


You are welcome!


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Thank u so much
> Bclk 100
> Ram 2933 14-16-16-31-312
> I can't go to higher memory frequency.
> Do you mean 1.34v is safe???
> 
> I have an AC in my room always and 14 fans total in my case, i dont care about noise while gaming, i put the headset. And while normal use, put all of them at silence, At max all fans speed while stress test, it is like F16 aircraft motor?. I like low temp.
> Btw i mean full load normal use, but stress test like in occt large data set which use avx, it is max 65 degree C


The stock spec's on the side of your memory sticks.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> The stock spec's on the side of your memory sticks.


CMK32GX4M4A2400C14 These are my memory,
Bought them from amazon.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> CMK32GX4M4A2400C14 These are my memory,
> Bought them from amazon.


Thanks, nice overclock on that memory.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Thanks, nice overclock on that memory.


Btw liquid metal is amazing between cpu and my h115i pump( push pull configuration)
I have the thermal grizzly conductonaut.
On BWE it gives amazing result because BWE is soldered, so it is cpu die->metal->ihs(metal)->liquid metal->copper water block->water. no bottleneck on dissipating temp.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Btw liquid metal is amazing between cpu and my h115i pump( push pull configuration)
> I have the thermal grizzly conductonaut.
> On BWE it gives amazing result because BWE is soldered, so it is cpu die->metal->ihs(metal)->liquid metal->copper water block->water. no bottleneck on dissipating temp.


did you use LM on the copper base of that AIO? Anyway - it tends to remove the Intel markings on the IHS - voiding warranty, and can "stain" the bare copper. LM in on a nickel plated surface is fine. Other metals can be a problem. It will "eat" aluminum.


----------



## axiumone

Stains the copper base of the AIO as well. The staining has to be sanded away.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Yes
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> did you use LM on the copper base of that AIO? Anyway - it tends to remove the Intel markings on the IHS - voiding warranty, and can "stain" the bare copper. LM in a nickel plated surface is fine. Other metals can be a problem. It will "eat" aluminum.


yes it is copper, and I asked thermal grizzly support team and they replied:

"if the full copper base is not nickel plated it is possible that you will have some residues after using Conductonaut. Conductonaut contains Indium and the Indium will form a indium + copper alloy on the top layer. However this is just an optical effect and has no impact on the performance."

what is most important, the low temperature that gives especially on soldered CPU's.
5 month now without any issue








I have a tube 5g, and I will never go back to normal TIM.
Temp is awesome


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Yes
> yes it is copper, and I asked thermal grizzly support team and they replied:
> 
> "if the full copper base is not nickel plated it is possible that you will have some residues after using Conductonaut. Conductonaut contains Indium and the Indium will form a indium + copper alloy on the top layer. However this is just an optical effect and has no impact on the performance."
> 
> what is most important, the low temperature that gives especially on soldered CPU's.
> 5 month now without any issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a tube 5g, and I will never go back to normal TIM.
> Temp is awesome


Enjoy.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Drop down my vrm temp under full load from 50 degree C to 37 degree C

Speed controled by my fan controller

I am addicted to low temp


----------



## arestavo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Drop down my vrm temp under full load from 50 degree C to 37 degree C
> 
> Speed controled by my fan controller
> 
> I am addicted to low temp


Folks sometimes forget how much motherboard level airflow is lost when going with an AIO or custom loop.

Looks like you found a solution ?


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> Folks sometimes forget how much motherboard level airflow is lost when going with an AIO or custom loop.
> 
> Looks like you found a solution ?


yeah, this is why I like monoblocks... Without them, you get rid of heat-sinks and fans only to now really need a fan on a device designed to get its airflow from "everywhere else" (and there is no case/mb provision for attaching airflow to it... )

Same is true of memory, though it usually needs less help.


----------



## tps3443

Im buying a 6950X, and X99 board, with 32GB of memory. from a fellow member, he benches stable with a 480mm rad with chilled water at 4.5Ghz/3.8Ghz.

Id like to run it at 4.5/ 3.6.. 24/7 days a week. Without using chilled water.

Ive got a D5 pump res combo already,

How many rads, and how big would i need them? Im fairly new to custom loops..

Id even run 4.5/3.5 or even less cache speed.

It gets up to about 1.482 volts under a stress, hes got it stable at 4.5/3.8 for benching with chilled water.. This is a good looking 6950X.

Maybe a single 540 rad? Or (2) 480's?


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> Im buying a 6950X, and X99 board, with 32GB of memory. from a fellow member, he benches stable with a 480mm rad with chilled water at 4.5Ghz/3.8Ghz.
> 
> Id like to run it at 4.5/ 3.6.. 24/7 days a week. Without using chilled water.
> 
> Ive got a D5 pump res combo already,
> 
> How many rads, and how big would i need them? Im fairly new to custom loops..
> 
> Id even run 4.5/3.5 or even less cache speed.
> 
> It gets up to about 1.482 volts under a stress, hes got it stable at 4.5/3.8 for benching with chilled water.. This is a good looking 6950X.
> 
> Maybe a single 540 rad? Or (2) 480's?


1.48 V is way too much for 24x7 operation and you said he was bench stable only at that speed. I wouldn't run it over 1.38 V myself, on water. Perhaps I would run 4.3 or 4.4 GHz daily depending on voltage.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Do you want to damage the 1600$ cpu? Run it over 1.4v


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> Im buying a 6950X, and X99 board, with 32GB of memory. from a fellow member, he benches stable with a 480mm rad with chilled water at 4.5Ghz/3.8Ghz.
> 
> Id like to run it at 4.5/ 3.6.. 24/7 days a week. Without using chilled water.
> 
> Ive got a D5 pump res combo already,
> 
> How many rads, and how big would i need them? Im fairly new to custom loops..
> 
> Id even run 4.5/3.5 or even less cache speed.
> 
> It gets up to about 1.482 volts under a stress, hes got it stable at 4.5/3.8 for benching with chilled water.. This is a good looking 6950X.
> 
> Maybe a single 540 rad? Or (2) 480's?


no combination of rads is gonna work like chilled water. you'll be running at 4.3 AVX-1 with around 1.3V. That's a very fast rig once you get it settled in... but forget about running 1.48V 24/7, unless it's 24/7 for only a few 24s.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no combination of rads is gonna work like chilled water. you'll be running at 4.3 AVX-1 with around 1.3V. That's a very fast rig once you get it settled in... but forget about running 1.48V 24/7, unless it's 24/7 for only a few 24s.


^^^^^^







very fast!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> very fast!


for sure. a 4.3 6950X is very capable.









hey - how's that new chiller working for ya?


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> for sure. a 4.3 6950X is very capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey - how's that new chiller working for ya?


It's


----------



## tps3443

So, ive already got a EK 140 D5 res pump combo. Im gonna try set it up with a 420mm primo chill rad in the front, and a 420mm primo chill up top.

Ill run the 6950X in with a single gtx 1080.

4.4/3.6 should be pretty wicked fast for benches.

As long as temps are under 90 im good with that.

A guy on youtube pulled 190 single thread R15 with a 4.4 6950X, then 2,329 multicore in R15. Thats amazing performance out of a 10 core

I had no idea the single core ipc was so fast....?


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> So, ive already got a EK 140 D5 res pump combo. Im gonna try set it up with a 420mm primo chill rad in the front, and a 420mm primo chill up top.
> 
> Ill run the 6950X in with a single gtx 1080.
> 
> 4.4/3.6 should be pretty wicked fast.
> 
> As long as temps are under 90 im good with that.


Try to keep full load temps for 24/7 below 80c. The 4.3 / 3.4 ring I gave you last night the temps did not go above 62c on Aida64 for 30 min. so you should be able to do 4.4 / 3.4 and keep temps with-in reason. Your loop will cool better than my Predator does.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> So, ive already got a EK 140 D5 res pump combo. Im gonna try set it up with a 420mm primo chill rad in the front, and a 420mm primo chill up top.
> 
> Ill run the 6950X in with a single gtx 1080.
> 
> 4.4/3.6 should be pretty wicked fast for benches.
> 
> As long as temps are under 90 im good with that.
> 
> A guy on youtube pulled 190 single thread R15 with a 4.4 6950X, then 2,329 multicore in R15. Thats amazing performance out of a 10 core
> 
> I had no idea the single core ipc was so fast....?


http://hwbot.org/submission/3617704_jpmboy_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6950x_2451_cb


----------



## tps3443

Wow thats fast, its sneakin up on a 16 core thread ripper. But only much better ipc lol. 10 cores is really crushing it.


----------



## jsutter71

Here's my 6950x as an example. I can push the core or NB freq up 1 more with no real stability issues during benchmarks. I keep it this speed as a happy medium.


----------



## tps3443

Well guys, I just dropped abunch of money in the mail for my setup! It was tough to swing it, but its going to be well worth it.

Excited to run such a CPU of this magnitude!

6950X, X99 Gaming Carbon, 32GB DDR4 3200Mhz memory.


----------



## Aenra

After all this time, all these reviews and all that money and options.. your mobo of choice was MSI's carbon? :S

Anyway, hope you enjoy your new rig


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> After all this time, all these reviews and all that money and options.. your mobo of choice was MSI's carbon? :S
> 
> Anyway, hope you enjoy your new rig


I think he got a Godlike Gaming Carbon with the OC socket.


----------



## tps3443

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> I think he got a Godlike Gaming Carbon with the OC socket.


I didnt even realize, i forgot it was such a good board. That OC socket helps alot with cache speed


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> I didnt even realize, i forgot it was such a good board. That OC socket helps alot with cache speed


Yes, yes it does.


----------



## tps3443

This shows cinebench R15 intel 7980XE, and a 7920X.

Looks like he ran both sku's overclocked, and not overclocked. Either way, a 7920X is gettig in the 3,200's. And the 7980XE is in the sub 4,800's.

https://hothardware.com/gallery/NewsItem/42199?image=big_cinebench.jpg&tag=&p=1

Thats alot of muscle.

Though, that 7980XE is just a powerhouse.

Idk why so many reviewers, or bloggers keeps picking on low clockspeed on high core cpus, when they are directly sold to be overclocked to the extremes.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Here's my 6950x as an example. I can push the core or NB freq up 1 more with no real stability issues during benchmarks. I keep it this speed as a happy medium.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


lol - I run the exact same clocks (but 3400 ram) as my 24/7.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> I didnt even realize, i forgot it was such a good board. That OC socket helps alot with cache speed


It's the second generation flag ship X99 board for MSI.


----------



## xTesla1856

Hate to rain on parades, but IMO there is only one X99 board worth considering


----------



## Vellinious

Looking for a 5820k. Anyone got one for sale?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Hate to rain on parades, but IMO there is only one X99 board worth considering


^^ this.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> Hate to rain on parades, but IMO there is only one X99 board worth considering


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ this.


Hey! I resemble that remark!


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ this.


How can you two make that statement when you have only been on one board? I would say that's a non factual opinion.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I can gives you my opinion because i have tried two boards.
First i had the msi x99 pro carbon with i7 6900k
The max cache oc was 33, no way to go over that or the pc shutdown randomly.
I switched to asus x99 strix, i can go to 37 cache with 1.2v only, and 3200mhz ram with less vccsa than with the msi.
Concerning the core oc, it is the same on the two boards.
Yes the oc socket is real and have its benefit.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> How can you two make that statement when you have only been on one board? I would say that's a non factual opinion.


well.. I have more than one x99, but they are ASUS.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I can gives you my opinion because i have tried two boards.
> First i had the msi x99 pro carbon with i7 6900k
> The max cache oc was 33, no way to go over that or the pc shutdown randomly.
> I switched to asus x99 strix, i can go to 37 cache with 1.2v only, and 3200mhz ram with less vccsa than with the msi.
> Concerning the core oc, it is the same on the two boards.
> Yes the oc socket is real and have its benefit.


Yes but this is a GodLike Gaming Carbon different board. I was able to run 4.6 GHz CPU and 3.8 GHz cashe. The Gaming Carbon does not have the OC socket like the GodLike Gaming Carbon which helps with Cashe overclocking.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> well.. I have more than one x99, but they are ASUS.


8 of 6 versions of 3 manufacturers
Asus, Asrock, MSI
For OC x99 it's a no brainer. Asus


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Yes but this is a GodLike Gaming Carbon different board. I was able to run 4.6 GHz CPU and 3.8 GHz cashe. The Gaming Carbon does not have the OC socket like the GodLike Gaming Carbon which helps with Cashe overclocking.


the godlike is a fine board... MSI really needs a better branding dept tho - that name.


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I was just looking around and by chance saw a 6900k on Amazon for $567 US, free postage, new but it had a slightly torn box, so I jumped on it. Should arrive sometime next week, awesome..that puts it somewhere around the 7820x in price.. but some of the bargains I've seen lately like 5960x or 6850x.


----------



## InfiniteImp

Ok, this is a real long shot but here goes..

Does anyone know the physical location of each of the cores on a 6850k? Specifically I'd like to know where core 5 is located. I'm doing some OCing and core 5 is consistently reporting 8-10 degrees higher than the other cores. I'd like to know where it's located on the chip relative to pin 1. The next step will be to pull the water block off and see if there's anything unusual at that position.

Thanks!


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the godlike is a fine board... MSI really needs a better branding dept tho - that name.


The name well about that.....I have enjoyed this board.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> The name well about that.....I have enjoyed this board.


Sure, but do you pray to it?


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Sure, but do you pray to it?


Of course.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Yes but this is a GodLike Gaming Carbon different board. I was able to run 4.6 GHz CPU and 3.8 GHz cashe. The Gaming Carbon does not have the OC socket like the GodLike Gaming Carbon which helps with Cashe overclocking.


if your are talking about the godlike, yes, i think it has the same level as rampage v edition 10, it is a 500$ board.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

i learn that in each system, we should not buy a medium or high end board. always super ultra high extreme end board, the best in the market, motherboard is the most important factor in any system.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> i learn that in each system, we should not buy a medium or high end board. always super ultra high extreme end board, the best in the market, motherboard is the most important factor in any system.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Sure, but do you pray to it?


lol - I've cursed at a few boards over the years.


----------



## tps3443

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> i learn that in each system, we should not buy a medium or high end board. always super ultra high extreme end board, the best in the market, motherboard is the most important factor in any system.


I learned this the hard way!

PC build for me usually Is skipping a generation. Well, at least with an intel enthusiast platform that is. But it would be something like this lol ?

$500 to $700 used CPU.

$90 used motherboard.

$500 graphics card.

And I always paid for it in the end. One week the system is totally stable, the next it's not.

High end motherboards are well worth it! ?


----------



## PowerK

I'm happy with my 6950X + Rampage V Edition 10 board.







Still kicking hard at 4.4GHz.


----------



## tps3443

I had a Rampage IV extreme black edition refresh X79 motherboard previously. It had alot of nice add on features to increase longevity for X79 lga 2011, USB 3.1 etc.etc. But, I did get much better overclocks with a MSI Big Bang E-atx X79 motherboard that it replaced..

i7 6950X, and Godlike Gaming Carbon, and corsair platinum memory should be getting mailed come monday, or tuesday i imagine. Once payment arrives through the Snail mail that is ?


----------



## tps3443

Man, with the gtx1070 price inflation, and hit or miss on getting good samsung memory.. I am seriously considering running 2 way SLI Titan X Maxwell cards, on the 6950X / X99 system im building.

Ive come accross (2) locally with blocks already on them, both for $750 bucks, SLI bridge and all.

Seems like the 12gb of vram, and being a tiny bit cheaper than a GTX1070 makes it worth it!

Hmmmm SLI with last GEN Titan Maxwells, and 12gb of vram.
This seems like alot of power for not being a huge investment, and a seriously powerful rendering work horse if both of them could hit 1450mhz/1450mhz on the core.

Ok, let me dig up some sli maxwell reviews. ?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

finally I was able to oc my ram from 2933 to 3200 without issue.
I need to increase the DRAM voltage from 1.35V to 1.37V and VCCSA from 1.056V to 1.08V
passed the google stress test and HCI memtest, OCCT and realbench


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> Man, with the gtx1070 price inflation, and hit or miss on getting good samsung memory.. I am seriously considering running 2 way SLI Titan X Maxwell cards, on the 6950X / X99 system im building.
> 
> Ive come accross (2) locally with blocks already on them, both for $750 bucks, SLI bridge and all.
> 
> Seems like the 12gb of vram, and being a tiny bit cheaper than a GTX1070 makes it worth it!
> 
> Hmmmm SLI with last GEN Titan Maxwells, and 12gb of vram.
> This seems like alot of power for not being a huge investment, and a seriously powerful rendering work horse if both of them could hit 1450mhz/1450mhz on the core.
> 
> Ok, let me dig up some sli maxwell reviews. ?


You might consider a nice 1080ti I think it would be a better choice for the future. Later you could ad a second. This would be much faster and newer technology.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> You might consider a nice 1080ti I think it would be a better choice for the future. Later you could ad a second. This would be much faster and newer technology.


Not to mention in the mean time you will have a profoundly easier time cooling one (even two) than you will a pair of maxwells...


----------



## tps3443

(2) titan maxwell cards overclocked actually does pretty good vs. A gtx titan pascal 70% of the time. Im just chasing high benches, and high frames anyways. Im gonna offer $700.00. Then ill ride them out for a while.

I know the faster single card is always better. But, I really wanna try something different with this build. Plus,they already have blocks and back plates.

This is based on a youtube video, cpu is a 4960X (6) core @ 4.8Ghz.

8K is ridiculous I would never go beyond 1440P, or 4K myself.

But these results are in real 8K..

(4) GTX Titan Maxwell cards, in quad SLI averages 43 to 77 fps in real 8K accross 5 different game titles. Not overclocked.

(2) GTX Titan Pascal cards, in SLI averages 36 to 61 fps in real 8K accross 5 different game titles not overclocked.

I know (4) cards is silly. But for benches its fun. And it seems to work in most of the genres i do play.

(4) GTX Maxwell Titans $1400-$1550

(2) GTX Pascal Titans $2,100-$2,400

Not that im gonna run (4) lol. But if I could grab these (2) Titans for $700 with blocks, its a beast setup in 1440P and a smooth 60+ avg in 4K. Plus its a local person. I can see them run.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tps3443*
> 
> (2) titan maxwell cards overclocked actually does pretty good vs. A gtx titan pascal 70% of the time. Im just chasing high benches, and high frames anyways. Im gonna offer $700.00. Then ill ride them out for a while.
> 
> I know the faster single card is always better. But, I really wanna try something different with this build. Plus,they already have blocks and back plates.
> 
> This is based on a youtube video, cpu is a 4960X (6) core @ 4.8Ghz.
> 
> 8K is ridiculous I would never go beyond 1440P, or 4K myself.
> 
> But these results are in real 8K..
> 
> (4) GTX Titan Maxwell cards, in quad SLI averages 43 to 77 fps in real 8K accross 5 different game titles. Not overclocked.
> 
> (2) GTX Titan Pascal cards, in SLI averages 36 to 61 fps in real 8K accross 5 different game titles not overclocked.
> 
> I know (4) cards is silly. But for benches its fun. And it seems to work in most of the genres i do play.
> 
> (4) GTX Maxwell Titans $1400-$1550
> 
> (2) GTX Pascal Titans $2,100-$2,400
> 
> Not that im gonna run (4) lol. But if I could grab these (2) Titans for $700 with blocks, its a beast setup in 1440P and a smooth 60+ avg in 4K. Plus its a local person. I can see them run.


I would look into those bench marks a little bit more I don't think two Maxwell cards will keep up with a single 1080ti. I know my Titan Xp is faster. Running on a newer platform will make a difference in speed. Do a little more research it will be worth the time.


----------



## xTesla1856

I used to own SLI Maxwell Titans. Great cards indeed, I still miss them dearly. With an undervolted BIOS I ran them at 1400MHz game stable on air with the stock cooler. Granted the fans were at 100% all the time, but I didn't have the funds then to put them in a loop









It's a ton of fun to play with and there are tons of BIOS for all your needs (max power, max voltage, max efficiency, undervolt, etc.)

If I were you, I'd go for them at 700-750ish and ride them out until big Volta hits


----------



## Gdourado

How is the 6850k for gaming?
I am currently running a 3770k at 4.5 GHz.
How much of an upgrade is a 6850k?
And how much does the 6850k overclock on avarege?

Thanks.
Cheers!


----------



## Nikos4Life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Voltage is much more dangerous than temperature, voltage is the first killer of CPU's
> Cache safe <= 1.2v
> Core<=1.35v ( i have a 6900k can go 4.3 ghz at 1.33v but i go back to 1.27v 4.2 ghz, not worth +100mhz to loose or degrade my 1100$ cpu).
> Vcore total safe <1.3V
> note that 14 nm cpu's support less voltage than 22nm cpu's.
> Keep an eye of VCCSA, on auto it will kill the CPU, no need and don't go over 1.05-1.06V and VCCIO 1.1V max.
> 
> Btw, why cache 1.3V @ 37? I am fully cache stable 1.2V manual @ 37.


Right now I do have the following:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> How is the 6850k for gaming?
> I am currently running a 3770k at 4.5 GHz.
> How much of an upgrade is a 6850k?
> And how much does the 6850k overclock on avarege?
> 
> Thanks.
> Cheers!


I am not quite sure if this is allowed but I am selling my 6900K + Asus REV10. Let me know through PM if you want any further information. It is great for gaming the 6850K as well as teh 6900K. But you need to overclock to get the best of it

Regards


----------



## xkm1948

Got my replacement Sabertooth X99 back. The included diagnostic sheet says the qcode they had at service center was 00.

Plugged in the 6950X. And nope. Still boot looping. Well guess I am ****ed.


----------



## moonbogg

I see some people using 3200mhz ram and saying they only need 1.05v VCCSA and suggesting people should not go over that. I need 1.27 to get stable with 3200. Should I expect my 6800K to die?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonbogg*
> 
> I see some people using 3200mhz ram and saying they only need 1.05v VCCSA and suggesting people should not go over that. I need 1.27 to get stable with 3200. Should I expect my 6800K to die?


in my opinion, the most dangerous voltage is VCCSA.

my 6900K needs 1.08V for 3200mhz and 1.054V for 2933mhz.
bring the VCCSA down to 1V and increase it using offset from their, and test them with HCI memtest and google stress test. read the VCCSA in windows using AIDA64.
if not possible stable ram @ 3200mhz from 1-1.1V VCCSA, run your ram at 2933 mhz or 3000mhz, it is not worth to take the risk.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Got my replacement Sabertooth X99 back. The included diagnostic sheet says the qcode they had at service center was 00.
> 
> Plugged in the 6950X. And nope. Still boot looping. Well guess I am ****ed.


are you kidding me ? try another motherboard, hope it is not the CPU.
but why you changed your motherboard?


----------



## SauronTheGreat

need some advice .. currently i am using a 6850k , i am getting a 5960x in a very reasonable price ... would it be wise to buy it ?


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> need some advice .. currently i am using a 6850k , i am getting a 5960x in a very reasonable price ... would it be wise to buy it ?


games are starting to use 6 cores cpu's and more, i tried cod ww2 and it uses all my 8 cores of my 6900k and 40% usage.
5960x has a huge l3 cache size and 8 cores compared to 6 cores 6850k.
The only disadvantages is the support of ram speed.
Can you pay a little more and get 6900k? It will be amazing.
You will not regret getting an 8 cores cpu and have piece in mind for Bottleneck.

But if the 5960x cannot be oc to 4.6, stay with the 6850k


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SauronTheGreat*
> 
> need some advice .. currently i am using a 6850k , i am getting a 5960x in a very reasonable price ... would it be wise to buy it ?


Reasonable price? how much it will cost you? But those are still selling around $500 used on eBay, probably with some effort you can find them $450.

But It really comes down to your needs really. Do you need the extra cores, what kind of applications do you use?

You also have to keep in mind you will sacrifice single threaded performance a bit for the extra two cores if you went with 5960X. HW-E needs extra 300-400 MHz over BW-E to match it in ST.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> well the problem is no 6900 k is available at the moment, i do not live in the states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while the 5960x is available locally and i am afraid if coffelake is released and with with ryzen in the market... my 6850k's price will drop further more.. i play games and stream ... i have 32gb ram at XMP which are at 3200 mhz , i do not think the ram speeds will be a problem for the 5960x , am i right ?
Click to expand...


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Majority of 5960Xs have no issues with DDR4-3200. It is DDR4-3333+ where trouble start happening with HW-E in general.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

I don't think 5960x support 3200mhz on OC, i think majority can go for 2666-2800mhz max.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> I don't think 5960x support 3200mhz on OC, i think majority can go for 2666-2800mhz max.


Actually, 3200 mem is pretty much the sweat spot for a stock OR overclocked Haswell-E chip.


----------



## xkm1948

The famous ASUS X99 killing CPUs. Take a look https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?88292-Strix-x99-Gaming-QCODE-00-over-night-after-several-small-issues

I am another victim. The Sabertooth X99 killed my 6950X while comitting suicide. ASUS knows about this and is probably fixing this via new firmwares. With their terrible RMA service and rude attitude I won't hold my breath of them covering the cost of damaged CPU. I won't be buying ASUS boards as well in the future. One month without a system while ASUS trying its best to NOT providing RMA.

For people who missed my initial problem, it was the dreaded qcode 00.

XMP plus adaptive vcore seems to cause over voltage. Be careful.


----------



## Gdourado

How is broadwell e IPC compared to ivy Bridge?
I have a 3770k clocked at 4.5.
How would a 6850k compare? I know 6850k usually clock to 4.3 and 4.5 is considered way above average. So I am curious here...

Cheers


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> The famous ASUS X99 killing CPUs. Take a look https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?88292-Strix-x99-Gaming-QCODE-00-over-night-after-several-small-issues
> 
> I am another victim. The Sabertooth X99 killed my 6950X while comitting suicide. ASUS knows about this and is probably fixing this via new firmwares. With their terrible RMA service and rude attitude I won't hold my breath of them covering the cost of damaged CPU. I won't be buying ASUS boards as well in the future. One month without a system while ASUS trying its best to NOT providing RMA.
> 
> For people who missed my initial problem, it was the dreaded qcode 00.
> 
> XMP plus adaptive vcore seems to cause over voltage. Be careful.


What!! I have strix x99 nothing is on auto voltage especially The most scared voltage vccsa at 1.08v.
No issue.
Do you mean i am sitting on a bomb with my 6900k?!?!?!???!!!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Actually, 3200 mem is pretty much the sweat spot for a stock OR overclocked Haswell-E chip.


IF you will be sure that the 5960x will support 2933 - 3200mhz ram get it instead of 6850k and oc cache ?


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> What!! I have strix x99 nothing is on auto voltage especially The most scared voltage vccsa at 1.08v.
> No issue.
> Do you mean i am sitting on a bomb with my 6900k?!?!?!???!!!


Very likely. Strix X99 seems to be the worst among ASUS X99 line up. Take a look at that thread, it was initiated by a Strix user. Also look at Strix X99 Newegg US review, 47% of 1 star review.

If one user have this problem then it may not be statistically significant. If hundreds of people accross different ASUS X99 platform experience this problem then the trend is probably pointing to something.

See all the ASUS X99 BIOS update always say: improve system stability? That is they are trying to address their OC socket design problem.

I smell a class action law suit brewing for ASUS now.


----------



## djgar

I love my Strix


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> What!! I have strix x99 nothing is on auto voltage especially The most scared voltage vccsa at 1.08v.
> No issue.
> Do you mean i am sitting on a bomb with my 6900k?!?!?!???!!!


Here's my theory, since it happened to me:

They fixed the issue with BIOS updates. (this is my speculation)

For a bit , they were releasing bios updates almost weekly. Tells me they were fixing the issue.

I was on the stock BIOS, August 2016 was when I built the machine. 4 days later without updating BIOS, dead 6900k. Did the motions, tried another mobo with same cpu, confirmed that the strix killed the cpu, sent cpu back got a new one NP.

I have the same board, it's been over a year since it happened. I've taken the CPU to 4.4 1.38 voltage 3200 ram, vccsa at 1.1. It was stable for a few months, but decided to take it down to 4.3, 1.27V, 3200 and VCCSA at 1.06 for daily.

Haven't had any issues. I believe it was in the BIOS. Not defending ASUS, just saying you're probably OK if it hasn't happened already. I think this cpu killing happened to those that had older BIOSes. Still ****ty, but you may be OK. If you're worried, RMA the board and upgrade the BIOS on the replacement before installing the cpu.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> Here's my theory, since it happened to me:
> 
> They fixed the issue with BIOS updates. (this is my speculation)
> 
> For a bit , they were releasing bios updates almost weekly. Tells me they were fixing the issue.
> 
> I was on the stock BIOS, August 2016 was when I built the machine. 4 days later without updating BIOS, dead 6900k. Did the motions, tried another mobo with same cpu, confirmed that the strix killed the cpu, sent cpu back got a new one NP.
> 
> I have the same board, it's been over a year since it happened. I've taken the CPU to 4.4 1.38 voltage 3200 ram, vccsa at 1.1. It was stable for a few months, but decided to take it down to 4.3, 1.27V, 3200 and VCCSA at 1.06 for daily.
> 
> Haven't had any issues. I believe it was in the BIOS. Not defending ASUS, just saying you're probably OK if it hasn't happened already. I think this cpu killing happened to those that had older BIOSes. Still ****ty, but you may be OK. If you're worried, RMA the board and upgrade the BIOS on the replacement before installing the cpu.


Mine had the latest BIOS 3701 for TUF X99. And I had that BIOS before I installed the 6950X. So no, I think there is still something wrong with ASUS that they are trying to fix.

My ASUS RealBench headboard showing my TUF X99 and the 6950X on the latest BIOS.

https://rog.asus.com/realbench/show_comment.php?id=20359


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Mine had the latest BIOS 3701 for TUF X99. And I had that BIOS before I installed the 6950X. So no, I think there is still something wrong with ASUS that they are trying to fix.
> 
> My ASUS RealBench headboard showing my TUF X99 and the 6950X on the latest BIOS.
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/realbench/show_comment.php?id=20359


Well damn, there goes my theory.. Thanks for correcting.


----------



## xkm1948

Over ROG forum some guy, who happened to be another unlucky victim of the ASUS CPU killing, mentioned something regarding XMP and voltage overshoot for the recent several BIOS. I believe the entire ASUS mobos will have another round of BIOS update to address that. But too late for me now.


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Over ROG forum some guy, who happened to be another unlucky victim of the ASUS CPU killing, mentioned something regarding XMP and voltage overshoot for the recent several BIOS. I believe the entire ASUS mobos will have another round of BIOS update to address that. But too late for me now.


My CPU was also killed by the asus x99 deluxe ii. I am contemplating selling 6800k (replaced by intel) and mobo (replaced by microcenter) for 8700k. Never buying asus again


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> My CPU was also killed by the asus x99 deluxe ii. I am contemplating selling 6800k (replaced by intel) and mobo (replaced by microcenter) for 8700k. Never buying asus again


Same here. I am getting a loan CPU to test out the replaced motherboard. If the replace board is good I am also thinking of selling it and go either X299 or X399.

Was the code you got also 00 when your MoBo killed your CPU?


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Same here. I am getting a loan CPU to test out the replaced motherboard. If the replace board is good I am also thinking of selling it and go either X299 or X399.
> 
> Was the code you got also 00 when your MoBo killed your CPU?


Yes 00 code and nothing worked. Microcenter diagnosed it as dead cpu. The only thing about moving to ryzen or 8700k is if the cost is worth moving to it. I am losing a lot even selling brand new cpu and mobo


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Synik*
> 
> Yes 00 code and nothing worked. Microcenter diagnosed it as dead cpu. The only thing about moving to ryzen or 8700k is if the cost is worth moving to it. I am losing a lot even selling brand new cpu and mobo


I feel your pain. I am in the same boat, actually worse than you.

Man these ASUS boards, you never know if they decided to commit suicide again. I kinda feel like ASUS is trying to wait until all the major X99 boards go out of warranty, which is about 3yrs and then just sweep whatever is left under the rug. ASUS should be held responsible for their design flaws. These are not independent individual cases, it clearly points to something fundamentally wrong with ASUS X99 design as a whole.


----------



## KCDC

I guess I'm confused then... shouldn't my strix board be ruining CPUs one after the other? There's no solid experiment here.

It did it once, I got my cpu replaced, upgraded BIOS and it all works... Kept the same mobo.

Not trying to make an argument, just want to understand.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> I guess I'm confused then... shouldn't my strix board be ruining CPUs one after the other? There's no solid experiment here.
> 
> It did it once, I got my cpu replaced, upgraded BIOS and it all works... Kept the same mobo.
> 
> Not trying to make an argument, just want to understand.


Nobody knows what is the deal. Two months ago i was also thinking my TUF X99 can last me for another 5 years at least. Then it just died. So i can only assume ASUS X99 line up has higher failure rate than other platforms


----------



## Synik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> I guess I'm confused then... shouldn't my strix board be ruining CPUs one after the other? There's no solid experiment here.
> 
> It did it once, I got my cpu replaced, upgraded BIOS and it all works... Kept the same mobo.
> 
> Not trying to make an argument, just want to understand.


Well I am scared to use the mobo because I had it as the May bios. It is still the same bios. There is no new update for September.


----------



## moonbogg

I lowered my ram to 3000mhz from 3200 and VCCSA down to 1.15 from 1.27. I expected it to not even post, but been playing BF1 fine. I think going from 3000 to 3200 ram speed with this chip is a very tall order and needs 1.27 VCCSA for stability. I'll leave it at 3000 and maybe try to get VCCSA even lower, but I think its fine at 1.15.


----------



## xenkw0n

I should join in on the fun here! I too am a proud (/s) owner of an ASUS X99 board that enjoys murdering CPU's! Well... I hope it's only that I was the owner of such a motherboard, finally got ASUS to replace it. The replacement is cleary 'refurbished', though. I just have to wonder if it was also sent in for murdering processors (as I sit here ALSO wondering if the motherboard will notice I'm talking about it and take me out right now).

Long story short, X99 A-II Motherboard and 6800k purchased in June of 2016. Overclocked to a safe 4.1ghz @ 1.2v core and 3.4ghz 1.1v Cache with 2800mhz CL14 memory 1.24v DRAM, 1.04v VCCSA, 1.1v VCCIO. Pretty standard, very safe, yes?

April 2017 first processor dies. I do the full gammut of tests. Each memory stick in each memory slot, different GPU, PSU, No GPU, No RAM, just looking for an error code: Nothing. I don't even get 00, it just boot loops... Initially I thought it was the motherboard but ASUS sent it back with the very detailed response of, "test ok." Cool, still doesn't work for me, ASUS. Contacted Intel, got a replacement.

September 2017 second processor dies. Same overclock (thought maybe I actually did have a VERY RARE occurrence of a defective CPU) - After reading some of the overclocks in this thread I have to still think that my overclock was very modest. Clearly it's not the processor so I just have to test my voltages for the PSU by using it in a different build and everything looks fine (12v stays at 12.000 whether under full load or idle, 5v stays at 5.000 whether full load or idle, 3.3v stays at 3.26 at idle, 3.28 under load, not 100% spot on like the 12v or 5v but still well within spec, and honestly, I'm pretty impressed with these voltage readings). This time though I contact ASUS support and pretty much get to the point where I'm demanding a new Motherboard (I really wasn't rude, I just had to thoroughly explain everything I've done as far as testing is concerned and the fact that I've had a 2nd processor die means something is clearly wrong with something else). I get the "new" board, got Intel to send me another 6800k (Intel reps have been top-notch, I even have a running ticket open for follow-up and sent over ~10 different links to forum posts complaining about ASUS X99 boards killing processors).

So the few things I'm doing different is manually setting every voltage I can through the Motherboard, I didn't use XMP, made sure TPU was disabled, checked to see if the overvoltage switch on the board was disabled, then re-installed a fresh copy of Windows on the formatted SSD. I did NOT download the ASUS AI Suite software. I do not want any more software-based UEFI controls running anymore - The last build I had was an X58 and this being my first real experience playing around with a UEFI solution has left me very put-off. I didn't even install ASUS Aura, I just have it on Green right now and controlled my fans through the "Q-Control" options in the BIOS.

Pretty much the same overclock as before except I went for 3000mhz memory CL14 at 1.3v DRAM and 1.08 VCCSA + 1.08 VCCIO. I did notice this chip required a little more Cache voltage than before to hit 3.4ghz but the chip runs ice-cold compared to the other 2 I had. 62c max at 1.22vcore, 1.12v cache while using Prime95 26.6 or whatever that safe version is (Small or Blended settings give me the same max temps after an hour). Before they would both hit 70-75c under the same stress test and similar overclocks. I'm using a Noctua NH-U14S with two Thermalright TY-147A fans so while it's not the best air cooler and certainly not a liquid solution, it gets the job done very well. I personally like the trade-off of slightly more voltage for a 10c drop in max temps - I was able to get 3000mhz memory stable at only 1.3v DRAM and VCCSA/VCCIO around 1.1v with this chip is a big improvement compared to my first one, never tried with my second. If anyone reads this far, is 1.3v for DRAM considered 'safe'? I know the XMP profile is 3200mhz CL15 at 1.35v but I just don't want to have to run it that high if I can get a nice frequency with tightened timings and less voltage.

EDIT:: I guess that wasn't really short.


----------



## xkm1948

Two dead CPUs in a row on ASUS X99, man that is messed up. Were you using adaptive vcore or offset vcore? Some say adaptive vcore might result in voltage overshoot as well. Good idea using all manual voltage input.

The more I research into this the more i am leaning towards abandoning ASUS boards. Either another brand of X99 or just X299. It is seriously not fun to have to constantly deal with RMA and system down time.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Two dead CPUs in a row on ASUS X99, man that is messed up. Were you using adaptive vcore or offset vcore? Some say adaptive vcore might result in voltage overshoot as well. Good idea using all manual voltage input.
> 
> The more I research into this the more i am leaning towards abandoning ASUS boards. Either another brand of X99 or just X299. It is seriously not fun to have to constantly deal with RMA and system down time.


I was using Adaptive and should specify I still am. I didn't read enough through this thread to come across talk of adaptive voltage causing some voltage overshoot... Great. What I meant by manually setting voltages was that I was manually controlling every value I possibly could, not that it was all on "manual" mode. My adaptive voltage right now requires a negative offset of .03 and a turbo of .0005 to get most of my cores around 1.2-1.25v (very wide range of VID's... cool, Intel!). I was more under the impression it could have been caused by some random voltage spiking due to some obscure auto voltage setting and maybe a little sleep/c-state changes causing some odd temporary spikes. I really have no idea... It's why I also didn't install the UEFI software, I don't want their software running and possibly effecting one or any of the different scenarios I just described through some type of software bug either.

It does suck having to go through this process. The testing... the shipping... waiting... rebuild, re-overclock (though it's interesting to see the results of different chips... my current one is a J batch, Malaysia - J626B504). The time spent is just obnoxious when I specifically wasn't going for a type of overclock that I'd ever have to really worry about... It's just really convenient that I had my 'shrine' finished so when my X99-A II decided to kill my second processor I just temporarily moved my X58 media PC back over to my desk (what a reliable, fun system - 8 yr old motherboard and 6 yr old Xeon chip running strong). That motherboard is also ASUS... P6X58D-E.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonbogg*
> 
> I lowered my ram to 3000mhz from 3200 and VCCSA down to 1.15 from 1.27. I expected it to not even post, but been playing BF1 fine. I think going from 3000 to 3200 ram speed with this chip is a very tall order and needs 1.27 VCCSA for stability. I'll leave it at 3000 and maybe try to get VCCSA even lower, but I think its fine at 1.15.


? Not worth from 3000 to 3200 to increase vccsa that high, you made the right choice


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> Here's my theory, since it happened to me:
> 
> They fixed the issue with BIOS updates. (this is my speculation)
> 
> For a bit , they were releasing bios updates almost weekly. Tells me they were fixing the issue.
> 
> I was on the stock BIOS, August 2016 was when I built the machine. 4 days later without updating BIOS, dead 6900k. Did the motions, tried another mobo with same cpu, confirmed that the strix killed the cpu, sent cpu back got a new one NP.
> 
> I have the same board, it's been over a year since it happened. I've taken the CPU to 4.4 1.38 voltage 3200 ram, vccsa at 1.1. It was stable for a few months, but decided to take it down to 4.3, 1.27V, 3200 and VCCSA at 1.06 for daily.
> 
> Haven't had any issues. I believe it was in the BIOS. Not defending ASUS, just saying you're probably OK if it hasn't happened already. I think this cpu killing happened to those that had older BIOSes. Still ****ty, but you may be OK. If you're worried, RMA the board and upgrade the BIOS on the replacement before installing the cpu.


I bought the x99 strix 3 month ago till now no issue thx god.
When i bought it, before instaling the os i updated the bios to 1703 latest and perform a clear CMOS.


----------



## CptSpig

My post got deleted because I did not have a link to my sale. So here goes again.

I have my X99 MSI Godlike Gaming carbon for sale on the market place. See link below. I also have a i7-6950x and 32gb of 3200 Corsair Dominator Platinum memory for sale.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1639091/msi-godlike-gaming-carbon-mb-intel-i7-6950x-and-corsair-32gb-3200-mhz-dominator-platinum#post_26366632


----------



## xenkw0n

Hmmm this new chip might be even better than I thought. Some more tweaking/testing and I was able to get VCCSA and VCCIO down to 1.05v while keeping 3.4ghz cache @ 1.13v and 3000mhz memory CL14 1.3v DRAM.

Is 1.3v DRAM totally acceptable on X99 for 24/7 extended use?


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Hmmm this new chip might be even better than I thought. Some more tweaking/testing and I was able to get VCCSA and VCCIO down to 1.05v while keeping 3.4ghz cache @ 1.13v and 3000mhz memory CL14 1.3v DRAM.
> 
> Is 1.3v DRAM totally acceptable on X99 for 24/7 extended use?


Depends on RAM sticks. Mine operated at 1.35V all year round at 3000MHz 14-14-14


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Depends on RAM sticks. Mine operated at 1.35V all year round at 3000MHz 14-14-14


I'm much more concerned with the IMC than I am with damaging the memory itself. Memory is typically very reliable and you can push pretty intense voltages through them, even modules without heatsinks, and not have to worry about damaging the memory. So yea since Ive had chips die on me already I'm much more interested in the consensus on DRAM voltage as it relates to IMC strain.

Mine are TridentZs rated for 3200mhz cl15 1.35v and I have them at 3000mhz 14 14 14 32 400 1T at 1.3v right now. 1.05 VCCSA and VCCIO CPU.


----------



## moonbogg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> ? Not worth from 3000 to 3200 to increase vccsa that high, you made the right choice


Yeah thanks for mentioning that a couple pages back. It never occurred to me to try *gasp* reducing the ram speed! But it worked. Its now at only 1.1v SA voltage with better timings now, so no loss of bandwidth really. The chip just HATED that extra 200mhz. I really didn't expect it to behave like that. Really bizarre and surprising.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonbogg*
> 
> Yeah thanks for mentioning that a couple pages back. It never occurred to me to try *gasp* reducing the ram speed! But it worked. Its now at only 1.1v SA voltage with better timings now, so no loss of bandwidth really. The chip just HATED that extra 200mhz. I really didn't expect it to behave like that. Really bizarre and surprising.


This is my experience with ram oc:

5 month trying to get from 2933 mhz 14-16-16-31 to 3200mhz 16-18-18-36 with no luck, finally i was able to do it by increase ram voltage from 1.35 to 1.37 and vccsa from 1.05 to 1.08v via offset, now vccsa offset is 0.188V

Google stress test is the app that helped me to go from 2933 to 3200
Fisrt i tried 1.35v ram voltage, error detected with google stress test, until 1.37 v, i passed 8 hours of google stresst test under linux boot it via usb.
Then i used hci memtest to find the right vccsa.
Started with offset 0.108v and increasing it 0.01v until passed the 1000% coverage
Then realbench 8 hours.
I used occt large data set 3 hours for cpu core stability.
Hci memtest also test cache, google stress test is more for ram only without cache.
Yes you can lower the ram speed to 3000 and fine tune the cas latency and you will have same bandwith.
Also vccsa need to be not high and not low, realbench steess test with max of your ram usage for 8 hours find if your vccsa also is good, IF luxmark stopped working and the cpu test continue, then you need to increase the vccsa.
Again dont go above 1.1V
I dont know if google stress test , need the vccsa to be perfect, but realbench yes, because it stress test the gpu with the cpu and ram.
VCCSA is the most pain voltage in oc.
BTW put VCCIO to 1.1V not more for max stability especially if you are ocing cache.
If your timing are to low also inteoduce instability.
Generally: 3200 is 16-18-18-36
3000: 15-17-17-36
Read all your voltages via aida64
?


----------



## TeraInferno

Hello all. I am looking to gently overclock my i7-6850k to 4 GHz as well as bump my RAM DIMMS to their rated 3000 MHz. I am pretty new to overclocking and this will be my first system I overclock. Any advice on how best to do this? Thanks.

Hardware:

Intel i7-6850k
Motherboard: ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 8x 8 GB (PC4-24000 (3000MHz))
PSU: Corsair AX760
More details on the rig should be in my sig.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TeraInferno*
> 
> Hello all. I am looking to gently overclock my i7-6850k to 4 GHz as well as bump my RAM DIMMS to their rated 3000 MHz. I am pretty new to overclocking and this will be my first system I overclock. Any advice on how best to do this? Thanks.
> 
> Hardware:
> 
> Intel i7-6850k
> Motherboard: ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10
> RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 8x 8 GB (PC4-24000 (3000MHz))
> PSU: Corsair AX760
> More details on the rig should be in my sig.


You have the best motherboard in the world to only oc the cpu to 4ghz!!
You can to go 4.2-4.3 and you will be safe.
Watch some videos on youtube to be familiar with your board bios and features, read in this thread and i will put some advices based on my small experience.
64 gb ram is totally overkill and will reduce your ram speed supported by your CPU, because it is much lighter on the cpu IMC to handle 32 gb ram than 64 gb ram.
4x8 quad channel is totally enough.
Dont forget to update your bios to the latest even before installing the OS


----------



## TeraInferno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> You have the best motherboard in the world to only oc the cpu to 4ghz!!
> You can to go 4.2-4.3 and you will be safe.
> Watch some videos on youtube to be familiar with your board bios and features, read in this thread and i will put some advices based on my small experience.
> 64 gb ram is totally overkill and will reduce your ram speed supported by your CPU, because it is much lighter on the cpu IMC to handle 32 gb ram than 64 gb ram.
> 4x8 quad channel is totally enough.


I use this desktop for more than just gaming. I also use it as a software development workstation where extra cores and ram come in handy, especially when running multiple virtual machines.

Is there a ram speed I should aim for when I have 64 GB of RAM installed? I would think I could go higher than the default 2133 MHz.

Thanks for the info regarding OC capabilities. Once I get up to 4 GHz, I will try pushing towards 4.3 GHz. I do have a closed-loop liquid cooler. (Corsair Hydro Series™ H100i v2).

Thanks.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TeraInferno*
> 
> I use this desktop for more than just gaming. I also use it as a software development workstation where extra cores and ram come in handy, especially when running multiple virtual machines.
> 
> Is there a ram speed I should aim for when I have 64 GB of RAM installed? I would think I could go higher than the default 2133 MHz.
> 
> Thanks for the info regarding OC capabilities. Once I get up to 4 GHz, I will try pushing towards 4.3 GHz. I do have a closed-loop liquid cooler. (Corsair Hydro Series™ H100i v2).
> 
> Thanks.


if for workstation, then yes 64 GB are needed.
for ram speed, there is a high probability to be able to run all of them at 3000 mhz, you need to test.
for the liquid cooler h100i, 4 Ghz is enough, for 4.2 - 4.3 Ghz with increasing core voltage, you need a 280 or 360 liquid cooler like h115i, NZXT X62 or thermaltake 360 mm.

watch this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW6gBneg3VA

my only modification is, don't keep VCCSA to auto , max VCCSA 1.1 V manual or via offset voltage (starting offset from 0.108V and read the voltage in windows using aida64).
I don't trust prime95., the ultimate CPU OC stability test is OCCT and large data set, testing for 3 hours without detecting errors, it uses also AVX instructions.
for RAM stability test, you have HCI MEMTEST (1000% coverage required for stability confirmation), and google stress test under linux :
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?73665-Our-preferred-memory-stress-test

be aware on putting anything in bios that is dangerous by mistake, the bios will tell you by making the number in purple or red, normally should be white or yellow.

watch your temp when stress testing on all your cores, don't go above 80 degree C.
in your case, you need to use only xmp and it will show you 3000 mhz to select it, because it is the rated speed of your ram, in the above video, he have ram speed at 3600mhz which cannot be supported by BWE, this is why he also down clock the ram speed to 3200.

you can keep the negative offset AVX to auto, which will prevent the CPU from down clocking when using AVX.
AVX instructions requires higher voltage on the CPU, or lower frequency with the same voltage to maintain stability, it uses more power than normal instruction, but you need to test it.


----------



## TeraInferno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> if for workstation, then yes 64 GB are needed.
> for ram speed, there is a high probability to be able to run all of them at 3000 mhz, you need to test.
> for the liquid cooler h100i, 4 Ghz is enough, for 4.2 - 4.3 Ghz with increasing core voltage, you need a 280 or 360 liquid cooler like h115i, NZXT X62 or thermaltake 360 mm.
> 
> watch this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW6gBneg3VA
> 
> my only modification is, don't keep VCCSA to auto , max VCCSA 1.1 V manual or via offset voltage (starting offset from 0.108V and read the voltage in windows using aida64).
> I don't trust prime95., the ultimate CPU OC stability test is OCCT and large data set, testing for 3 hours without detecting errors, it uses also AVX instructions.
> for RAM stability test, you have HCI MEMTEST (1000% coverage required for stability confirmation), and google stress test under linux :
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?73665-Our-preferred-memory-stress-test
> 
> be aware on putting anything in bios that is dangerous by mistake, the bios will tell you by making the number in purple or red, normally should be white or yellow.
> 
> watch your temp when stress testing on all your cores, don't go above 80 degree C.
> in your case, you need to use only xmp and it will show you 3000 mhz to select it, because it is the rated speed of your ram, in the above video, he have ram speed at 3600mhz which cannot be supported by BWE, this is why he also down clock the ram speed to 3200.
> 
> you can keep the negative offset AVX to auto, which will prevent the CPU from down clocking when using AVX.
> AVX instructions requires higher voltage on the CPU, or lower frequency with the same voltage to maintain stability, it uses more power than normal instruction, but you need to test it.


Trying out settings and working on reaching my sweet spot. I am making the changes in the ASUS UEFI BIOS.

Most recent (changed from defaults):


AI Overclock Tuner -> XMP
XMP -> XMP DDR4-3000 15-17-17-35-1.35V
CPU Strap -> 125 MHz
BCLK -> 125
CPU Core Ratio -> Sync All Cores
1-core ratio limit -> 32
AVX Negative Offset -> 3
Min CPU Cache Ratio -> 25
Max CPU Cache Ratio -> 25
DRAM Frequency -> DDR4-3000MHz
External Digi+ Power Control : CPU Load-Line Calibration -> Level 6
Internal CPU Power Management : Long Duration Package Power Limit -> 4095
Internal CPU Power Management : Short Duration Package Power Limit -> 4095
CPU Core Voltage -> 1.2
CPU Cache Voltage -> 1.15
CPU Input Voltage -> 1.80
DRAM Voltage(CHA, CHB) -> 1.35
DRAM Voltage(CHC, CHD) -> 1.35
Most of these are from the youtube video you had linked.

This setting does get me to 4GHz, but under load, the cores run at over 80 C and 2-3 cores seem to pop over 90 C (Core 5 in particular seems to run hotter).

Couple of questions & thoughts:

1: Should I downgrade the BCLK to 100? From what I have seen in the reading I am doing, it is encouraged to keep the BCLK at 100. The reason it is at 125 at the moment is that, when I applied the XMP profile, it was bumped up to 125.

2: It seems like I need to downgrade one or more of these parameters. Any recommendations?

3: It seems like I could also use some more cooling. I do have an unused Corsair H115I still in the original packaging. I can remove the H100i V2 and install this. As for other fans, I have 2 fans on the chassis. One 140MM fan in the rear and One 200mm fan in the front. Both of these are connected to the Rampage V Edition 10.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TeraInferno*
> 
> Trying out settings and working on reaching my sweet spot. I am making the changes in the ASUS UEFI BIOS.
> 
> Most recent (changed from defaults):
> 
> 
> AI Overclock Tuner -> XMP
> XMP -> XMP DDR4-3000 15-17-17-35-1.35V
> CPU Strap -> 125 MHz
> BCLK -> 125
> CPU Core Ratio -> Sync All Cores
> 1-core ratio limit -> 32
> AVX Negative Offset -> 3
> Min CPU Cache Ratio -> 25
> Max CPU Cache Ratio -> 25
> DRAM Frequency -> DDR4-3000MHz
> External Digi+ Power Control : CPU Load-Line Calibration -> Level 6
> Internal CPU Power Management : Long Duration Package Power Limit -> 4095
> Internal CPU Power Management : Short Duration Package Power Limit -> 4095
> CPU Core Voltage -> 1.2
> CPU Cache Voltage -> 1.15
> CPU Input Voltage -> 1.80
> DRAM Voltage(CHA, CHB) -> 1.35
> DRAM Voltage(CHC, CHD) -> 1.35
> Most of these are from the youtube video you had linked.
> 
> This setting does get me to 4GHz, but under load, the cores run at over 80 C and 2-3 cores seem to pop over 90 C (Core 5 in particular seems to run hotter).
> 
> Couple of questions & thoughts:
> 
> 1: Should I downgrade the BCLK to 100? From what I have seen in the reading I am doing, it is encouraged to keep the BCLK at 100. The reason it is at 125 at the moment is that, when I applied the XMP profile, it was bumped up to 125.
> 
> 2: It seems like I need to downgrade one or more of these parameters. Any recommendations?
> 
> 3: It seems like I could also use some more cooling. I do have an unused Corsair H115I still in the original packaging. I can remove the H100i V2 and install this. As for other fans, I have 2 fans on the chassis. One 140MM fan in the rear and One 200mm fan in the front. Both of these are connected to the Rampage V Edition 10.


Concerning the cooling, the H100i is not able to handle the OC of the 6850K,
small comparison, my 115i in push pull configuration on my 6900K @ 4.3 never go above 50 degree C under normal load, and 70 Degree C on all core with stress test.
I recommend to replace the cooler with the H115I and put the fans on push pull configuration (4 fans, 2 push, 2 pull)
You need a good thermal paste between the cooler water block and the CPU, if the H115I have pre applied thermal paste, keep it, if not, use MX-4 or thermal grizzly kyronaut.

Yes BCLK better to be 100, if RAM not stable, keep the XMP DDR4-3000, and then change the DRAM frequency manually to 2933mhz.
check if your timing will remain 15-17-17-35, if not change them manually in DRAM timing.

My modification will be:

[*] AI Overclock Tuner -> XMP
[*] XMP -> XMP DDR4-3000 15-17-17-35-1.35V
[*] CPU Strap -> 100MHz
[*] BCLK -> 100
[*] CPU Core Ratio -> Sync All Cores
[*] 1-core ratio limit -> 40
[*] AVX Negative Offset -> auto
[*] Min CPU Cache Ratio -> 31
[*] Max CPU Cache Ratio -> 33 (I a 100% sure your CPU can do cache to 33 with 1.15V, my 6900K can do cache 37 at 1.2V)
[*] DRAM Frequency -> DDR4-3000MHz or 2933 MHz if instability detected with bclk 100 and ram frequency 3000
[*] External Digi+ Power Control : CPU Load-Line Calibration -> Level 6
[*] Internal CPU Power Management : Long Duration Package Power Limit -> 4095
[*] Internal CPU Power Management : Short Duration Package Power Limit -> 4095
[*] CPU Core Voltage -> 1.2
[*] CPU Cache Voltage -> 1.15
[*] CPU Input Voltage -> 1.80
[*] DRAM Voltage(CHA, CHB) -> 1.35
[*] DRAM Voltage(CHC, CHD) -> 1.35

Don't keep VCCSA to auto, it will be unneeded high value, and can damage your CPU.
Put it manually to 1.05-1.08V will be good in this range and sufficient to stabilize the ram (Read actual VCCSA voltage in aida64 to be sure what is you vccsa under windows) it must be in this range, 1.04V, 1.048V, 1.056, 1.08,...

CPU VCCIO (1.05V) put it manually at 1.05V the default value, and not auto
you can go for 1.1V for max stability especially if you are ocing the cache, not more than 1.1V

Maybe your CPU will be stable with AVX at 4ghz, why you need to loose performance from 4 Ghz to 3.7Ghz, you are on ultra safe voltage, if not stable, increase it 0.01-0.02V , 1.2V -> 1.21-1.22V

push pull configuration for max cooling and increase you case fans in your case (intake) and room temperature must be low especially when stress testing.

Note that, your are in fully manual mode, if you cpu at idle, it will drop frequency to 1.2 Ghz (if balanced power plan is chosen In the OS), but the voltage will remain 1.2V,

If you want to use adaptive voltage, you need to disable fully manual mode.

in this case VCCSA must be entered via offset and not manual, offset will be 0.108-0.158V, 0.168.. (increase 0.01V) (don't go above total VCCSA 1.1V reading using aida65). (Read the voltage in aida 64).
offset will add voltage to the stock voltage, I think the stock voltage is 0.892V, with offset, the voltage will be 0.892+0.158=1.05V = actual voltage for VCCSA for example.

and in this case, here you have an issue, that using adaptive voltage, you cannot have less than 1.27V under load for the CPU core votlage, this is how the CPU work.

e.g.: if you are in adaptive voltage mode for the CPU, and 1.2V core voltage in bios, under full load the CPU voltage will be 1.27V, it will not drop under 1.27V, and under idle it will drop to 0.78V (1.2ghz) (read the voltage using CPU-Z)

or you can keep it full manual mode for the CPU, and the CPU will be always at 1.2V at load and idle.
if you want to use adaptive, you need to take advantage of the 1.27V, in this case put the frequency to 4.2Ghz, and try, but don't do it with you actual cooling.

don't use adaptive voltage with cache, it doesn't work, it is an issue with intel microcode, use manual or offset, I use manual voltage.

again, don't keep VCCSA to auto , it will go to 1.232-1.25V on auto, I read that there is someone that doesn't OC anything is his system, only enable XMP, the vccsa go from stock voltage to auto with xmp which is 1.232-1.25V, and after some days, the CPU is damaged, Don't keep vccsa at auto, max 1.1V and read the actual voltage using aida64. you can read all your voltages with aida64 or asus ai suite.

don't' forget to update your bios to the latest.









if there is any mistake in my English or something you didn't understand tell me, English is not my native language


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Btw be sure to connect both cpu power pins (8 +4) to the power supply not only the 8 pins, 8+4 is a must


----------



## JMTH

Just wanted to post my experience with the 6850K.

Below is a chart I made that shows the Core/Uncore speed and voltage required to at least pass the XTU benchmark and 1h of HWBOT RealBench.
The one where RealBench pushed the temperature too high and I aborted is shown in dark red. The final value I just got into windows to get a CPU-Z validation, no testing done at that level.

The memory was set at 3200 13-14-13-29-1 (4 X 16GB, 64GB) for all of the testing. All of that test information is in the 24/7 memory thread.

I also tried a few different ways to bump up the core MHz, but they cause issues of their own. When I was using the BCLK to up the MHz it would cause my M.2 drive to run at Gen 2 speed for anything above 101.0. When I tried to set a majority of core multipliers at say 43 and one or two at 46X the temp would go up pretty high and it took about 60-75% of the voltage to get to the 46X level. So i decided to only use 100 BCLK and tie all the cores together and go with 45X. All of these were done in full manual mode. It was not until I selected my final value that I changed to adaptive/offset.

The initial testing was just to get a baseline for what the chip could do. I then moved onto more extensive testing where I felt comfortable with the voltages (3 hour Gsat, 8 hour RealBench, 2h AIDA cache, >=1000% HCI, x265 x4 4k >=0.995). They will be the ones with the temperature shown in green. My goal was ~1.35v Core, ~1.20v Cache, and under 80deg C mac for the RealBench testing. Yeah I might of pushed a little hard, but I have the Intel Tuning Plan so what the heck hehe.



I finally ended up with 2 adaptive/offset configurations. The only difference between the two is the uncore level, one is 3700 the other 3400. The 3400 is saving me 3 deg C in the 8h RealBench test so thats what I am currently using.

Here are the final test screenshots for your enjoyment heh. Big thanks to Jmpboy and Scone in the 24/7 stability thread. They helped a great deal!


----------



## JMTH

I was just about to post a plot with the by individual core multipliers taken out when I noticed I forgot to update the uncore MHz for the BCLK modded runs. Here is the updated chart.



Here is the plot with the by individual core's taken out. The curve straightens out and the R^2 value goes up, but it doesn't mean much as there are not enough data points. Just interesting is all hehe.



I guess I should go back and do 3600 to 4100 MHz to get the entire curve, but we here to overclock!


----------



## Gdourado

With the first reviews of the 8700k online, how do you think it stacks against the 6850k for gaming? Is the 6850k completely obsolete for gaming? Or is it still a good choice since today both cpu and boards are cheaper on x99 vs z370?

Cheers


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> With the first reviews of the 8700k online, how do you think it stacks against the 6850k for gaming? Is the 6850k completely obsolete for gaming? Or is it still a good choice since today both cpu and boards are cheaper on x99 vs z370?
> 
> Cheers


I guess that would depend on your interpretation of *completely* obsolete.


----------



## TeraInferno

Just wanted to share an update in my quest for a gentle overclock of my rig. Thanks to @ELIAS-EH for helping me get started.

I have mostly used the settings you provided and have been running some tests on the setup. From your post:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Yes BCLK better to be 100, if RAM not stable, keep the XMP DDR4-3000, and then change the DRAM frequency manually to 2933mhz.
> check if your timing will remain 15-17-17-35, if not change them manually in DRAM timing.
> 
> My modification will be:
> 
> AI Overclock Tuner -> XMP
> XMP -> XMP DDR4-3000 15-17-17-35-1.35V
> CPU Strap -> 100MHz
> BCLK -> 100
> CPU Core Ratio -> Sync All Cores
> 1-core ratio limit -> 40
> AVX Negative Offset -> auto
> Min CPU Cache Ratio -> 31
> Max CPU Cache Ratio -> 33 (I a 100% sure your CPU can do cache to 33 with 1.15V, my 6900K can do cache 37 at 1.2V)
> DRAM Frequency -> DDR4-3000MHz or 2933 MHz if instability detected with bclk 100 and ram frequency 3000
> External Digi+ Power Control : CPU Load-Line Calibration -> Level 6
> Internal CPU Power Management : Long Duration Package Power Limit -> 4095
> Internal CPU Power Management : Short Duration Package Power Limit -> 4095
> CPU Core Voltage -> 1.2
> CPU Cache Voltage -> 1.15
> CPU Input Voltage -> 1.80
> DRAM Voltage(CHA, CHB) -> 1.35
> DRAM Voltage(CHC, CHD) -> 1.35
> Don't keep VCCSA to auto, it will be unneeded high value, and can damage your CPU.
> Put it manually to 1.05-1.08V will be good in this range and sufficient to stabilize the ram (Read actual VCCSA voltage in aida64 to be sure what is you vccsa under windows) it must be in this range, 1.04V, 1.048V, 1.056, 1.08,...
> 
> CPU VCCIO (1.05V) put it manually at 1.05V the default value, and not auto
> you can go for 1.1V for max stability especially if you are ocing the cache, not more than 1.1V
> 
> Maybe your CPU will be stable with AVX at 4ghz, why you need to loose performance from 4 Ghz to 3.7Ghz, you are on ultra safe voltage, if not stable, increase it 0.01-0.02V , 1.2V -> 1.21-1.22V


The changes I have made are:

AVX Negative Offset -> 2
Min CPU Cache Ratio -> 25
VCCSA -> 1.04
I will potentially boost the Cache Ratio and lower the AVX Offset once I have ensured I am stable with my current settings.

Last night, I ran an AIDA64 Stability Test for 8 hours. I selected the test CPU, FPU, Cache, and Memory options. When I checked on it in the morning, it was still running and seemed to be fine. The only odd thing was 2 pop-up alerts about disk space, which did not make much sense, as I have plenty to spare. Throughout the entirety of the test, no CPU Core had exceeded 72 C. That seems to be pretty good.

Looking to perform some more serious testing of the RAM overclock next.


----------



## Gdourado

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> I guess that would depend on your interpretation of *completely* obsolete.


I guess I am asking if it is still worth buying a 6850k due to it being cheaper. If it still performs or if the added cost of the 8700k is completely justified in performance.

Cheers


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> I guess I am asking if it is still worth buying a 6850k due to it being cheaper. If it still performs or if the added cost of the 8700k is completely justified in performance.
> 
> Cheers


Depends... 8700k will overclock further and for IPC concerns it will probably be slightly more efficient, making it the better choice for gaming. Thing is though x99 has more upgrade options if youre into that kinda thing later down the road. Really depends on how well games utilize more threads in the future, it's been slow-going on that front so it's really a toss-up. More PCIe lanes on x99 as well, fyi.


----------



## TeraInferno

Another update in my overclocking adventure.

Last night, I ran into an issue where I was unable to wake the system from sleep. My ROG Rampage V Edition 10 was displaying Q-Code E1 and would not progress any further. I was able to boot after performing a power cycle.

Did some googling and that seemed to indicate that my RAM OC may not be stable. As a result, I bumped up my VCCSA setting to 1.048 . I also ran the full test suite of Memtest86 overnight. When I checked this morning, it had finished 4 passes of all the tests and found no errors.

I also ran a 2 hour run of Prime95 Blend Mode. I did not have any system crashes or errors and the temperatures for any core did not exceed 84 C. Core 2 & 4 ran the hottest with max temps above 80 C. Core 3 and 6 maxed out at low 70's. Core 1 and 2 maxed out at high 60's. This seems to be decent.

Couple of questions:


Is 84 C too much for a single core in a Prime95 run? If so, I may need to look into bumping up the AVX Offset Ratio or reduce my OC.
Any ideas as to the variance I am seeing in max temperatures of individual cores?
Has anyone else experienced 'wake from sleep' issues? If so, how did you resolve it?
Any advice on any additional tests I should run? I have run 2hr Prime95 blend mode, 4 passes full Memtest86, and 8hr AIDA64 Stability Test.
Thanks!


----------



## Betroz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TeraInferno*
> 
> Couple of questions:
> 
> Is 84 C too much for a single core in a Prime95 run? If so, I may need to look into bumping up the AVX Offset Ratio or reduce my OC.
> Any ideas as to the variance I am seeing in max temperatures of individual cores?
> Has anyone else experienced 'wake from sleep' issues? If so, how did you resolve it?
> Any advice on any additional tests I should run? I have run 2hr Prime95 blend mode, 4 passes full Memtest86, and 8hr AIDA64 Stability Test.
> Thanks!


If you have a newer Prime95 that use AVX, then yes set AVX offset in BIOS. Stay under 80C load. Realbench 2.44 is better in my opinion (Realbench 2.54 uses AVX mind you).


----------



## TeraInferno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> If you have a newer Prime95 that use AVX, then yes set AVX offset in BIOS. Stay under 80C load. Realbench 2.44 is better in my opinion (Realbench 2.54 uses AVX mind you).


I was using the newest version of Prime95. I currently have the AVX offset set to 2. Could bump it to 3. Thanks for the info regarding Realbench. I will try that tool out.


----------



## StreekG

Hey guys,

I recently done some overclocking with my 6850K CPU on a MSI X99a Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard.

I wanted to share my results and ask if you think my temps are normal for my setup?

I ran a very stable OC at 4.3ghz at 1.3V with lots of stress testing and XMP enabled at 2666mhz. I can keep it stable at 1.29V if i need. However my CPU temps get to around 69-71 but no higher. I feel this is high, but i'm also new to this CPU, what do you all think? I can also confirm that i was running Prime 26.6 without AVX loading.

My watercooling loop consists of:

EK Supremacy EVO Acetal/Plexi block
XSPC EX360 35mm thick rad with 3 x Noctua NF-F12 Industrial PPC fans in push only, 2000RPM fans.
XSPC Dual bay res with single D5 vario pump.
Hard tubing with EK Cryofuel coolant.


----------



## xarot

I recently grabbed a new Asus X99-M WS mATX board for my i7-6950X which went into my HTPC.

I am using G.Skill Ripjaws4 DDR4-3200 CL16 4x4 kit. I set up XMP and the board set VCCIO 1.05V voltage to 1.25V and VCCSA at *1.312 V*! What are you doing, Asus? Is this voltage actually set by the memory kit XMP or not?

Even when doing manual overclock, I have to set VCCIO manually or it will be heavily overvolted. When I touch nothing, all is OK...


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TeraInferno*
> 
> Another update in my overclocking adventure.
> 
> Last night, I ran into an issue where I was unable to wake the system from sleep. My ROG Rampage V Edition 10 was displaying Q-Code E1 and would not progress any further. I was able to boot after performing a power cycle.
> 
> Did some googling and that seemed to indicate that my RAM OC may not be stable. As a result, I bumped up my VCCSA setting to 1.048 . I also ran the full test suite of Memtest86 overnight. When I checked this morning, it had finished 4 passes of all the tests and found no errors.
> 
> I also ran a 2 hour run of Prime95 Blend Mode. I did not have any system crashes or errors and the temperatures for any core did not exceed 84 C. Core 2 & 4 ran the hottest with max temps above 80 C. Core 3 and 6 maxed out at low 70's. Core 1 and 2 maxed out at high 60's. This seems to be decent.
> 
> Couple of questions:
> 
> 
> Is 84 C too much for a single core in a Prime95 run? If so, I may need to look into bumping up the AVX Offset Ratio or reduce my OC.
> Any ideas as to the variance I am seeing in max temperatures of individual cores?
> Has anyone else experienced 'wake from sleep' issues? If so, how did you resolve it?
> Any advice on any additional tests I should run? I have run 2hr Prime95 blend mode, 4 passes full Memtest86, and 8hr AIDA64 Stability Test.
> Thanks!


4 softwares are the best when OC your system. Use them only, i tried every stress test software you think about and here are the best:

1- OCCT large data set (best OC stress test for the CPU core) note that OCCT use avx.

2- pure ram OC check: google stress test under linux(errors will be fenerated first minutes!) 3 hours without error will be enough.

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?73665-Our-preferred-memory-stress-test

3- RAM + cache under windows: HCI memtest (1000% coverage)

4- realbench 8 hours 2.54 it use avx
2.43 dont use avx

You should pass them all to finish you OC and be stable.
Start with the ram, then cpu then realbench in the end.

I never use sleep, always i shutdown my pc.


----------



## djgar

I use hibernation most of the time, occasionally restarting to initialize things. Works great - quicker startups and no common app setup than restarting from scratch.


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

Hi everyone, back on page 705 a couple of weeks ago I said I found on Amazon a new 6900k, for the amazing price of only $567 so I got it. Well.... you know how they say if it sounds too good to be true then it usually is -guess what it's really a Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-1603 v4!!!!!!









Here's a photo of it:



I never would have guessed it looking at it, quality removal of the IHS, I was amazed it booted. lol, Anyway contact Amazon and they will refund in 7 days no problems. I was looking forward to the new CPU, this is a bit of pain.


----------



## Betroz

In a few days I am building a PC with Asus Rampage V Extreme 10 and 6900K. The CPU was a replacement for a 5960X RMA, and the motherboard is new. I believe my 5960X's IMC died... I only had a mild OC on it too, 4200 core with 1.19v, uncore at 4000 with 1.20v and RAM at 3200 CL15 with 1.35v. It may have been my Asus X99 Deluxe that killed the CPU, but when I soon overclock my new 6900K and RV5-10, I want to know what you guys consider a safe 24/7 OC in regards to not killing my new CPU's IMC?

What I am aiming for is 4200/4300 on the core, 3000-3400 uncore and 2800-3000 on the memory (I have 4x 8GB 3600 MHz CL18 RAM though). The CPU is going to be cooled by a Kraken X62 with two Corsair ML140 PRO fans (1000-1200 rpm).


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> In a few days I am building a PC with Asus Rampage V Extreme 10 and 6900K. The CPU was a replacement for a 5960X RMA, and the motherboard is new. I believe my 5960X's IMC died... I only had a mild OC on it too, 4200 core with 1.19v, uncore at 4000 with 1.20v and RAM at 3200 CL15 with 1.35v. It may have been my Asus X99 Deluxe that killed the CPU, but when I soon overclock my new 6900K and RV5-10, I want to know what you guys consider a safe 24/7 OC in regards to not killing my new CPU's IMC?
> 
> What I am aiming for is 4200/4300 on the core, 3000-3400 uncore and 2800-3000 on the memory (I have 4x 8GB 3600 MHz CL18 RAM though). The CPU is going to be cooled by a Kraken X62 with two Corsair ML140 PRO fans (1000-1200 rpm).


the IMC on Broadwell-E is a bit more robust than HWE. Just keep cache voltage well below 1.3 (ideally 1.2V), and core below 1.35V. I've had my 6950X at 1.281V core and 1.2V cache since launch (with many "excursions" into the high 1.4V range for benches), still strong. 64GB of ram has been at 3400c13 with 1.45V since launch.


----------



## djgar

Ok, somewhat off-topic but lots of experience is in this forum, I've been using legacy boot to Windows, not UEFI. If I may tax your patience, what are the pros & cons of UEFI boot, and what the process / complications may be when switching, from the Asus BIOS and Windows perspective?

TIA, or kick me out to some other thread


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Ok, somewhat off-topic but lots of experience is in this forum, I've been using legacy boot to Windows, not UEFI. If I may tax your patience, what are the pros & cons of UEFI boot, and what the process / complications may be when switching, from the Asus BIOS and Windows perspective?
> 
> TIA, or kick me out to some other thread


Pros:
1) Native UEFI installation offers very fast boot up times and better integration with the hardware.
2) UEFI is the future. It is what will be supported in the long run. BIOS will eventually become entirely phased out.
3) GPT partitions do not have the size limitations of their MBR based counterparts.
4) GPT is also the future.

Cons:
1) Many backup and recovery utilities do not properly support GPT or do not properly support it under RAID configurations. There are working solutions though.


----------



## djgar

Thanks, Cpt!

Looks like I'll have to convert my system disk to GPT - I saw there's a built-in Windows utility for that, also I use Paragon's Hard Disk Manager Suite for image backups which also supports the conversion. I already use GPT in a couple of partitions I use to store the image backups, so no sweat there. I was worried about having to do a clean Windows install (re-configuring all my software would be a royal PITA), but it looks like only the disk conversion is required.

Thanks again


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Thanks, Cpt!
> 
> Looks like I'll have to convert my system disk to GPT - I saw there's a built-in Windows utility for that, also I use Paragon's Hard Disk Manager Suite for image backups which also supports the conversion. I already use GPT in a couple of partitions I use to store the image backups, so no sweat there. I was worried about having to do a clean Windows install (re-configuring all my software would be a royal PITA), but it looks like only the disk conversion is required.
> 
> Thanks again


My Pleasure.


----------



## djgar

Well, I did the conversion after the current Windows update and everything was, until I had a sudden reboot while surfing the web in one of my usual sites, no BSOD, no message, just the beeps and the BIOS boot screen. I have never had that in my current OC.

I saw no real current advantage, though as Cap mentioned it may be the only way at some point. My boot speed didn't improve. Can Windows do behind-the-scenes BIOS-level changes in the EFI state? I thought you could make BIOS changes from Windows but saw all it really does is a restart.

And frankly I prefer using the Intel BIOS for RAID management (state visible at boot time) to having to go into the ASUS BIOS - adds another layer with room for bugs. I know I'm being paranoid







.

So I'm back in legacy mode. Let's see if the re-boot maybe was caused by the Windows update.

THIS JUST IN









As I was writing this in legacy mode I got the same instant reboot (recovered the post draft!). I checked some things and noticed my keyboard and trackball had been reset to allow to wake. So it's either a bug in the wake procedure or the last Windows update. I'm back on GPT / EFI secure boot and cleared the wake settings. If it happens again the Windows update will be undone and see what happens.

Also found a way of getting the Intel BIOS screen on boot from EFI - leave the CSM storage entry in legacy mode.

Sorry for the somewhat off-topic ...


----------



## davidm71

Hi,

I just replaced my 5820K with a 6850K. Got a good deal. I'm on air right now and not ready to water cool just yet even though got the parts almost all ready.

So on air what settings do you guys recommend to get 4.0 ghz stable and memory up to 2800mhz (Has XMP but want manual config).

Thanks

Since its getting cold now my temps are great at stock 3.6 ghz idle at 25-28 degrees and load with prime95 at 55 degree average with random 65 degree spikes (rare).


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *davidm71*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I just replaced my 5820K with a 6850K. Got a good deal. I'm on air right now and not ready to water cool just yet even though got the parts almost all ready.
> 
> So on air what settings do you guys recommend to get 4.0 ghz stable and memory up to 2800mhz (Has XMP but want manual config).
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Since its getting cold now my temps are great at stock 3.6 ghz idle at 25-28 degrees and load with prime95 at 55 degree average with random 65 degree spikes (rare).


No two CPU's are the same so follow these links for a complete understanding of overclocking and better stability.









The whole system: http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
Memory look at the spoiler alerts: http://www.overclock.net/t/1569364/official-intel-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread


----------



## AMDKILLER

I am having a problem getting my 6900k over the 4.6ghz hump. Its at 1.52 v with a stable temp of 69c on bench. I have been all through the different ranges of voltages up to and including 1.6v. Any one have any suggestions?


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AMDKILLER*
> 
> I am having a problem getting my 6900k over the 4.6ghz hump. Its at 1.52 v with a stable temp of 69c on bench. I have been all through the different ranges of voltages up to and including 1.6v. Any one have any suggestions?


4.6 has been the top for me with 90 min RB and 2 hr GSAT stability but didn't want to go over 1.42 vcore. I'm down to 4.5 @ 1.37v now for 24/7.


----------



## JMTH

Yeah you probably don't want to go much over 1.3 to 1.4 max for core voltage for 24/7 use. Some would say 1.2 max for core even. 1.52 is getting into pretty dangerous territory.


----------



## AMDKILLER

Ok. I though maybe there were some other Voltages that needed to be tweeked to maybe hit 5 ghz. Right now at 4.6 ghz the idle temps are 25c-29c.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AMDKILLER*
> 
> Ok. I though maybe there were some other Voltages that needed to be tweeked to maybe hit 5 ghz. Right now at 4.6 ghz the idle temps are 25c-29c.


Let's just say if you even hit 4.7GHz at some outlandish vcore, you'll be alone


----------



## AMDKILLER

Also, that 1.52v is adaptive.


----------



## AMDKILLER

around 1.58v to 1.61v i booted to os and started stress test with cpuz but 5 seconds into the test it crashes.


----------



## AMDKILLER

4.7ghz that is.


----------



## inedenimadam

Dang...my X99-A really likes to give my 6800k insane voltage. I have been running XMP for a while, but I picked up a game that is entirely CPU limited, so I figured I would push the core and RAM a bit...left everything on AUTO and booted 3400Mhz on my 4x8 sticks and it shot VCCSA to 1.35 and VTT to 1.25...those are both purple if I manually enter a value to obtain those voltages...

Both boot and quick Aida check (I know this is a crap way to check RAM stability) at much lower voltages.


----------



## Betroz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AMDKILLER*
> 
> I am having a problem getting my 6900k over the 4.6ghz hump. Its at 1.52 v with a stable temp of 69c on bench. I have been all through the different ranges of voltages up to and including 1.6v. Any one have any suggestions?


If you want to kill your CPU, then go on









Broadwell-E is not the best overclocker. It is even a bit worse than the previous Haswell-E. 4.5 Ghz is considered very good on water... with 4.3 / 4.4 Ghz being the most normal speeds, at least for 24/7 use. I am running my 6900K at 4.3 Ghz with 1.275 VCORE and 1.856 VCCIN voltage.


----------



## xTesla1856

1.5v is a surefire way to kill a BW-E chip


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> 1.5v is a surefire way to kill a BW-E chip


What he said. You are letting the smoke out...


----------



## SavantStrike

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AMDKILLER*
> 
> around 1.58v to 1.61v i booted to os and started stress test with cpuz but 5 seconds into the test it crashes.


1.62?

Is this a suicide run?

Sent from my ZTE Axon 7 Resurrection Remix.


----------



## StreekG

That's crazy voltages. I wouldn't imagine what it would take to get my 6850k to 4.6ghz.

It needs minimum 1.29V for 4.3ghz. I have it at 1.301 for stability.


----------



## KCDC

I need 1.38v LLC7 for 4.4, but thats without messing with the Vin, Kinda put the OC stuff to the side for now. Letting it sit at 4.3/1.27.

I'll probably give 4.5 another go after figuring out other settings first, but I'd never dream going past 1.45v for benching.


----------



## davidm71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> The famous ASUS X99 killing CPUs. Take a look https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?88292-Strix-x99-Gaming-QCODE-00-over-night-after-several-small-issues
> 
> I am another victim. The Sabertooth X99 killed my 6950X while comitting suicide. ASUS knows about this and is probably fixing this via new firmwares. With their terrible RMA service and rude attitude I won't hold my breath of them covering the cost of damaged CPU. I won't be buying ASUS boards as well in the future. One month without a system while ASUS trying its best to NOT providing RMA.
> 
> For people who missed my initial problem, it was the dreaded qcode 00.
> 
> XMP plus adaptive vcore seems to cause over voltage. Be careful.


I also noted that my Asus Z170-WS was over volting the s$ite out of my 6700k at 1.36 auto volts! Didn't pay attention because I hadn't planned to overclock that machine and set everything to auto. Little did I know it auto overclocked it to 4.2 ghz @ 1.285 v of which swayed mostly up. Went in to bios and set it to manual and dialed it down. Hope nothing got cooked!


----------



## Agent-A01

Seems later chips are better overall.

Running a 6850k at 4.5 1.29v 3.7 cache 1.15v.
VCCSA at .9v VCCIN at 1.9v LLC7

Stable for 1 hour in p95 small fft and 1 hour of blend.
Went 300% in memtestpro.

I'll see if I can lower volts anymore, requires more testing.

Interesting to see that broadwell-e seems a lot cooler.

Avg temp in p95(no avx) is about 52c, max about 56c.
The lowest core is 44c.

5930k was quite higher than that with similar volts.


----------



## josephimports

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> Seems later chips are better overall.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Running a 6850k at 4.5 1.29v 3.7 cache 1.15v.
> VCCSA at .9v VCCIN at 1.9v LLC7
> 
> Stable for 1 hour in p95 small fft and 1 hour of blend.
> Went 300% in memtestpro.
> 
> I'll see if I can lower volts anymore, requires more testing.
> 
> Interesting to see that broadwell-e seems a lot cooler.
> 
> Avg temp in p95(no avx) is about 52c, max about 56c.
> The lowest core is 44c.
> 
> 5930k was quite higher than that with similar volts.


I've recently tested two samples and both perform nearly identical requiring 1.36v for 4.4. What is the batch number for your chip? Mine are L634H and J627B.


----------



## KCDC

That's what I get for being an early adopter...


----------



## Agent-A01

It's a malaysia chip, J634B334


----------



## Betroz

1 hour Prime95 isn't what I would call stable though.


----------



## Agent-A01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> 1 hour Prime95 isn't what I would call stable though.


That was a quick stability test.

It was 2 hours total of blend and small FFT.

I ran it for 4 hours blend yesterday which is good enough.


----------



## DaveyWar

Hi guys, new member here. I purchased my Broadwell-E i7 6850K back in December of 2016 to build my first gaming/workstation PC. I got a Corsair H115i 280mm AIO for cooling because I wanted to overclock the chip, but I was too intimidated to try building my own custom water-cooling loop. I used Arctic 5 thermal paste between the IHS and cold plate. I started with a mild overclock in January of 2017; dynamic per core multiplier of 42 on 1.2 volts and have happily stayed there for a couple of months.

Recently, after all the hype surrounding Intel's i8 8700K chip, I've been tweaking again to see how much more I could get out of my little old 6850K. I'm currently tinkering with a 45 multiplier on 1.39 volts. I tested stability on Aida64 Extreme for 4 hours with no AVX handicap applied. My max CPU core temp was 73 C, with an average CPU package temp of 72 C and a package max of 83 C. I sit idle at 28 C when the AIO loop hits a steady water temperature. Ambient in my home office is roughly 22 C. I'm running 32GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz DDR4 RAM. XMP is enabled and it's stable at 3000Mhz with XMP auto-configuring the timings at 1.35v. This is all sitting in an MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard.

I'm seeking insight here. Is this a good overclock considering what the majority of 6850K's have demonstrated? Should I be reducing the RAM speed to increase bandwidth? I'm also curious about running with adaptive+offset voltages, as opposed to my manual setting - I'll only been brave enough to touch the CPU voltage manually. Any info from owners of the 6850K and/or the MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard would be very appreciated.

Thanks in advance! And I apologize if this is the wrong thread for these types of questions and/or resurrecting a stale thread.


----------



## cg4200

Hey bud every chip is like lotto.
I have ek block and 4.5 every day @1.30 core 4.6 will game and bench but need 1.39
i would see if can get volts down a little for 4.5 if possible and stable..
vccin is big don't go to high though I run 1.90 up to 1.905
check sa volts also if you left auto depends on how much ram also more ram more volts
digital power make sure set vdroop i run 75percent and some settings can change to optimized
and ring for me is good at 34 everyday could go higher no big boost for me .. check core before ring cache for max and stabilty


----------



## iggy097

I was hoping the prices of the 6950's would come down to 5-600 ( used ) now that the 7900x is out for 1000 and beats the chip. Just don't want to have to sell my X99 mobo.


----------



## axiumone

Edit - All set. No longer applicable.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inedenimadam*
> 
> Dang...my X99-A really likes to give my 6800k insane voltage. I have been running XMP for a while, but I picked up a game that is entirely CPU limited, so I figured I would push the core and RAM a bit...left everything on AUTO and booted 3400Mhz on my 4x8 sticks and it shot VCCSA to 1.35 and VTT to 1.25...those are both purple if I manually enter a value to obtain those voltages...
> 
> Both boot and quick Aida check (I know this is a crap way to check RAM stability) at much lower voltages.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iggy097*
> 
> I was hoping the prices of the 6950's would come down to 5-600 ( used ) now that the 7900x is out for 1000 and beats the chip. Just don't want to have to sell my X99 mobo.


Depends on what X99 board you have. Asrock, MSI, Giga then keep it. ASUS X99 hell now. ASUS X99 boards are timed bombs, you never know when they want to commit suicide and kill your CPU as well.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Depends on what X99 board you have. Asrock, MSI, Giga then keep it. ASUS X99 hell now. ASUS X99 boards are timed bombs, you never know when they want to commit suicide and kill your CPU as well.


I second this. I'm so turned off from ASUS after dealing with their X99 boards killing my processors. My current combo (3rd time's the charm!?) is about 1.5 months old. Have had X99 since the Broadwell-E release.


----------



## Vellinious

Odd. I never had any issue with any of the ASUS X99 boards I used. I had the X99A, X99AII and RVE10. Of course, I never used auto voltage, either. Sure fire way to have a board fry a processor, imo.


----------



## xenkw0n

I've never used auto-voltages, either. I never even overclocked that far. X99-A II killed 2 6800k's within the span of 13 months. First one lasted 9 months, second one lasted 4 months. Finally got ASUS to send me a different board after the 2nd processor died so when I rebuilt my rig it was with a different X99-A II board + new CPU. This time though I've disabled any ASUS-specific board offerings and didn't install the AI Suite software after taking the 'opportunity' to just format Windows and start completely fresh.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> I've never used auto-voltages, either. I never even overclocked that far. X99-A II killed 2 6800k's within the span of 13 months. First one lasted 9 months, second one lasted 4 months. Finally got ASUS to send me a different board after the 2nd processor died so when I rebuilt my rig it was with a different X99-A II board + new CPU. This time though I've disabled any ASUS-specific board offerings and didn't install the AI Suite software after taking the 'opportunity' to just format Windows and start completely fresh.


I never touched AISuite, their software is just pure crap and IMPOSSIBLE to fully remove.

Have you ever overclocked the cache of your previous CPUs? That seems to be causing the most amount of dead CPUs on ASUS X99 offerings.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> I never touched AISuite, their software is just pure crap and IMPOSSIBLE to fully remove.
> 
> Have you ever overclocked the cache of your previous CPUs? That seems to be causing the most amount of dead CPUs on ASUS X99 offerings.


I had the cache overclocked on the 5820k, 6950X and 5930k. All of those CPUs are still running, and I put the boots to all of them in suicide benchmarking runs.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I had the cache overclocked on the 5820k, 6950X and 5930k. All of those CPUs are still running, and I put the boots to all of them in suicide benchmarking runs.


My original 5820K could take a beating. Not so much for the 6950X after that.

Before my 6950X crapped out I also thought my system was rock solid. Then out of nowhere it just decide to crap out.


----------



## Ultisym

Ive never had any issue with my ASUS X99 board either. Ive read a bit about the issue though.


----------



## xenkw0n

I had the Cache overclocked to 3.4ghz at a lowly 1.06v each time. 1.05v vccio and vccsa as well 3000mhz memory cl14 1.27v.

I specifically look for a decent overclock without ever coming near unsafe territory. Idk if it was the board hardware or software but something was defective.


----------



## djgar

No problems with my Strix I haven't caused myself, and I push cache as far as I can


----------



## Betroz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> No problems with my Strix I haven't caused myself, and I push cache as far as I can


But is there any real benefit outside of specific benchmarks for it to be worth it?


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> But is there any real benefit outside of specific benchmarks for it to be worth it?


A good night sleep.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> But is there any real benefit outside of specific benchmarks for it to be worth it?


Is there any benefit to turbocharging your car's engine if you don't run on a track?

It's called a hobby


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Is there any benefit to turbocharging your car's engine if you don't run on a track?
> 
> It's called a hobby


It goes to 11...

There are benefits depending on your application. I see a roughly 1:1 percentage bump in un-core frequency in large memory image, heavily threaded applications with lots of shared data among the cores/threads.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> It goes to 11...
> 
> There are benefits depending on your application. I see a roughly 1:1 percentage bump in un-core frequency in large memory image, heavily threaded applications with lots of shared data among the cores/threads.


Copying large files triggers max uncore ...


----------



## Betroz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Is there any benefit to turbocharging your car's engine if you don't run on a track?
> 
> It's called a hobby


Of course, but there is a big difference in pushing the uncore to the max (~3.7 Ghz), and running it at stock.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> Of course, but there is a big difference in pushing the uncore to the max (~3.7 Ghz), and running it at stock.


And that's my point - although there may be some benefits in pushing under certain situations, one of the purposes of a hobby is to pose a challenge to surpass.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> Of course, but there is a big difference in pushing the uncore to the max (~3.7 Ghz), and running it at stock.


Aside from the benefits mentioned above, there is the pleasure of getting people who don't like winning riled up.


----------



## djgar

Which reminds me, new CaseLabs S8 + pedestal coming in today - get me some breathing room as my current case is kind of stuffed. Gonna be a long week-end, draining and refilling. I always seem to get draining a bit messy ...


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Which reminds me, new CaseLabs S8 + pedestal coming in today - get me some breathing room as my current case is kind of stuffed. Gonna be a long week-end, draining and refilling. I always seem to get draining a bit messy ...


Winning!









Yeah, when I build my loops I always have the best of intentions for good drainage and then... I run out patience...

So, the computer gets disassembled outside and I leave time for "drying".


----------



## xkm1948

Yeah everything is fun and dandy when it works. However when it decides to crap out, well, it wont be fun and dandy any more. Feel free to push your BWE CPU X99 board as high as it can if you want. As long as you still have warranty and enjoy the adrenaline rush of overclocking there is nothing wrong with doing so.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Yeah everything is fun and dandy when it works. However when it decides to crap out, well, it wont be fun and dandy any more. Feel free to push your BWE CPU X99 board as high as it can if you want. As long as you still have warranty and enjoy the adrenaline rush of overclocking there is nothing wrong with doing so.


PTP - buy it - bake it. lol

Been running 4.4 core/3.7 uncore since launch.... Voltages, currents and temp kept under control. It's all good.

As this chip is aging, I'm getting more inclined to delid it to reduce temps even further, but for now it remains unmolested and under PTP.


----------



## xkm1948

Yeah some use these BWE for fun in overclocking, some use some for then HCC content creation/scientific research. Needless to say I am not impressed with the stability of the X99/BWE platform. Not even one bit,


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Yeah some use these BWE for fun in overclocking, some use some for then HCC content creation/scientific research. Needless to say I am not impressed with the stability of the X99/BWE platform. Not even one bit,


"computes" here under linux...

Haven't had any stability issues on HW Xeon, BW, Xeon, HWE or BWE - to what are you referring? 2x2690v4 @ stock, 1x [email protected] 1x [email protected], 1x 6950x @ 4.4, 6x 2696v3 @ 3.4GHz all-core.

Those are my computes - I have a 5930k that I use as a "dumb terminal" and desktop VM host - it will do 5.0GHz for giggles, I run it 4.5 normally...

There is the PCIe bug that causes random errors/retries on the PCIe bus, but its harmless and handled well by all OSes at this point.


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> But is there any real benefit outside of specific benchmarks for it to be worth it?


Rendering. As I do.


----------



## iggy097

Got my EK-P360 installed last night / this morning, very happy with the results.
Still have to install the bottom plate I ordered when it arrives to cover the empty HDD bays.
I used a dremel to remove the HDD bays to better fit the radiator - and contrary to what I was told here, I was able to mount the fans on the inside with a 360 radiator.
Now for the numbers - Broadwell 6800k
With my Corsair H115i -
33-38 Idle
3.8 OC 88-92c load ( 1.3v )
4.0 OC 100c + crash ( 1.37v )

With the EK-P360
33 idle
3.8 OC 58c load (1.3 v)
4.2 OC 67-70c load (1.33v)
4.4 brought the temps to 75 with a 1.37v but it wasn't stable enough

Settled on 4.3 with temps at 70-72 under full load.
All tests done with Realbench Benchmarks.

Now - I was expecting to get better temps, but I'm honestly surprised at how much better they are!


----------



## xkm1948

H115i should be way better than my D15. How come a 4.0 overclock gets that hot? Do you live in desert??? Was it even properly seated??

On my 6950X even a 4.2G overclock barely passes 70C during Realbench stress test.

Now with the EK setup the temp is a lot in line with other BWE overclock temp I have seen. Awesome lighting effect BTW!


----------



## iggy097

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> H115i should be way better than my D15. How come a 4.0 overclock gets that hot? Do you live in desert??? Was it even properly seated??
> 
> On my 6950X even a 4.2G overclock barely passes 70C during Realbench stress test.
> 
> Now with the EK setup the temp is a lot in line with other BWE overclock temp I have seen. Awesome lighting effect BTW!


I don't know why it was getting that high. I reseated several times - and reapplied/cleaned thermal paste each time. I'm not sure if the pump was faulty or what - but that's why I switched to a custom loop cooler as the temps were way too high.


----------



## xkm1948

Did you RMA that 115i? Something was very wrong with it.


----------



## iggy097

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Did you RMA that 115i? Something was very wrong with it.


I've had it for about a year now - It's sitting on my office floor at the moment.
Just submitted a ticket request - thanks for that - hadn't even thought of that


----------



## xkm1948

At least you did not damage your CPU. Probably reduced its overclocking potential though.

If you have the Intel tuning plan I would ask for a replacement. Or if you can wait I would even RMA that 6800K. Those were some insane temps for a BWE.


----------



## Betroz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> H115i should be way better than my D15. How come a 4.0 overclock gets that hot? Do you live in desert??? Was it even properly seated??
> 
> On my 6950X even a 4.2G overclock barely passes 70C during Realbench stress test.
> 
> Now with the EK setup the temp is a lot in line with other BWE overclock temp I have seen. Awesome lighting effect BTW!


Was that with the fans at 100% speed?


----------



## axiumone

Had a couple of drinks the other night and ordered a der8auers delid did mate x. It got here in 3 days from ocuk. Which was very surprising for shipping from uk to us.

Picked up a dead 6950x from another member here to delid. It was very easy considering the chip is soldered. The solder is actually very soft on these chips. It really reminded me of the hard long term thermal paste that's sometimes used, the solder was just a bit harder, but you could still get rid of it with just your fingernail. I also decided to sand the core of the dead cpu, to see how much of a protective layer is around the die. It turns out it's actually quite a lot. I gave up after around 200 laps with 2k grit and still haven't reached any copper underneath. And the last point of note is that the die size is exactly the same as my delided 6850k, I though this one would be a bit bigger for some reason.


----------



## spyui

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> Had a couple of drinks the other night and ordered a der8auers delid did mate x the other night. It got here in 3 days from ocuk. Which was very surprising for shipping from uk to us.
> 
> Picked up a dead 6950x from another member here to delid. It was very easy considering the chip is soldered. The solder is actually very soft on these chips. It really reminded me of the hard long term thermal paste that's sometimes used, the solder was just a bit harder, but you could still get rid of it with just your fingernail. I also decided to sand the core of the dead cpu, to see how much of a protective layer is around the die. It turns out it's actually quite a lot. I gave up after around 200 laps with 2k grit and still haven't reached any copper underneath. And the last point of note is that the die size is exactly the same as my delided 6850k, I though this one would be a bit bigger for some reason.


Can you show me how you delid your 6850k ? what tool do you use ? I believe der8auers delid die mate x is only compatible with skylake and kabylake x so i don't know how you can use that tool to delid 6950x. Is there any extra modding you didn't tell us ?


----------



## axiumone

2011-3 and 2066 chips are pretty much exactly the same dimensions. You’d use the same procedure to delid both of the chips. I had to flip the orientation of the arrow on the chip 180 degrees twice in order to get the sealant to finally break free. It’s a very easy process, but not for the faint of heart. I’d suggest buying a dead chip to practice with and just take your time.


----------



## spyui

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> 2011-3 and 2066 chips are pretty much exactly the same dimensions. You'd use the same procedure to delid both of the chips. I had to flip the orientation of the arrow on the chip 180 degrees twice in order to get the sealant to finally break free. It's a very easy process, but not for the faint of heart. I'd suggest buying a dead chip to practice with and just take your time.


Thank for the info. How much better temp do you get from your delided 6850k ?


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyui*
> 
> Thank for the info. How much better temp do you get from your delided 6850k ?


I bought my 6850k already delided from silliconlottery, so I don't know what the temps were before. However, since the chips are soldered, I'd guess that the difference would be a couple of degrees at best.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

So now the the broadwell cpus are fairly old how much vcore have you guys pushed and how long did they last im running 4.2ghz on 1.35 vcore with cache at 3600 using 1.18 riing voltage for mining my cpu wont really go any higher then 4.2 stable.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> So now the the broadwell cpus are fairly old how much vcore have you guys pushed and how long did they last im running 4.2ghz on 1.35 vcore with cache at 3600 using 1.18 riing voltage for mining my cpu wont really go any higher then 4.2 stable.


Used 1,37v since 6900k and 6850k was released. 4.4ghz on both. 1.25v cache for 3700 cache.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

cool id like to get more oc but im gonna need 1.4+ to get over 4.2.


----------



## axiumone

I’ve had mine at 1.4 for close to a year. No degradation noticed.


----------



## xkm1948

1.27v vcore, 1.25v vcache. 4.2GHz core and 3.7GHz cache. Killed my 6950x in two moth


----------



## xarot

1.25 V on cache sounds a bit high. I'd stick to 1.15 max.


----------



## djgar

Read my sig, for months, except last weekend I had some unfortunate happenings ...

I moved to a new CaseLabs and pardon the pun but I'm no fan of fan cleaning. After assembling, draining, moving and filling I was drained (again with the bad puns). Being old and working on the floor cross-legged and on the knees does that, like EVERYTHING HURT!

Anyway after three-four hours of leak checking I powered up, it booted, and a sudden shut-down. Restarting keeps shutting down before post. ***? My temp readout readout is ~25c, but opening the case I do notice there's a large bubble by the CPU inlet that doesn't move and the hose is too warm.

Turns out the pump motor (which I replaced a year ago for good luck) isn't working anymore. I put the old one back and circulation returns. I figured I fried the CPU - trying to boot keeps looping with code bd. Out of desperation I press the MemOK! button and dang! I'm in the BIOS! Long story short, the DIMMs cooked - no OC over 2600. I put my old 3200 Ripjaws back in @ 3200, but the CPU appears fine @ 4500. Weird.

Which brings me to my next post so no need to quote this dumb story ...


----------



## djgar

What's the best compromise DIMM kit for BW-E that's really good for next gens?


----------



## sabishiihito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> What's the best compromise DIMM kit for BW-E that's really good for next gens?


Probably G.Skill Trident Z 3200C14.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sabishiihito*
> 
> Probably G.Skill Trident Z 3200C14.


Running this 128G (8x16G) on SKLX.

It runs on both BWE and SKLX for me at sticker speeds BCLK=100, 3200C14 1.35v 14-14-14-34-1T (1T on SKL, not on BWE - that is still 2T - same dimms).

I've run it at 3600C16 as well, but I lose one channel (training fail during boot disables it) in that setting without further secondary/tertiary tuning. So, I'm not entirely sure what it can do beyond 3200C14, but boots and runs at that speed with 8x16G dimms, 8x8G (single side) or 4x8G _should_ have less/no trouble.

3200C14 won't top the benchmark charts, but it is one of the fastest kits on the market for real performance (random access) owing to the fast turn-around that 3200/14 represents relative to higher clock rate + higher clock count SKUs.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Running this 128G (8x16G) on SKLX.
> 
> It runs on both BWE and SKLX for me at sticker speeds BCLK=100, 3200C14 1.35v 14-14-14-34-1T (1T on SKL, not on BWE - that is still 2T - same dimms).
> 
> I've run it at 3600C16 as well, but I lose one channel (training fail during boot disables it) in that setting without further secondary/tertiary tuning. So, I'm not entirely sure what it can do beyond 3200C14, but boots and runs at that speed with 8x16G dimms, 8x8G (single side) or 4x8G _should_ have less/no trouble.
> 
> 3200C14 won't top the benchmark charts, but it is one of the fastest kits on the market for real performance (random access) owing to the fast turn-around that 3200/14 represents relative to higher clock rate + higher clock count SKUs.


Unfortunately that's the kit that went zap for me. It was a great kit. But they're going for double what I paid a year ago!


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Running this 128G (8x16G) on SKLX.
> 
> It runs on both BWE and SKLX for me at sticker speeds BCLK=100, 3200C14 1.35v 14-14-14-34-1T (1T on SKL, not on BWE - that is still 2T - same dimms).
> 
> I've run it at 3600C16 as well, but I lose one channel (training fail during boot disables it) in that setting without further secondary/tertiary tuning. So, I'm not entirely sure what it can do beyond 3200C14, but boots and runs at that speed with 8x16G dimms, 8x8G (single side) or 4x8G _should_ have less/no trouble.
> 
> 3200C14 won't top the benchmark charts, but it is one of the fastest kits on the market for real performance (random access) owing to the fast turn-around that 3200/14 represents relative to higher clock rate + higher clock count SKUs.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately that's the kit that went zap for me. It was a great kit. But they're going for double what I paid a year ago!
Click to expand...

Why not try rmaing them gskill usualy has great support

And to my question is their any magic settings to tweak lol to get less vcore i pushed all the way up to 1.47 vcore and still couldnt make 4300 stable more then a few mins in ibt or prime95 cooling is fine even on avx tests im under 75-80c.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> Why not try rmaing them gskill usualy has great support
> 
> ...


If they had failed on their own I would, but I did cook them literally, not their fault ...


----------



## xenkw0n

There's a reddit thread out there with a pretty decent list of Samsing B-die RAM models. Google that and you'll have a good list to go off of with pretty much the exact same memory modules, just clocked and sold at different XMP settings. As far as DDR4 memory is concerned, they are the best modules around (today), doesn't matter what platform you're using.


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Betroz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> No problems with my Strix I haven't caused myself, and I push cache as far as I can
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But is there any real benefit outside of specific benchmarks for it to be worth it?
Click to expand...

It can push the frames up quite far, further than I imagined.

Here's a few games tested on a i7 5820k﻿, 3.6 cache to 4.5


----------



## KCDC

Had my 6900K at 4.4 1.38, cache at 38 1.27 for just under a year or so since the proc came out, then backed it off recently to 4.3 and 1.28 to be safe. Probably will bump it back up, though I forget all my other settings I had jacked up, so will need some time devoted to a new OC. I'd love to get 4.5 stable, but had to push V past 1.410 which I wasn't very comfy with, I am figuring I need to bump up some other settings as well then maybe I can back off on the core voltage.

Cache voltage at 3.8 1.27v is rock solid, helps shave a few seconds per frame with rendering (c4d, maya). Pretty sure it helps out my particle sims as well (Real Flow). Can't say for sure until I do an actual side by side test.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> Had my 6900K at 4.4 1.38, cache at 38 1.27 for just under a year or so since the proc came out, then backed it off recently to 4.3 and 1.28 to be safe. Probably will bump it back up, though I forget all my other settings I had jacked up, so will need some time devoted to a new OC. I'd love to get 4.5 stable, but had to push V past 1.410 which I wasn't very comfy with, I am figuring I need to bump up some other settings as well then maybe I can back off on the core voltage.
> 
> Cache voltage at 3.8 1.27v is rock solid, helps shave a few seconds per frame with rendering (c4d, maya). Pretty sure it helps out my particle sims as well (Real Flow). Can't say for sure until I do an actual side by side test.


lol wish my 6800k could do 4.4 it needs 1.47 to do 4.3ghz.


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> lol wish my 6800k could do 4.4 it needs 1.47 to do 4.3ghz.


That sucks, dude... Plenty have hit that on your chip. RMA it and get a better sample hopefully? Also read the guide, may help you, not sure your skill level. LLC helps a bunch. as well as VCCIN, but I didn't adjust that..


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> lol wish my 6800k could do 4.4 it needs 1.47 to do 4.3ghz.
> 
> 
> 
> That sucks, dude... Plenty have hit that on your chip. RMA it and get a better sample hopefully? Also read the guide, may help you, not sure your skill level. LLC helps a bunch. as well as VCCIN, but I didn't adjust that..
Click to expand...

Yea i been up and down on input from 1.88 to 2.10 didnt change anything tried even with memory at 2400 still same only thing makes a difernce is vcore on this chip it seems like.


----------



## MadScientist565

Hey folks. Need a bit of a hand. Vccio cpu and pch were both on auto (oops) but with my computer in balanced mode so they werent hitting max voltage often. I set them both to 1.050 manually in uefi. however, hwinfo is now reporting that vccio cpu is running at 1.04, and vccio pch is still peaking at 1.303









board is x99 deluxe 2, chip is 6850k. fyi, hwinfo does report pch core as running at 1.056 under load.

can anyone shed any light on this 1.303 voltage for me.

also.. my computer will not shut down now. dont know if this is related. (force shutdown from cmd does kill everything, so i dont think its hardware related)

sensorsafterrealbench.JPG 243k .JPG file


_Reply from HWInfo

Sorry about the confusion, the "VCCIO PCH 1.05V" and "VCCIO CPU 1.05V" values under the ASUS EC heading and invalid. I will remove them in the next HWiNFO (Beta) build._


----------



## Seus

Please help, I think my overclock is crapping again. This has been a very stressful experience to say the least. I just want to get by for now until I get a pre-built PC.

Noticing little weird things in Windows and sometimes when I put the computer to sleep it crashes instead. I think I read somewhere that big updates require tweaking the overclock. I did notice the issues are happening more frequently since the recent big update on W10.

Overclock settings:
i7 6800k 4.2ghz 1.30v
Gskillz Tridentz 3200 4x8gb kit - Could not get this kit to run at 3200 even with 1.40v with or without XMP enabled. Left it at auto.
Gtx 1080 strix
Strix X99 Bios 1701 (latest)

CPUcache 35
CPUcacheV 1.25
VSAA 1.10
VCCIO 1.05


----------



## Agent-A01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> Please help, I think my overclock is crapping again. This has been a very stressful experience to say the least. I just want to get by for now until I get a pre-built PC.
> 
> Noticing little weird things in Windows and sometimes when I put the computer to sleep it crashes instead. I think I read somewhere that big updates require tweaking the overclock. I did notice the issues are happening more frequently since the recent big update on W10.
> 
> Overclock settings:
> i7 6800k 4.2ghz 1.30v
> Gskillz Tridentz 3200 4x8gb kit - Could not get this kit to run at 3200 even with 1.40v with or without XMP enabled. Left it at auto.
> Gtx 1080 strix
> Strix X99 Bios 1701 (latest)
> 
> CPUcache 35
> CPUcacheV 1.25
> VSAA 1.10
> VCCIO 1.05


Try lowering cache to 30 and leave cache voltage on auto.
You may be stable at 3200 after that.

You ought to check for memory errors as well.

As for windows, disable fast boot/hibernation.


----------



## MadScientist565

yeah fast boot is crap. I have a 6850 not a 6800, but im running 4.3 with 1.26 volts. Set to 1.23 in uefi, with an auto + offset. not sure why you need so much voltage. Cache is the big deal on these chips. Try it at 30, then 32 on auto. more than that you need to start adding voltage. Check the VCCSA. There is an issue with vccsa being to high without setting it manually. I have mine running under 1v. it was at 1.3 when I let uefi manage it. Good way to kill a chip.


----------



## Seus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> Try lowering cache to 30 and leave cache voltage on auto.
> You may be stable at 3200 after that.
> 
> You ought to check for memory errors as well.
> 
> As for windows, disable fast boot/hibernation.


Fast boot has been disabled since day 1 when I saw issues. Ah more testing, I wish there was just a set and forget type of deal.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadScientist565*
> 
> yeah fast boot is crap. I have a 6850 not a 6800, but im running 4.3 with 1.26 volts. Set to 1.23 in uefi, with an auto + offset. not sure why you need so much voltage. Cache is the big deal on these chips. Try it at 30, then 32 on auto. more than that you need to start adding voltage. Check the VCCSA. There is an issue with vccsa being to high without setting it manually. I have mine running under 1v. it was at 1.3 when I let uefi manage it. Good way to kill a chip.


Honestly, I just don't know. Under 1.3 volts and the chip is unstable.
Is vccsa the "cpu system agent voltage"? If so, I have it set to + offset .100. In siv it was showing 1.10v during tests.
Also, cache is at 35, Cpu cache voltage 1.30v

No clue what these things mean, I'm just overclocking with the help of people in this thread which is greatly appreciated.

I will lower cache to 30 and set voltage to auto.
Should I bother with the memory settings? Or, just get a new kit? I tried with the help in the memory thread to get it to run at 3200 but nothing worked. Couldn't start my pc even unless leaving it at base settings.

I just hope windows doesn't get corrupted with any changes. I do not want to have to reinstall windows, software, and licenses etc. again


----------



## MadScientist565

TO each their own, but the way i do it, is very slow. I start with the factory settings, run it for a little while, maybe a day, with HWInfo running in the back ground. And I write down all the voltages it uses stock.

Then I give it a known good cpu overclock based on forum postings. basically find out where people hit the power wall, and Ill also bump the ram slightly. I run this way and again monitor the voltages for another few days. From there I make one change every few days. When you do it this way, you get a good idea of what the motherboard is going to do when it adjust the voltages you set. and you get good reference points. If I were you... id start over.

EDIT.,.sorry misspoke here there is a cache voltage, that should be set to auto. and vccsa is system agent. I have mine set to offset - .01 and it runs at .96. This being lower may help stabilize your memory clock as well.

As far as memory goes, I always overbuy. I have 3333 ram running at 3000. (i overbuy for the thermal/voltage headroom, and the ability to easily add another kit later and match the timings, not out right speed) I enable XMP and write down the timings and voltages it wants. Then disable xmp and put those numbers in manually, but At a lower speed. so if you have 3200, then set it at 3000, but use the 3200 timings. you can usually safely drop cas 1 or 2 points doing this, and also drop the dram voltages from 1.35 (XMP) to 1.32. then 1.31, 1.30 etc until you find the limit. when you find the limit, start lowering the timing values 1 point at a time This is a very time consuming process. my 3333 ram is currently running 3000 at 14/16/16/30 on 1.31volts. I started at 2800, 16/17/17/32 at 1.34 a couple weeks ago.

again.. get it stable and make slow incremental changes.

My recommendation to you.
Go into uefi, and restore all defaults.
then go to cpu and set it as follows,
sync all cores (42,43 whatever you want)
asus multi core enhancement on
adaptive voltage
offset :auto
offset +
additional Turbo voltage to the current stable voltage, minus a bit because the motherboard will add .01-.04. so if you want 1.3 then set 1.265
avx offset: auto. (there is a microcode problem with avx offset, so leave it on auto)

then go to memory, set it at 2400, with default timings and voltage auto

then go to cache and set min to auto, max to 30, and voltage to auto.

then reboot. start HWInfo, sensors only, (the latest beta version is the most accurate for broadwell e) Then run realbench benchmark. after it finishes, post screen shots of the HWInfo stats and well dial it in even more.


----------



## Seus

Thank you so much for the reply. That's pretty much how I went about it. I'm talking extensive testing on the CPU overclock for long periods of time and with many different tests. Didn't touch the memory til I put the CPU through hell and it didn't skip a beat. I was literally playing BF1 while running different tests for hours.

That said, I'm just done trying to get a stable running custom build. I'm going to just buy a prebuilt PC. I need peace of mind and after a year of overclocking, testing, setting up Windows, over and over again...I give up


----------



## Aenra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seus*
> 
> I give up


If i can do it, anyone can. And i have since managed to do it in three different rigs. No need to give up dude 

A bit of advice if you want? Feel free to discard it.

- Stop buying Asus motherboards. Yes, even though everyone tells you to.

- Stop testing with Prime, you're hammering your CPU to pieces for no reason (unless you run AVX workloads for professional purposes, in which case.. too bad for you, but yes, you should). An Aida stress run is p-e-r-f-e-c-t-l-y fine. I go for 8 hours, but that's because i do marathons; if you don't, a successful 4-hour run is peaches, stop there and call it a win.

- Start simple/know what to do. Tertiary RAM timings have zero, zilch actual benefit for you. Just for synthetic benchmarks (aka over-compensating); the same applies for secondary timings ^^

(exception to the rule being Ryzens/Threadrippers, for now, but that's not you).

- Start the opposite way. My ceiling (how high am i willing to run it 24/7? Personally) was for a vcore of 1.4 tops, so i started testing with voltage set at 1.4, took 2/3 tests to find out how high i could run it with said voltage. And two more to find out how much i could lower my voltage -at- said clock speed. Easy, right?

- Not reaching 4500 on a Broadwell does not mean you keep trying, it just means you can't. Keep voltage ceiling, go lower in clock.

- Reinstalling Windows 10 is about 3? 4? minutes? What's the hassle? Don't tweak them, just install, disable Win update, start testing. And that's assuming you need to, takes some hefty uncore stressing to do that (corrupt). My IMC was very weak, had fail after fail to even load Windows, never got them corrupted. You need try hard for fail to do that. See above for 'start simple'.

It really is simple 

Don't overcomplicate it, don't confuse this.. obsession for synthetic, unrealistic benchmarks with what you're actually going for. Practical, everyday benefits.

Be well and keep trying ^^

* edit: You can always mess with the secondary in importance settings later, if you like tweaking that is; i personally did, spent 2 weeks total to get it where i got it. But you don't have to; the above is enough.

And since i'm editing, let me get preemptive, lol.. i had three different mobos on which i run my 6900K. Two Asus(es?), and my current Giga. On my gigabyte, i am stable at 4501, even during Prime testing. Voltage of 1.395v. On both Asus boards, the PC would not even boot at 1.4v.. you get? Have had similar issue with previous CPUs, again with multiple mobos, on hand. All it took was saying goodbye to Asus. Maybe someday this will change again/an exception will come out. I go by my empirical rule.

YMMV. Always.


----------



## xenkw0n

Honestly if he's borderline stable with those numbers I would recommend just bumping your frequencies down a notch. Go from 4.2 and 3.5 to 4.1 and 3.4. You could probably get cache stable there at 1.25v and using 1.3v on the core should be fine for the chip so if you want a set it and forget it setup, just lower your frequencies one notch.

I personally run at 4.1 and 3.4 with my 6800k so, yea. And unless you're pushing memory above 3000mhz, you probably don't need to go over 1.05v on VCCSA and VCCIO. It's much safer to run them at that voltage as well.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

Hey guys just want to say to everyone to be careful with Auto voltages.

I bought a 6850K new for $260 a few months ago and the first chip died so I got an RMA replacement. Sad thing too because the first would do 4.5GHz/4.6GHz single core and 3.8GHz cache while this darn replacement only gets up to 4.4GHz all core and 3.7GHz cache at 1.42v/1.31v.

I think the cause was the VCCIO and VCCSA being set so high if you enable XMP. It was at 1.4v/1.35v VCCSA VCCIO. So just letting you guys know check your voltages don't auto them like I did first time. Because that thing died within first 2 weeks of usage.

Although I did push the first at 1.45v core (1.42v all core) 1.29v cache but I doubt that killed it.


----------



## xkm1948

1.4V VCCSA? Holy ****, Props to that CPU it survived 2 weeks!


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> 1.4V VCCSA? Holy ****, Props to that CPU it survived 2 weeks!


Yea only realized Asus auto applied that kind of voltage when I got the replacement CPU and checked the voltages. Asus should really fix it...really bums me out it killed a good chip...


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awesomeguy10578*
> 
> Yea only realized Asus auto applied that kind of voltage when I got the replacement CPU and checked the voltages. Asus should really fix it...really bums me out it killed a good chip...


Auto and adaptive are both dangerous for ASUS X99 boards.

On a different note 3801 BIOS is available for TUF X99.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Auto and adaptive are both dangerous for ASUS X99 boards.
> 
> On a different note 3801 BIOS is available for TUF X99.


I'm on the latest BIOS on an Asus X99M WS so I'm really surprised this problem is on a WS board.


----------



## xkm1948

It definitely feels more like an ASUS design flaw. Some folks suggest it is the OC socket, as many other brands' X99 that don't utilize OC socket work just fine.


----------



## KCDC

My next board may be EVGA. My VCCSA was 1.265 or so when on auto.. that's just bonkers. Wouldn't take much for them to apply a clamp to the range when on auto.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> It definitely feels more like an ASUS design flaw. Some folks suggest it is the OC socket, as many other brands' X99 that don't utilize OC socket work just fine.


Yea definitely feels like a design flaw that might not be BIOS fixable since they never fixed it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> My next board may be EVGA. My VCCSA was 1.265 or so when on auto.. that's just bonkers. Wouldn't take much for them to apply a clamp to the range when on auto.


Well that voltage is still better than what my board applies lol.


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awesomeguy10578*
> 
> Yea definitely feels like a design flaw that might not be BIOS fixable since they never fixed it.
> Well that voltage is still better than what my board applies lol.


Yeah, true, still too high!!


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Auto and adaptive are both dangerous for ASUS X99 boards.
> 
> On a different note 3801 BIOS is available for TUF X99.


Well, I have never had any problems with using Adaptive. Of course, you need to understand how it works ...


----------



## moonbogg

My X99A MSI Gaming Pro Carbon set my 6800K VCCSA to 1.36, but VCCIO was like 1.0v. I didn't know any better so just left it like that for about 3 weeks maybe. Someone warned me and I changed the SA down to 1.27 cause any less wasn't stable. Stayed like that for a month or two maybe then reduced the ram speed to 3000 and got stable with an SA at 1.12 which is where I am now. Why didn't my chip die and how much life did I take from it by using 1.36 SA voltage, lol?
With XMP auto doing this there should be thousands of dead chips out there, right? Guess I got lucky but now I feel like a have an abused and battered chip. Its been traumatized.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonbogg*
> 
> My X99A MSI Gaming Pro Carbon set my 6800K VCCSA to 1.36, but VCCIO was like 1.0v. I didn't know any better so just left it like that for about 3 weeks maybe. Someone warned me and I changed the SA down to 1.27 cause any less wasn't stable. Stayed like that for a month or two maybe then reduced the ram speed to 3000 and got stable with an SA at 1.12 which is where I am now. Why didn't my chip die and how much life did I take from it by using 1.36 SA voltage, lol?
> With XMP auto doing this there should be thousands of dead chips out there, right? Guess I got lucky but now I feel like a have an abused and battered chip. Its been traumatized.


Yea that chip is probably near death from that voltage lol good thing it didn't die. Mine was 1.4v+ on my board...R.I.P. 4.6GHz 6850K
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> And to my question is their any magic settings to tweak lol to get less vcore i pushed all the way up to 1.47 vcore and still couldnt make 4300 stable more then a few mins in ibt or prime95 cooling is fine even on avx tests im under 75-80c.


That's because its IBT/PRIME its drawing way more current so you probably need to back off on the OC if you want IBT/PRIME AVX stable. I suggest to use the AVX offset instead.


----------



## xarot

My 6950X has seen 1.4 V VCCSA a few times too. On Rampage boards and X99-M WS. The X99-M WS overvolts the VCCIO also.

It's still alive and kicking though..


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Well, I have never had any problems with using Adaptive. Of course, you need to understand how it works ...


Agreed, adaptive is the goal after stress testing. If you set it properly, it will be bulletproof. This past year has been quite the experience with my x99 build...

I wonder why VCCSA doesn't have an adaptive option, only offset...


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> Agreed, adaptive is the goal after stress testing. If you set it properly, it will be bulletproof. This past year has been quite the experience with my x99 build...
> 
> I wonder why VCCSA doesn't have an adaptive option, only offset...


VCCSA doesn't vary with CPU states, it's consistent.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

On another note it seems that my chip is in-line with others saying these are very sensitive to temperatures. Im on an H80iV2 with some Noctua NF-F12 IPPC 3000 fans and it would get really hot on cores 2 and 0 more than the others. Anyways, if my room temp is 20C ish I could get away with my 4.4GHz oc at just 1.39v but when I turn up the heater and the room tmep goes up to 26C ish I needed 1.44v to not crash the X264 stress test.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> My 6950X has seen 1.4 V VCCSA a few times too. On Rampage boards and X99-M WS. The X99-M WS overvolts the VCCIO also.
> 
> It's still alive and kicking though..


My 6850K died since I ran it for 2 weeks ish without realizing.


----------



## awdrifter

I just got a i7 6800k. Is the IHS soldered on this chip? Is there any benefit to delidding it for water cooling only?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *awdrifter*
> 
> I just got a i7 6800k. Is the IHS soldered on this chip? Is there any benefit to delidding it for water cooling only?


It's soldered.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonbogg*
> 
> My X99A MSI Gaming Pro Carbon set my 6800K VCCSA to 1.36, but VCCIO was like 1.0v. I didn't know any better so just left it like that for about 3 weeks maybe. Someone warned me and I changed the SA down to 1.27 cause any less wasn't stable. Stayed like that for a month or two maybe then reduced the ram speed to 3000 and got stable with an SA at 1.12 which is where I am now. Why didn't my chip die and how much life did I take from it by using 1.36 SA voltage, lol?
> With XMP auto doing this there should be thousands of dead chips out there, right? Guess I got lucky but now I feel like a have an abused and battered chip. Its been traumatized.


lol only 1.36 on my gaming carbon when i set my xmp to 3200 it put mine at like 1.46 but it only needs 1.2 to be perfectly stable at 3200 with 32gigs of memory and my VCCIO is like 1.088 needed to push my ring up to 1.18 to get cache stable at 3600mhz.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> And to my question is their any magic settings to tweak lol to get less vcore i pushed all the way up to 1.47 vcore and still couldnt make 4300 stable more then a few mins in ibt or prime95 cooling is fine even on avx tests im under 75-80c.


That's because its IBT/PRIME its drawing way more current so you probably need to back off on the OC if you want IBT/PRIME AVX stable. I suggest to use the AVX offset instead.[/quote]

Sadly dont think that will help me to much as i cant even run 3dmark at 4400 even with 1.55 vcore this chip just dont wanna go above 4200 without insane vcore.


----------



## awdrifter

This may not be the right thread to ask, but does anyone know what are the specs for the screws that will fit the backplate (Gigabyte X99P-SLI)? My Thermaltake Water Pro 2.0 kit didn't have the right screws, but the holes are in the same position as the LGA1336. I don't want to order online because of the shipping time. I just need to know the size and thread pitch of the screws. If anyone have the specs please share. Thanks.

Edit: In case someone finds this thread through search, the screw size is M4 x 0.7, length is 25mm.


----------



## awdrifter

I started overclocking the 6800k last night, getting to 4ghz was easy, but getting it past 4.2ghz took some work. I got it to 4.26ghz (4.06ghz AVX) stable. But I really want to get it up to 4.3-4.4ghz range (at least for 4 cores active so emulators will run better. Right now the single core performance is probably not much better than my 2600k @ 4.6ghz.

This motherboard (Gigabyte GA-X99P-SLI) has a lot more settings than my old Asus Z68M-Pro, for the voltages that I'm not familiar with I just left them at auto. I took some pictures of my bios, please let me know if the voltages seems ok, and if anyone have any oc tips for this cpu and/or motherboard please share. Thanks.

https://valid.x86.fr/fz9w76
https://valid.x86.fr/fz9w76

Does these voltages look safe for 24/7 use?





Spoiler: More Bios Pictures


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *awdrifter*
> 
> I started overclocking the 6800k last night, getting to 4ghz was easy, but getting it past 4.2ghz took some work. I got it to 4.26ghz (4.06ghz AVX) stable. But I really want to get it up to 4.3-4.4ghz range (at least for 4 cores active so emulators will run better. Right now the single core performance is probably not much better than my 2600k @ 4.6ghz.
> 
> This motherboard (Gigabyte GA-X99P-SLI) has a lot more settings than my old Asus Z68M-Pro, for the voltages that I'm not familiar with I just left them at auto. I took some pictures of my bios, please let me know if the voltages seems ok, and if anyone have any oc tips for this cpu and/or motherboard please share. Thanks.
> 
> https://valid.x86.fr/fz9w76
> 
> 
> Spoiler: More Bios Pictures


Try not to do auto. Especially your system agent voltage, cache/uncore voltage and VCCIO voltage.


----------



## awdrifter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Try not to do auto. Especially your system agent voltage, cache/uncore voltage and VCCIO voltage.


Thanks for the quick reply. Right now my CPU System Agent Voltage is +0.250v, CPU RING Voltage is 1.150v (is this the uncore voltage?) and CPU VCCIO is 1.070v. Do these settings seem safe?

When I set the clocks to 4.3ghz it just crashes with any load, is that just not enough vcore? What other voltages/settings are important for the Broadwell-E CPUs? I see an option to set Turbo Power Limit (Watts) in the bios, right now it's set to auto (140w), will setting this higher allow the CPU clock higher? There's also a Core Current Limit (Amps) setting, right now it's set to auto (170). Thanks.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *awdrifter*
> 
> Thanks for the quick reply. Right now my CPU System Agent Voltage is +0.250v, CPU RING Voltage is 1.150v (is this the uncore voltage?) and CPU VCCIO is 1.070v. Do these settings seem safe?


If you are not running over DDR4-3200 or over 64GB RAM I would limit system agent as close to 1V as possible. If you are overclocking the ring, keep it below 1.2V. If you are not overclocking the ring manually put in 1V. VCCIO is best at 1.05V.

VCCSA, ring and VCCIO is best to be input manually. Some X99 boards love to sudden over voltage when you leave them on Auto. That would instantly fry your CPU and/or MoBo.

As for vcore, you can use either vcore or adaptive. BWE use VID system. So if your current overclocking stable vcore is above the turbo VID, you should use adaptive mode to save power. If your current overclocking stable vcore is below the turbo VID, you should use negative offset to limit max vcore.

Generally I would keep vcore below 1.3V if you plan to use the chip for a long time.

Also if you wanna test out the extreme of your chip I would purchase the Intel Tuning Plan. Trust me man loosing a CPU is not fun. My last ASUS TUF X99 fried my 6950X


----------



## awdrifter

I'm running 32GB (2x16GB) of G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4-3200 ram. So I'll try lowering the System Agent voltage offset to +0.100v, so the voltage should be 1.100v. I have turned down the RING Voltage to 1.150v, I'll test to see if this is stable, if not I'll bring it up to 1.200v. I have set the VCCIO to 1.050v. So with all these changes, I'll do the 1 hour OCCT and 2 hour Intel XTU test again, hopefully that's stable.

I don't want to kill the CPU too quickly, but as long as it lasts 3 years I'm fine with it. By that time the 6950x should be affordable, I'll upgrade to the 10 core at that time. Right now I do have adaptive mode turned on, it's running at 0.756v when idling. So far it doesn't seem to affect the stability. I will probably save a higher oc as a profile for the XTU, so I don't run it at full tilt all the time, I will only do it when I really need it (like running emulator).

Thanks for the help so far, if there are any other tips/tricks please share.


----------



## BrainSplatter

Just got a 6850K which has been running 4.5Ghz @ 1.36v (Ring @ 3.7) all weekend, doing some Firestrike/TimeSpy benching with a 980Ti.

I got 2x16GB Trident-Z 3200 CL15 kits but I am running them on [email protected] for lower SA/IO voltage. Auto XMP was putting SA @ 1.28 or sth like that, lol.

Still have to test how low I can go on various voltages. Don't want to blow up the nice 6850K with the ASUS board









I got the 6850K because it dropped a lot in price and is one of the cheapest 40 PCIE lanes chip. I want to test the effects of PCIE 16x16 vs 8x8 in some games when using 1080Ti SLI. I also got ASUS X99 deluxe II from Amazon warehouse deal for that (they have a lot of them around, maybe in parts due to the apparent CPU killing power of these boards).

According to some people, x16 can improve SLI performance by up to 20% (especially according to this post). But since there is little data available overall, I want to do my own tests.
Here is another PCIE test showing 5% max difference but only single 1080GPU:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/23.html


----------



## gta1989

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BrainSplatter*
> 
> Just got a 6850K which has been running 4.5Ghz @ 1.36v (Ring @ 3.7) all weekend, doing some Firestrike/TimeSpy benching with a 980Ti.
> 
> I got 2x16GB Trident-Z 3200 CL15 kits but I am running them on [email protected] for lower SA/IO voltage. Auto XMP was putting SA @ 1.28 or sth like that, lol.
> 
> Still have to test how low I can go on various voltages. Don't want to blow up the nice 6850K with the ASUS board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got the 6850K because it dropped a lot in price and is one of the cheapest 40 PCIE lanes chip. I want to test the effects of PCIE 16x16 vs 8x8 in some games when using 1080Ti SLI. I also got ASUS X99 deluxe II from Amazon warehouse deal for that (they have a lot of them around, maybe in parts due to the apparent CPU killing power of these boards).
> 
> According to some people, x16 can improve SLI performance by up to 20% (especially according to this post). But since there is little data available overall, I want to do my own tests.
> Here is another PCIE test showing 5% max difference but only single 1080GPU:
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/23.html


my personal experience playing with a 6950x on a msi x99 gaming pro carbon mobo and the 16x16 vs 8x8 pcie i have 2 1080ti hybrids which will run 2050mhz each. i was with in 100 points on firestrike and almost all tests i did which would be less then 2% difference and to me with in margin of error of the program or heat in the cards on the runs. just my 2 cents that i have found for your experiment


----------



## BrainSplatter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gta1989*
> 
> my personal experience playing with a 6950x on a msi x99 gaming pro carbon mobo and the 16x16 vs 8x8 pcie i have 2 1080ti hybrids which will run 2050mhz each. i was with in 100 points on firestrike and almost all tests i did which would be less then 2% difference and to me with in margin of error of the program or heat in the cards on the runs. just my 2 cents that i have found for your experiment


Thanks for the info!
Yeah, firestrike seems to care very little about PCIE speed. I think it's primarily some newer games, especially when they use some form of temporary AA (eg. TSSAA in Doom). The 5% difference in TW-WH1 found by techpowerup for a single 1080 was also interesting for me because Total-War games are one of my favorites and some people reporting bad performance for the successor game TW-WH2 found out that the cause was actually a mis-configured PCIE bus.

It's pretty annoying that the CPUs with the best gaming performance (7700K, 8700K) don't have the option to run true x16 PCIE SLI speeds. Also, Intels decision to price the first 40 lane CPU of the X299 platform way above what was available for X99 is pretty annoying.

Regarding the 6850K, I haven't been able to get it stable @ 4.6 yet. But I was only going up to 4.0 Ghz core. Temperatures are not a problem since I have my lab-room at cool 12 degrees celsius atm, lol. Maximum voltage for game (not prime95 AVX) benching would be maybe 1.45 volts?


----------



## gta1989

i had a 6850k prior to getting this 6950x and it would do 4.7 at 1.355 volts but ring would only do 3.5 at 1.2 ring. ive never pushed beyond that as even for benchmarking thats alot of extra strain on the vrms and mobo. if i cant make it stable daily i dont normally push it to hard for benchmarking my 6950x will do 4.4 avx -2 at 1.285 just because i dont use any avx applications anyways. make sure you over clock the core and leave cache stock at 3.0. find max core clock then push the cache as far as you can. might get that 4.6 with 3.6-3.5 cache and in games core seems to help more then cache


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gta1989*
> 
> i had a 6850k prior to getting this 6950x and it would do 4.7 at 1.355 volts but ring would only do 3.5 at 1.2 ring. ive never pushed beyond that as even for benchmarking thats alot of extra strain on the vrms and mobo. if i cant make it stable daily i dont normally push it to hard for benchmarking my 6950x will do 4.4 avx -2 at 1.285 just because i dont use any avx applications anyways. make sure you over clock the core and leave cache stock at 3.0. find max core clock then push the cache as far as you can. might get that 4.6 with 3.6-3.5 cache and in games core seems to help more then cache


That's a golden 6850K you had there. My 6800K absolutely tops out at 4.4, no matter the voltage. Not bad either I guess


----------



## BrainSplatter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> That's a golden 6850K you had there. My 6800K absolutely tops out at 4.4, no matter the voltage. Not bad either I guess


That seems indeed golden. My 6850K falls somewhere in between. Tried [email protected] yesterday, some Prime95 (only 15min), XTU, Cinebench, Firestrike Ultr+Extreme, all went through without a hitch. But then funnily enough, Firstrike normal would just quit a few seconds into it until I lowered CPU clock to 4.5 with XTU. I might try with lowered cache speed again. It was 3.7.

Been also wondering whether memory read speed is a bit low for the settings. I have my 4x8GB-3200CL15 kits running @ 3000Mhz (didn't want to have too high SA voltage) with CL13-13-13-32 1T and some lowered sub-timings (e.g. [email protected]). Together with [email protected] and [email protected], i 'only' get about 62000MB/sec read in AIDA. Write is better at 71000MB/sec. The RAM are 2x G.Skill Trident-Z red 3200CL15 kits (I know it's not recommended to mix 2 kits but it doesn't seem to hurt timings in this case).

I tried to find comparison values in the memory stability thread but there are mostly 5930K CPUs with much higher cache speed (Haswell seems to have allowed for higher cache as I understand) or 6950X so I am not sure how comparable those values are. I know that cache speed (and maybe also size) has some influence on the AIDA memory bench but I am not sure about the extent.


----------



## djgar

For me cache speed has a very noticeable effect on Aida memory benchmark. Also helps with copying large files.


----------



## BrainSplatter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> For me cache speed has a very noticeable effect on Aida memory benchmark. Also helps with copying large files.


Thanks, good to know!

Are u using the clocks and voltages in your sig 24/7 ? And if yes, already for a longer time ? Just curious because voltages seem to be beyond what most people here seem to recommend for 24/7. And I have seen so many reports of dead CPUs on X99 (esp. ASUS boards) that I am, for the first time (OCing since Celeron 300A), a little scared, lol.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BrainSplatter*
> 
> Thanks, good to know!
> 
> Are u using the clocks and voltages in your sig 24/7 ? And if yes, already for a longer time ? Just curious because voltages seem to be beyond what most people here seem to recommend for 24/7. And I have seen so many reports of dead CPUs on X99 (esp. ASUS boards) that I am, for the first time (OCing since Celeron 300A), a little scared, lol.


I've used up to 4.57 for 24/7 for over a year, minimum 4.5. I went down to 4.5 about a month ago when I had a cooling mishap (pump stopped working) which I thought fried the CPU but instead the memory went bad. I went back up to 4.55 a few days ago after updating to the new BIOS. Did 2 hrs. RB, Stressapp and Aida cache, and overnight ~9hrs. HCI Memtest Deluxe.


----------



## BrainSplatter

Still working on 4.6 core which isn't too much fun, lol. Managed 4.6 Firestrike stable with 1.43v and 3.5Ghz cache. It's working but a big voltage jump from 4.5 stable with all kinds of stuff running @ just 1.33v and 3.7Ghz cache.

Still managed to take 1st place for 6850K + 2x1080Ti which is pretty satisfying:
TimeSpy: 17084 pts and
TimeSpy Extreme: 7 778 pts

The 1080Ti's are non-modified reference cards. Due to the weak cooling and low power limit that result was only possible by using the cold winter air to cool the cards and to apply a voltage curve to avoid too much power limits









@djar
Do u know how the memory went bad when the pump stopped working? Wouldn't expect that result.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gta1989*
> 
> my personal experience playing with a 6950x on a msi x99 gaming pro carbon mobo and the 16x16 vs 8x8 pcie i have 2 1080ti hybrids which will run 2050mhz each. i was with in 100 points on firestrike and almost all tests i did which would be less then 2% difference and to me with in margin of error of the program or heat in the cards on the runs.


Finally started testing PCIE x16 vs x8 (=v3.0 vs v2.0) speed. And I found a 10% reproducible difference in Total-War Warhammer 2 @ 4K which isn't negligible anymore. That was done with DSR on a 1080p display. Now I have to test it with my native 4K display because some people said that the difference with a native 4K display is bigger than with DSR. I also want to test 5K, 6K (actually playing @ 30pfs) and 8K DSR (screenshots) resolutions.

@1080p the benchmark was partially CPU limited so not really usable to judge PCIE speed differences.


----------



## xenkw0n

So I've been thinking my crashes in PUBG were GPU related but I've come to realize I'm most likely dealing with an unstable Memory overclock. It's odd since all the stress testing and gaming I've done since running this memory has never caused a single blip on the radar.

I'm running a 6800k @ 1.21-1.27v 4100mhz core, 1.12v 3400mhz cache, 1.3v 3000mhz CL 14 14 14 32 528 1T memory... (Samsung B Die)

I'm leaning more towards the IMC just needing more juice, and not the DRAM voltage itself, which brings me to ask everyone in this thread what are truly the safest voltages that can be recommended for a 24/7 overclock on Broadwell-E when talking about VCCSA and VCCIO?

I was running at 1.05v VCCSA and VCCIO with these settings since June and never had any issues until I started playing PUBG. The issue itself is that the entire computer will lock up and require me to do a hard reset. I thought the GPU was the culprit but it doesn't appear to be the case since I went as far as modding the BIOS for it (GTX 970) and forcing nvidia stock speeds just to see if the issue went away. It did not, and still occurs.

Eventually I downclocked my memory to 2400mhz and haven't had a single issue for days/hours. My issue is I'm one of the victims of the ASUS boards killing my chips and now I'm afraid to even touch 1.10 VCCSA. I must still be on the cusp of reliability considering PUBG is the only application to bring the issue into the light. I tried with 1.35v DRAM at CL15 3000mhz (rated for 3200mhz CL15 1.35v) and it still happened so I must need more juice somewhere else, a la VCCSA and VCCIO. Temperatures aren't an issue. LLC is off, VRM never goes past 65c, CPU peaks at 65c in Prime95 26.6, I have a negative 5 offset on AVX instructions, and now my GPU also never goes past 65c after modding it...

In the end, temps aren't an issue, I'm not looking for an extreme overclock, I just need to know what I can really use as safe 24/7 voltages from those who knore more.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

i can add to that my 6800k has been running 3600 cache for last 3 months mining problem free then last 2 weeks i been crashing tried vcore tried ring voltage nothing helped i had to drop cache down to 3500 for it to be stable again.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i can add to that my 6800k has been running 3600 cache for last 3 months mining problem free then last 2 weeks i been crashing tried vcore tried ring voltage nothing helped i had to drop cache down to 3500 for it to be stable again.


I was originally running at 1.08v CPU cache and just bumped it to be safe, even tried 3.3 but it still happened so at this point I'm ruling it out.


----------



## gta1989

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> So I've been thinking my crashes in PUBG were GPU related but I've come to realize I'm most likely dealing with an unstable Memory overclock. It's odd since all the stress testing and gaming I've done since running this memory has never caused a single blip on the radar.
> 
> I'm running a 6800k @ 1.21-1.27v 4100mhz core, 1.12v 3400mhz cache, 1.3v 3000mhz CL 14 14 14 32 528 1T memory... (Samsung B Die)
> 
> I'm leaning more towards the IMC just needing more juice, and not the DRAM voltage itself, which brings me to ask everyone in this thread what are truly the safest voltages that can be recommended for a 24/7 overclock on Broadwell-E when talking about VCCSA and VCCIO?
> 
> I was running at 1.05v VCCSA and VCCIO with these settings since June and never had any issues until I started playing PUBG. The issue itself is that the entire computer will lock up and require me to do a hard reset. I thought the GPU was the culprit but it doesn't appear to be the case since I went as far as modding the BIOS for it (GTX 970) and forcing nvidia stock speeds just to see if the issue went away. It did not, and still occurs.
> 
> Eventually I downclocked my memory to 2400mhz and haven't had a single issue for days/hours. My issue is I'm one of the victims of the ASUS boards killing my chips and now I'm afraid to even touch 1.10 VCCSA. I must still be on the cusp of reliability considering PUBG is the only application to bring the issue into the light. I tried with 1.35v DRAM at CL15 3000mhz (rated for 3200mhz CL15 1.35v) and it still happened so I must need more juice somewhere else, a la VCCSA and VCCIO. Temperatures aren't an issue. LLC is off, VRM never goes past 65c, CPU peaks at 65c in Prime95 26.6, I have a negative 5 offset on AVX instructions, and now my GPU also never goes past 65c after modding it...
> 
> In the end, temps aren't an issue, I'm not looking for an extreme overclock, I just need to know what I can really use as safe 24/7 voltages from those who knore more.


I had the same issue With 3200mhz, I now run 1.15v vccsa and 1.05vccio 1.35v dram with 1.92 vccin. But I'm also running a 6950x and msi godlike mobo. Other thing to check is cache clock, set it back to 30 or 28 and test for stability. I had an issue with that causing the same hang to happen. Hard to determine the problem unless you make the rest stable and start adding back one over clock till it starts happening again.


----------



## xenkw0n

Unreal, that was really all it was... In the end all it seems to have needed was a bump from 1.05v VCCSA to 1.08v VCCSA. My VCCIN is 1.84v and VCCIO is 1.04v, running 3000mhz 14-14-14-32 1T 528 @ 1.3v DRAM

CPU Core at 4.1ghz shows max VID's of 1.20-1.25v and CPU Cache at 3.4ghz 1.1v

The memory is definitely the most extreme overclock of the setup. Besides my GPU, which is why I was looking there initially.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

lol i need alot more vcsa/cpu sa then that i thk im using 1.216 for ddr3200 and 32gigs to be stable.


----------



## gta1989

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Unreal, that was really all it was... In the end all it seems to have needed was a bump from 1.05v VCCSA to 1.08v VCCSA. My VCCIN is 1.84v and VCCIO is 1.04v, running 3000mhz 14-14-14-32 1T 528 @ 1.3v DRAM
> 
> CPU Core at 4.1ghz shows max VID's of 1.20-1.25v and CPU Cache at 3.4ghz 1.1v
> 
> The memory is definitely the most extreme overclock of the setup. Besides my GPU, which is why I was looking there initially.


If it was me I would go to 1.10 vccsa just to give a cushion for heat or anything else making it unstable. That is the pickiest voltage I have found on x99. Overclocking I have run 1.35 vccsa to test 4222mhz mem and never had a problem so idk what Asus mobos throw at a cpu on auto but it must be a crap load to kill a cpu


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gta1989*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Unreal, that was really all it was... In the end all it seems to have needed was a bump from 1.05v VCCSA to 1.08v VCCSA. My VCCIN is 1.84v and VCCIO is 1.04v, running 3000mhz 14-14-14-32 1T 528 @ 1.3v DRAM
> 
> CPU Core at 4.1ghz shows max VID's of 1.20-1.25v and CPU Cache at 3.4ghz 1.1v
> 
> The memory is definitely the most extreme overclock of the setup. Besides my GPU, which is why I was looking there initially.
> 
> 
> 
> If it was me I would go to 1.10 vccsa just to give a cushion for heat or anything else making it unstable. That is the pickiest voltage I have found on x99. Overclocking I have run 1.35 vccsa to test 4222mhz mem and never had a problem so idk what Asus mobos throw at a cpu on auto but it must be a crap load to kill a cpu
Click to expand...

your lucky to be able to use that low amount if im under like 1.18 my memory does not all show up and not stabe in windows to i push over 1.2, the auto feature tho wants to send 1.7 on my msi board lol.


----------



## xenkw0n

Good points, I'll put it up to 1.11v since watching it more closely shows me how it likes to droop under load. It fluctuates between 1.1v and 1.11v VCCSA at +.11 offset.

So you both use VCCSA at 1.15v and 1.2v? 3200mhz for 1.15v but what speeds are you running at, Bal3wolf?

My VRM temps get up to about 80c but the processor and GPU never actually touch 70c while gaming.


----------



## xkm1948

Currently running 1.1v vccsa and DDR4-3000. This is about as high as I am comfortable with. Not terriblly high DRAM but then again the IMC is pulling 128GB ram at that speed.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Good points, I'll put it up to 1.11v since watching it more closely shows me how it likes to droop under load. It fluctuates between 1.1v and 1.11v VCCSA at +.11 offset.
> 
> So you both use VCCSA at 1.15v and 1.2v? 3200mhz for 1.15v but what speeds are you running at, Bal3wolf?
> 
> My VRM temps get up to about 80c but the processor and GPU never actually touch 70c while gaming.


Im at 4200 clock speed 3500 cache and 3200 ddr.


----------



## gta1989

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Currently running 1.1v vccsa and DDR4-3000. This is about as high as I am comfortable with. Not terriblly high DRAM but then again the IMC is pulling 128GB ram at that speed.


That is the other thing the more memory you have it seems to take a bit more vccsa to get them stable. Especially over 3000mhz. I couldn't get 4200 with 128gig but I could get 4333with 32gig. All sticks were able to hit 4333 as I tested in pairs


----------



## xenkw0n

I'm running 32gb rated at 3200mhz CL 15 1.35v so I was very happy to get 3000mhz at CL14 1.3v

Anyways, I don't think it's just the VCCSA voltage, but bumping that definitely helps. This would typically be a thing that happens every ~15-30 minutes and since bumping VCCSA to fall between 1.10 and 1.12v seemed to fix it but I just had another crash after a few hours. Could be what gta1989 said earlier about heat just causing issues after some heavy continuous use. Either way, I'm going to need to take this a little slower.

My plan was to leave the settings as is, just drop VCCSA to and extremely low level, and see if I can cause the 'lock-up'. Set it to 1.00v VCCSA (VCCIO is going to remain unchanged at 1.05v through all of this, I really don't want to change that voltage, and is what I think caused the untimely deaths of my previous chips) with 3000mhz CL14 1.3v DRAM and left CPU Cache unchanged at 1.15v in offset mode. I ran Prime95 26.6 and it crashed in 30 seconds, locked up exactly as it does in the game. Good, it's definitely not GPU related, and I am definitely touching the voltages related to these issues.

Here's where it gets interesting, I was extremely surprised the system was even running at 1.00v VCCSA, let alone booting to Windows. Since it booted at all, I left VCCSA at 1.00v and then increased the CPU Cache to 1.2v (I could be way off base here, but the issue itself screams "memory issue" to me... that could be DRAM or CPU Cache). My thought is that if I really want to limit all factors (without dropping the overclock alltogether) I should at least give some of my other voltages a bump since I intentionally try to play in the safe zone. System booted fine again, started running Prime95 26.6, and now here I am 30 minutes later, stress test running, typing this message.

To summarize, my VCCSA is at 1.00v with 3000mhz memory. I know some people have pointed out and I've also personally experienced the effect of other voltages getting boosted positively effecting the overclock when other areas of the board were giving issues. Could that really be what's at play here? I could have just had an unstable CPU Cache overclock this whole time...










I'm going to take a more patient approach with this in the near future and will report back.


----------



## xenkw0n

Just to show... CPU voltages are between 1.21 and 1.28 depending on VID (4.1ghz) and Cache voltage hovers around 1.2v while stressing (3.4ghz).

The rest of the voltages are shown here, though. Is there a reason I would NOT want to run VCCSA this low?


----------



## xkm1948

VCCSA and Vcache, the lower the better IMO


----------



## blodflekk

Not sure if this is relevant but one thing ASUS boards does that not everyone is aware of is the ASUS multicore enhancement which forces all cores to max turbo boost setting at all times. It has caused issues for some people. I have it switched off on my rampage v edition 10 with my 6850k @4.2


----------



## DaveyWar

Hey guys - looking for some feedback on how I could safely set any of these "Auto" voltages to a stable, safe setting. Any helpful insights for improvements would also be greatly appreciated! FYI: I'm running an i7 6850K, MSI X99A Carbon Gaming Pro motherboard and 32gb 2400mhz (rated 3000mhz) Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM.










Edit: I took these screenshots after I set my DDR voltages to 1.3v, but before applying them - hence why they are still showing actual voltages at 1.35.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## xenkw0n

First thing to make sure of is adjusting "SA" and "VCCIO" voltages. You can see running at 3000mhz your board is pumping 1.36v VCCSA on auto. After just recently talking with some people on this topic (see: last 30 posts,








) I would say you don't ever really want to cross 1.2v VCCSA and setting your VCCIO to 1.05v or below is good practice just in case (though, for stability you may sometimes have to bump this voltage as well when doing some heavier overclocks 1.1v should be all you would ever need, if at all)..

These are picky voltages as well, but some of the more important ones on X99.


----------



## xenkw0n

And an update on my situation, it seems to have been a combination effect. Running 1.2v cache with 1.09 vccsa and just crossed 8 hours on stress testing after playing a few games last night without issues.

To note, previously I was using 1.09v cache for 3.4ghz and 1.05 vccsa at 3000mhz memory (1.3v dram). Clearly my cache was not stable, at all, although I'm at a loss as to how I went months without having any crashes. 1.1v seems to be all the VCCSA I need when using 1.2v+ on cache at my speeds.


----------



## DaveyWar

Thanks xenkw0n - I really appreciate the input. I had been going over a lot of the more recent posts in the thread, but I just wanted to make sure as the naming system in my bios was slightly different then the acronyms people were using on the forums. Don't want to blow this nice little chip up, but after reading the aforementioned posts I really wanted to find out if I was running too high on auto.


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaveyWar*
> 
> Hey guys - looking for some feedback on how I could safely set any of these "Auto" voltages to a stable, safe setting. Any helpful insights for improvements would also be greatly appreciated! FYI: I'm running an i7 6850K, MSI X99A Carbon Gaming Pro motherboard and 32gb 2400mhz (rated 3000mhz) Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I took these screenshots after I set my DDR voltages to 1.3v, but before applying them - hence why they are still showing actual voltages at 1.35.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Hi,
Your VID looks higher than should be needed for 4.5 :/


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> Your VID looks higher than should be needed for 4.5 :/


Ehh, could be worse. My 6850k needs a solid 1.4 to run at 4.5.


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> Ehh, could be worse. My 6850k needs a solid 1.4 to run at 4.5.


Hi,
Yeah here's a friend of mines 6950x @85c and 1.38v
https://valid.x86.fr/tz6z6c


----------



## blodflekk

I have been reading through this thread and making notes, refining my OC. I don't have anymore voltages left set to auto, except 2 and I was hoping someone could advise if the values I am getting on auto are safe to enter manually or if I need to lower them.

I have PCH core voltage at 1.05 and PCH I/O voltage at 1.50


----------



## DaveyWar

Sadly my 6850K at 4.5ghz isn't stable below 1.375v. That's the lowest I can get away with. I'm going to build a custom loop after New Year's and see if I can lower it down a tad.

With my H115i 280 AIO, I never got above 75 in Aida64 after 8 hours of stress testing. Hoping things improve on water. I'm going to really need custom cooling it if I get that second 1080ti on my Christmas list! Not just for temps, but to fit those two monster GPUs in my 16x PCIe slots. Damn you MSI for putting them so close together on my mobo.


----------



## xenkw0n

Am I seeing this right? LLC only effects CPU Input voltages on X99? Is there any real reason to use it? On Auto I think ASUS boards are still applying LLC since I switched it from Auto to 1 and my VCCIN voltages dropped from 1.82 to 1.76v under load. If it only effects CPU input, should I not just leave it off and bump CPU input from 1.82 to 1.90 to save strain on my VRM?


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Am I seeing this right? LLC only effects CPU Input voltages on X99? Is there any real reason to use it? On Auto I think ASUS boards are still applying LLC since I switched it from Auto to 1 and my VCCIN voltages dropped from 1.82 to 1.76v under load. If it only effects CPU input, should I not just leave it off and bump CPU input from 1.82 to 1.90 to save strain on my VRM?


Hi,
I don't believe there is much advantage in increasing or switching off auto for cpu input
Unless your using a higher that 1.3v core voltage.

If you want to use LLC use 4-6 but again this is for oc'ing everyday usage well that depends on temperatures and what else one is tweaking


----------



## blodflekk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blodflekk*
> 
> I have been reading through this thread and making notes, refining my OC. I don't have anymore voltages left set to auto, except 2 and I was hoping someone could advise if the values I am getting on auto are safe to enter manually or if I need to lower them.
> 
> I have PCH core voltage at 1.05 and PCH I/O voltage at 1.50


Bump


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> I don't believe there is much advantage in increasing or switching off auto for cpu input
> Unless your using a higher that 1.3v core voltage.
> 
> If you want to use LLC use 4-6 but again this is for oc'ing everyday usage well that depends on temperatures and what else one is tweaking


Well on auto it would go to 1.9v even stock, so I have just manually been setting it lower. I noticed when I changed LLC from auto to 1, vdroop was very prevalent with CPU input dropping from 1.82v at idle to 1.76v during full load. None of the other voltages were affected by the LLC setting. It just sounds odd to have LLC effect CPU Input and not vcore - is that intentional? Am I missing some X99 secret that there had to be LLC for CPU Input? The other thing is that my ASUS board was obviously applying LLC ~4-6 when left on Auto since changing it to 1 made VCCIN droop like wild. I'm assuming '1' on LLC is just 'off'.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blodflekk*
> 
> I have been reading through this thread and making notes, refining my OC. I don't have anymore voltages left set to auto, except 2 and I was hoping someone could advise if the values I am getting on auto are safe to enter manually or if I need to lower them.
> 
> I have PCH core voltage at 1.05 and PCH I/O voltage at 1.50


Pretty sure those are just stock voltages. I have them set at those values manually.


----------



## blodflekk

You're right those are stock values, I just wanted to see what the advice would be, if in fact those were safe values and not way higher than needed like some other settings do at auto


----------



## xenkw0n

I mean, they're Intel stock values. Not values set by an overclocking Motherboard if left on Auto once you start overclocking. They should be completely safe.


----------



## blodflekk

Thanks for the tip. I've set them manually anyway and I haven't seen any instability on my OC. After reading through this thread, I wanted to go back and make sure I had everything manually set.


----------



## xenkw0n

In the end since I was able to properly identify the issue being related to my CPU overclock I decided to just start fresh. When overclocking my CPU and leaving cache/memory frequencies at stock I ended up having to go from 1.21-1.27 (adaptive VID numbers) to 1.24-1.30 for 4.1ghz. Working on my cache now I've passed 8 hours of Prime95 26.6 at 4.1ghz core and 3.4ghz cache (1.10v offset).


----------



## xkm1948

Prolonged stress testing will degrade your VRM if the cooling is inadequate. Also, overclocking will degrade over time as both CPU and motherboard components suffer from electron migration.


----------



## xenkw0n

While that's true my VRM never touches 80c regardless of how long I stress test. That should be well under the limits, not ideal, but perfectly fine. CPU never touches 80c either and GPU peaks at 65c. All in all I try to stay well under maximum recommended safe values specifically to prolong the life of my system.

I really think I just missed the instability the first time around and for whatever reason it's PUBG that brought it to light. Got home from work and everything's still running strong. Time to dial in cache and VCCSA. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get < 1.15v on Cache at 3.4ghz and < 1.10v on VCCSA for 3000mhz memory.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> While that's true my VRM never touches 80c regardless of how long I stress test. That should be well under the limits, not ideal, but perfectly fine. CPU never touches 80c either and GPU peaks at 65c. All in all I try to stay well under maximum recommended safe values specifically to prolong the life of my system.
> 
> I really think I just missed the instability the first time around and for whatever reason it's PUBG that brought it to light. Got home from work and everything's still running strong. Time to dial in cache and VCCSA. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get < 1.15v on Cache at 3.4ghz and < 1.10v on VCCSA for 3000mhz memory.


Those seems to be pretty safe voltage.

You have bought Intel tuning plan right? Last thing you need is your CPU going belly up when you try to stress testing.

Personally I would be satisfied with cache speed matching up with RAM speed. Say you run 3200RAM then run cache at 3200 make sense. Cache OC brings gains in AIDA64, not little gains in day to day usage.


----------



## xenkw0n

I do not have the Intel tuning plan which is why I like to stay well within safe limits on my OC's for my main rig. So now I'm going to try a final test with some of my previously tested voltages while leaving core voltage at the same stable value I have now... To summarize, I'm shooting for a final overclock of;

4.1ghz core @ 1.24v-1.30v (VID) adaptive ~ 1.89 VCCIN with LLC on '1' (off) and under stressing I get 1.82-1.87v for CPU Input.
3.4ghz cache @ 1.10v offset
3000mhz memory @ 1.30v DRAM / 1.01v VCCSA (droops to 1.00v, never lower) / 1.05v VCCIO

1 hour in and hottest core has hit 72c, currently at 70c, VRM touched 75c but is sitting at 74c.

Cache seems to get to 3.4 pretty easily, it's going any higher than that where I start to need significantly more voltage. I like running memory at 3000mhz because, OCD, and I can tighten my timings with less DRAM voltage / VCCSA voltage to get similar performance as 3200mhz with loosened timings, but higher voltages, putting more stress on the IMC for minor gains.


----------



## xkm1948

Try 3G cache with 1V vcache. A lot better than stock performance while maintaining stock voltage.

Your CPU core OC is a bit on the low side no? Even my 6950x can do all core 4.2GHz with 1.232V. Yours should clock much higher considering fewer cores to cool.

Honestly i would just max out core OC. Or better, try to do per core OC. Find the best core and OC that one higher than the rest. Say best core 4.4GHz, rest lf the cores 4.2GHz.

Also don't forget to set AVX offset!


----------



## xenkw0n

You would think that but the 6800k doesnt overclock as well as pretty much any of the other chips. This was the real issue with my stability before so no, I definitely cant go any higher without increasing my voltage. Pretty much every overclock I have seen shows the 6950x clocking higher than the 6800k at the same voltages.

Isnt stock cache speed 2.8ghz? I see people try pushing 3.5/3.6 at 1.2v+ on the cache so if i can get 3.4ghz stable at 1.1v, why not? Im using -3 AVX offset so it goes to 3.8ghz as well. If I push anything much further I start hitting thermals around 75-80c. With my current settings after 2 hours only 1 core peaked at 72c and i just know pumping more vcore and going to 4.2 will bring that up a few more degrees, minimum. Im only using a Noctua NH-U14S with 2 TY-147A fans. This setup also doesnt heat up the VRM as much, 75c instead of 78c.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> You would think that but the 6800k doesnt overclock as well as pretty much any of the other chips. This was the real issue with my stability before so no, I definitely cant go any higher without increasing my voltage. Pretty much every overclock I have seen shows the 6950x clocking higher than the 6800k at the same voltages.
> 
> Isnt stock cache speed 2.8ghz? I see people try pushing 3.5/3.6 at 1.2v+ on the cache so if i can get 3.4ghz stable at 1.1v, why not? Im using -3 AVX offset so it goes to 3.8ghz as well. If I push anything much further I start hitting thermals around 75-80c. With my current settings after 2 hours only 1 core peaked at 72c and i just know pumping more vcore and going to 4.2 will bring that up a few more degrees, minimum. Im only using a Noctua NH-U14S with 2 TY-147A fans. This setup also doesnt heat up the VRM as much, 75c instead of 78c.


my 6800k sucks for overclocking also 4.2Ghz at 1.37 is best i can do with it cant even get 4.2 stable even with 1.45 vcore.


----------



## xkm1948

My point is cache OC really does not give you any real world performance gain. Why risk bumping the voltage at all? I see you are using an ASUS board, and ASUS X99 is well known of its problematic implementation of OC socket that sometimes over volt vcache.

For per core overclocking it should be fairly easy. Take your current OC for example. You are stable at set vcore for 4.1GHz right? Instead of using all core enhancement 4.1GHz, you can identify the best core (Broadwell-E allow you to do that) and bump that single core to 4.2GHz or even 4.3GHz. This way you get the benefits of higher performance when utilizing few cores.

At least this is what I am doing now. The best core for me is core 0, I set that to run at 4.3GHz. All the rest of the 9 cores run at 4.2GHz. I am using the same amount of vcore but my single thread performance is now better.


----------



## djgar

Cache OC helps in some real world things, like copying large files. All depends on what you do


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Cache OC helps in some real world things, like copying large files. All depends on what you do


I do pretty large bioinformatics datasets processing (which is why I am rocking 128GB RAM!) and I see little performance boost overclocking cache.

Higher RAM speed does help when dealing large data sets though. Going from 2133 to 3000 feels pretty amazing in terms of time saved.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> I do pretty large bioinformatics datasets processing (which is why I am rocking 128GB RAM!) and I see little performance boost overclocking cache.
> 
> Higher RAM speed does help when dealing large data sets though. Going from 2133 to 3000 feels pretty amazing in terms of time saved.


Not processing necessarily, but copying. Basically if you're re-using the same data in sufficient quantities is short intervals. At least for me it makes a difference in those cases. As always, YMMV


----------



## xenkw0n

I see benefits from all of it honestly, just depends on what I'm doing/working on.

The overclock seems to be holding up pretty well 4.5 hours in (Prime95 26.6);


----------



## xenkw0n

It's odd, PUBG makes the VRM's peak at 78c but running hours of Prime95 or OCCT only get it to 75c. I'm half-tempted to pull off the plastic shroud covering the rear panel I/O ports and VRM heatsink. I'm not sure why they put a cover on like that, it practically encases everything back there and combined with the tall TridentZ sticks idk how much airflow can actually get over the heatsink. Thoughts?



Unless the temperatures I'm reporting really are nothing to worry about? Just seems kinda high to be pegged at 78c whenever I'm gaming.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> It's odd, PUBG makes the VRM's peak at 78c but running hours of Prime95 or OCCT only get it to 75c. I'm half-tempted to pull off the plastic shroud covering the rear panel I/O ports and VRM heatsink. I'm not sure why they put a cover on like that, it practically encases everything back there and combined with the tall TridentZ sticks idk how much airflow can actually get over the heatsink. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the temperatures I'm reporting really are nothing to worry about? Just seems kinda high to be pegged at 78c whenever I'm gaming.


78C is pretty toasty.

Does your board have a small fan for the VRM? I say just take the plastic cover off and put some real heatsink over the VRM using adhesive thermal pads.

https://www.amazon.com/Enzotech-MOS-C10-Forged-Copper-Heatsinks/dp/B004CL89D8

Or try to get a fan that directly blows over the VRM

As for temperature, I recommend you use RealBench for stress testing and check your temperature. Prime95 reports lower temp may result from AVX offset.


----------



## xenkw0n

I'm using Prime95 26.6 to avoid AVX. The VRM heatsink Im assuming is getting hot is the one inbetween the memory sockets and the rear I/O ports. The big white thing you see there is mostly just a big plastic cover, you can actually see a portion of the heatsink in the image, its the part that has the diagonal cuts in it towards the DIMM slots. It's completely encased, though, aside from the rear I/O panel, and some space up top. I don't have a top exhaust fan right now so Ill try that first, then remove the plastic shroud if the fan doesnt do much, then try a 80mm fan pointed at it, then maybe replacing the VRM heatsink with ones you suggested. I actually have some extra ones laying around from my GPU mod.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> 78C is pretty toasty.
> 
> Does your board have a small fan for the VRM? I say just take the plastic cover off and put some real heatsink over the VRM using adhesive thermal pads.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Enzotech-MOS-C10-Forged-Copper-Heatsinks/dp/B004CL89D8
> 
> Or try to get a fan that directly blows over the VRM
> 
> As for temperature, I recommend you use RealBench for stress testing and check your temperature. Prime95 reports lower temp may result from AVX offset.


VRMs have two basic things that add heat to them:
1. static power delivery
2. transient power leakage (over/under-shoot and noise) from changing from one state/load to another.

With an uneven load, you can actually see more transients in the VRM circuit as they change to adjust to that changing load.

Personally, I've never had a game do that - synthetic loads are, outside of heat-soak in a poorly ventilated system, usually worse than anything "real", but see above, it is theoretically possible to accomplish what you are seeing.

78C for a VRM is a big yawn... These are parts designed with Tjmax of ~120C typically. 70-90C means its working, but normal.

Things that might affect this (drive it higher than it needs to be):
1. "Extreme" phase modes - if they aren't needed, they will make it switch more often and more radically - see above "transients"
2. Noisy PSU - power (and thus heat) scales exponentially with frequency - so the higher the frequency component(s) on the VRM whether they be switching from one state to another or just "noise", that adds to the heat produced on an exponential scale relative to frequency. The PSU can produce noise that does not impede function, but adds to this frequency component (and thus heat).

So, if you have another PSU, or doubts about yours, then investigate further, but there's nothing obviously wrong here.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> I'm using Prime95 26.6 to avoid AVX. The VRM heatsink Im assuming is getting hot is the one inbetween the memory sockets and the rear I/O ports. The big white thing you see there is mostly just a big plastic cover, you can actually see a portion of the heatsink in the image, its the part that has the diagonal cuts in it towards the DIMM slots. It's completely encased, though, aside from the rear I/O panel, and some space up top. I don't have a top exhaust fan right now so Ill try that first, then remove the plastic shroud if the fan doesnt do much, then try a 80mm fan pointed at it, then maybe replacing the VRM heatsink with ones you suggested. I actually have some extra ones laying around from my GPU mod.


One of the biggest problem X299 had was these fancy looking but useless VRM "heatsinks" der8auer pointed out. Unfortunately this trend has been going on for a while and our X99 definitely suffered a lot from it.

Only the ASUS workstation board as well as some other X99 WS board seems to have good enough VRM heatsink.



I miss those older X38, X58 boards when they actually have adequate heat-sink instead of RGB plastics.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> One of the biggest problem X299 had was these fancy looking but useless VRM "heatsinks" der8auer pointed out. Unfortunately this trend has been going on for a while and our X99 definitely suffered a lot from it.
> 
> Only the ASUS workstation board as well as some other X99 WS board seems to have good enough VRM heatsink.
> 
> I miss those older X38, X58 boards when they actually have adequate heat-sink instead of RGB plastics.


With X99, the heat "spreaders" (vs sinks) were "good enough"TM.

Intel, for better or for worse, dropped SKL-X CPUs on us that will take as much power as you dare to give them and crank the clocks (mostly better







)

To be fair to the MB makers - the pulled in schedules and surprise HCC parts screwed them. To be fair to Intel, @ stock clocks, the heat spreaders are "good enough"TM. We are running 500W through a 165W TDP system (and grinning ear-to-ear doing it).

Der8aur was right and right to call it out, but course corrected and adjustments made, x299 is fine and passive sinks on MB parts present a lot of case-fan challenges.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> One of the biggest problem X299 had was these fancy looking but useless VRM "heatsinks" der8auer pointed out. Unfortunately this trend has been going on for a while and our X99 definitely suffered a lot from it.
> 
> Only the ASUS workstation board as well as some other X99 WS board seems to have good enough VRM heatsink.
> 
> 
> 
> I miss those older X38, X58 boards when they actually have adequate heat-sink instead of RGB plastics.


Strange that i cpu fold [email protected] 24/7 with 10core 7900x on asrock taichi..

...and running 7980xe 18core @ 4.7ghz on rampage vi apex...

Vrm cooling IS good enough.

Only noobs have problems. Like in x38/x48/x58/x79 days...


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> VRMs have two basic things that add heat to them:
> 1. static power delivery
> 2. transient power leakage (over/under-shoot and noise) from changing from one state/load to another.
> 
> With an uneven load, you can actually see more transients in the VRM circuit as they change to adjust to that changing load.
> 
> Personally, I've never had a game do that - synthetic loads are, outside of heat-soak in a poorly ventilated system, usually worse than anything "real", but see above, it is theoretically possible to accomplish what you are seeing.
> 
> 78C for a VRM is a big yawn... These are parts designed with Tjmax of ~120C typically. 70-90C means its working, but normal.
> 
> Things that might affect this (drive it higher than it needs to be):
> 1. "Extreme" phase modes - if they aren't needed, they will make it switch more often and more radically - see above "transients"
> 2. Noisy PSU - power (and thus heat) scales exponentially with frequency - so the higher the frequency component(s) on the VRM whether they be switching from one state to another or just "noise", that adds to the heat produced on an exponential scale relative to frequency. The PSU can produce noise that does not impede function, but adds to this frequency component (and thus heat).
> 
> So, if you have another PSU, or doubts about yours, then investigate further, but there's nothing obviously wrong here.


Good enough for me. I thought that was the case but I never had a board that showed the actual VRM temps to experience it myself. I might still take off the plastic shroud or add a top exhaust fan just to see what that does.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Good enough for me. I thought that was the case but I never had a board that showed the actual VRM temps to experience it myself. I might still take off the plastic shroud or add a top exhaust fan just to see what that does.


I'd expect that even a small amount of airflow will drop temps drastically, but won't affect the life-span or function of the system.


----------



## xenkw0n

That's all I was really looking for. I have extra fans so I'll add it just because. Right now all I have are the stock fans from my case (Phanteks Enthoo Pro) so a 200mm in front and 140mm in back.

The further I go testing my new overclock the more I'm thinking I only just had a CPU core voltage issue. I've gone from 4.1ghz w/ adaptive -.02 to 4.1ghz w/ adaptive +.02 (1.21-1.27 VID to 1.25-1.31 VID) and it's been rock solid for the past 2 nights. This is where I'm a little confused, everyone makes a fuss over VCCSA and VCCIO CPU voltages for memory stability at higher clocks but after gaming last night I lowered those voltages a significant amount to see if I could get the computer to boot, and then to attempt to run a stress test and see if it stays stable...

I'm at *1.00*v on VCCSA and VCCIO CPU @ 3000mhz CL14 1.30v memory. Are you guys sure you need more voltage here and don't just have a similar situation to me where bumping those voltages is just counteracting instability somewhere else? 1.15v and 1.2v VCCSA is a lot more drastic than 1.00v when you're running 3200mhz compared to my 3000mhz. I'm going to push these as low as possible since I saw the most dramatic dip in CPU temps from these values being lowered (76c max p95 @ 4hrs to 70c max p95 @ 6 hours). Went from 1.15v -> 1.00v VCCSA, 1.05v -> 1.00v VCCIO CPU, 1.22v -> 1.10v CPU Cache (But at the same time increased my CPU Core voltage!).


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I've read VCCIO should be a little higher than SA
VCCIO at 1.1 and SA 1.05 as an example seems fine

If you ever notice in bios SA will show higher if VCCIO and SA are entered manually say at 1.1... for both.

But if on auto VCCIO is always higher than SA.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> I've read VCCIO should be a little higher than SA
> VCCIO at 1.1 and SA 1.05 as an example seems fine
> 
> If you ever notice in bios SA will show higher if VCCIO and SA are entered manually say at 1.1... for both.
> 
> But if on auto VCCIO is always higher than SA.


That's actually kind of the reverse of what I've read from different sources, most point out keeping VCCIO .05v below VCCSA is the way to go. I'm not arguing one way or the other, just pointing out at 1.00v I am still able to boot and pass 6+ hours of stress testing (Prime95 Blend). I believe stock values for both of these is .95v so 1.00v is still more than stock. I don't trust 'Auto' voltages anymore - That used to mean the board wouldn't touch it, now it just means the board can go full emo and try killing itself or the CPU.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Well you are using a newer chip and newer bios so suicide chips have been know to happen
I'm still on 5930k and 2101 bios so I doubt any suicide chip is going to happen


----------



## JMTH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> That's actually kind of the reverse of what I've read from different sources, most point out keeping VCCIO .05v below VCCSA is the way to go. I'm not arguing one way or the other, just pointing out at 1.00v I am still able to boot and pass 6+ hours of stress testing (Prime95 Blend). I believe stock values for both of these is .95v so 1.00v is still more than stock. I don't trust 'Auto' voltages anymore - That used to mean the board wouldn't touch it, now it just means the board can go full emo and try killing itself or the CPU.


VCCSA and VCCIO Cpu can be a pain. Especially SA, it seems to work more on a sin curve. You can get pockets of stability across the entire range 0.88 to 1.20v. VCCIO CPU usually just likes one value or above.

To test memory stability though you should use GSAT or HCI Memtest. Check the 24/7 memory thread on the how to.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> That's all I was really looking for. I have extra fans so I'll add it just because. Right now all I have are the stock fans from my case (Phanteks Enthoo Pro) so a 200mm in front and 140mm in back.
> 
> The further I go testing my new overclock the more I'm thinking I only just had a CPU core voltage issue. I've gone from 4.1ghz w/ adaptive -.02 to 4.1ghz w/ adaptive +.02 (1.21-1.27 VID to 1.25-1.31 VID) and it's been rock solid for the past 2 nights. This is where I'm a little confused, everyone makes a fuss over VCCSA and VCCIO CPU voltages for memory stability at higher clocks but after gaming last night I lowered those voltages a significant amount to see if I could get the computer to boot, and then to attempt to run a stress test and see if it stays stable...
> 
> I'm at *1.00*v on VCCSA and VCCIO CPU @ 3000mhz CL14 1.30v memory. Are you guys sure you need more voltage here and don't just have a similar situation to me where bumping those voltages is just counteracting instability somewhere else? 1.15v and 1.2v VCCSA is a lot more drastic than 1.00v when you're running 3200mhz compared to my 3000mhz. I'm going to push these as low as possible since I saw the most dramatic dip in CPU temps from these values being lowered (76c max p95 @ 4hrs to 70c max p95 @ 6 hours). Went from 1.15v -> 1.00v VCCSA, 1.05v -> 1.00v VCCIO CPU, 1.22v -> 1.10v CPU Cache (But at the same time increased my CPU Core voltage!).


Since you are only running 32GB RAM and DDR4-3200, I say your VCCSA at 1V is about right on. Honestly I would recommend you try 0.95V or even 0.9V.

Higher VCCSA is usually needed for >64GB RAM as well as DDR4-3333 and above speed. Also HWE usually needs higher VCCSA because they have weaker IMC comparing to BWE.

If you put 64GB or 128GB high speed RAM in there you will definitely need 1.05V or 1.1V VCCSA.


----------



## xenkw0n

Thanks everyone. It truly is appreciated. I'll definitely be running through some tests specific to memory once I'm done.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Thanks everyone. It truly is appreciated. I'll definitely be running through some tests specific to memory once I'm done.


And thank you for the extensive testing. This could potentially save some fellow X99 owners a lot of time when tuning their own system.


----------



## KCDC

If the info helps, my Trident z 3200 cl16 at 32gb runs stable with VCCSA at .992, VCCIO is 1.096

Using AIDA64 for monitoring.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KCDC*
> 
> If the info helps, my Trident z 3200 cl16 at 32gb runs stable with VCCSA at .992, VCCIO is 1.096
> 
> Using AIDA64 for monitoring.


Nice. Have you tried lower? Like 0.95v VCCSA?


----------



## KCDC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Nice. Have you tried lower? Like 0.95v VCCSA?


I'll give it a go!


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Thanks everyone. It truly is appreciated. I'll definitely be running through some tests specific to memory once I'm done.


Man seeing you tweaking i just can't help tweaking mine as well. Mainly for lowering voltage. This is what i got in the end:

Per core overclocking. Highest single core at 4.4GHz. All core at 4.2GHz. 1.232V under full load. AVX offset at 2

Lv2 load line calibration

0.95v vcache, default cache speed

1.08V VCCSA. This is pulling 128GB DDR4-3000 at 14-14-14-36. I am impressed with my CPU's IMC.

1.33V DRAM voltage

1.05v VCCIO

CPU input at 1.85V

With the reduction of vcache and vccsa my full load CPU temp is only 66C. Down from 69C. Looks like vcache affects temperature quite a lot.

I may try OC cache with just 0.95V and see if I can get 3GHz.

Question for you guys who OC cache. Do you set max and min cache ratio separately? Or do you set it the same value? Default mode cache will downclock to 1.5GHz and full speed to 2.8GHz.

EDIT: just finished 4 hour Realbench stress testing with RAM utilization set to 128GB. Somehow Realbench temp is higher than Prime95. Ended up with average 67C and highest 68C.

Idle system load measured at wall is 101watt. Love these undervolt experiments. BIOS 3801 seems to allow lower VCCSA for the same clock speed. Previously i got BSOD using 1.099V VCCSA. Now i rock 1.08v vccsa


----------



## JMTH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Man seeing you tweaking i just can't help tweaking mine as well. Mainly for lowering voltage. This is what i got in the end:
> 
> Per core overclocking. Highest single core at 4.4GHz. All core at 4.2GHz. 1.232V under full load. AVX offset at 2
> 
> Lv2 load line calibration
> 
> 0.95v vcache, default cache speed
> 
> 1.08V VCCSA. This is pulling 128GB DDR4-3000 at 14-14-14-36. I am impressed with my CPU's IMC.
> 
> 1.33V DRAM voltage
> 
> 1.05v VCCIO
> 
> CPU input at 1.85V
> 
> With the reduction of vcache and vccsa my full load CPU temp is only 66C. Down from 69C. Looks like vcache affects temperature quite a lot.
> 
> I may try OC cache with just 0.95V and see if I can get 3GHz.
> 
> Question for you guys who OC cache. Do you set max and min cache ratio separately? Or do you set it the same value? Default mode cache will downclock to 1.5GHz and full speed to 2.8GHz.


Set the max to what you want the max to be and the min to auto. That way it will still downclock to save power.

What programs are you using to test stability?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

lol i must have one of the worst 6800ks mine needs 1.2 VCCSA to run stable at ddr 3200 and 32gigs, all 32gigs dont even show up for me till im over 1.15.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
x99 has always been pretty weird where ram is concerned I mean only supported 2400MHz between board and cpu = come on lol
First generation quad channel


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> x99 has always been pretty weird where ram is concerned I mean only supported 2400MHz between board and cpu = come on lol
> First generation quad channel


Not sure what you mean by that. I've always been able to run 3400+ memory.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Lucky dog









I got 2666 and it will do 2800+ a little but craps out after that.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> Lucky dog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got 2666 and it will do 2800+ a little but craps out after that.


My 5960x's would both do 3200, but it took a lot of VCCSA. 3000 was relatively easy. BWE did 3200-3400 pretty easily.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah when ddr4 just came out the prices were way too high it was like selling a kidney for anything over 2666 lol








Not sure it's much better now but is a little lower for same as I have now.


----------



## xenkw0n

Now those are the kind of new posts I like waking up to!









So i tried .95 VCCSA and .95 VCCIO with 1.86 CPU Input (LLC 1 = OFF, droops to 1.776 during load and peaks at 1.840... stable so, LLC is staying OFF)

In the end my issues had to 100% be CPU Vcore. Increasing CPU Cache voltage and VCCSA was helping hide the issue but once I bumped the CPU voltage a little more I was able to drop the other ones down to stock and still run strong at 3000mhz memory, 32gb 4 x 8GB.

I want to point out that for me, increasing DRAM to 3200mhz CL15 @ 1.35v requires a nice bump in VCCSA / VCCIO. I am very happy with 3000CL14 vs 3200CL15 considering the voltages I'm running to achieve this. Also noticed my CPU wattage has gone down a bit, although idk how much I actually trust those numbers, anyway.

These temps are not from running extended stress tests but I ran one temporarily while also opening PUBG to get the voltages to expose themselves. Stress tested only up to 7 hours with this setup but also was able to play ~5 hours of PUBG with 0 issues, no hard-lockups, etc.


----------



## xkm1948

0.95v VCCSA is pretty freaking amazing for DDR4-3000


----------



## xkm1948

Onve again anyone tried cache OC at 1V or 0.95V?


----------



## xenkw0n

Can't go lower than 1.08v Cache with my current 3.4ghz setting. Bumped it to 1.10v for a little headroom. I could try undervolting that next but for my 24/7 overclock I didnt want to start playing with different cache settings until I found my 'final' overclock.


----------



## djgar

Never - too low for good OC. I'm at 1.29


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Never - too low for good OC. I'm at 1.29


Which is why I have no problem keeping my measly 3.4ghz cache overclock at 1.10v


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Which is why I have no problem keeping my measly 3.4ghz cache overclock at 1.10v


Different strokes for different folks - the important thing is we accomplish what we set to do


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yep makes me want to go out and buy some new ram


----------



## Mitchell7

I just dropped in a shiny new 6950X after getting a good deal on it. Currently stable at 4.3GHz with 1.276v for non-AVX workloads and 4GHz for AVX. Cache is at 3.5GHz 1.102v and 0.95v VCSA with 64GB of GSkill Ripjaws 4 2667MHz - not running 3000MHz RAM like some.

I've not tried for 4.4GHz yet however compared to the last Haswell-E CPUs this seems harder to achieve with anything less than 1.3v at which point I'm not prepared to go there for an extra 100MHz given that my previous 5960X degraded after running 4.5GHz with 1.31v

Just a heads up to those running the latest Windows 10 insider preview builds (Redstone 4) There appears to be a bug on X99 where by the CPU turbo mode multiplier doesn't change from the stock value inside the OS despite being set to a higher value in the BIOS. It seems that Microsoft have made changes between Build 17046 and 17063 that's affecting this.

As a workaround I've had to use Intel XTU to fore the CPU multiplier to 43x within Windows.

Build 17046



Build 17063


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yep 6950x is not a great oc'er 4.5 seems max on a good day unless using a custom loop with a chiller


----------



## Mitchell7

What voltage are you using for 4.5GHz? Even at 4.3GHz using 1.276v on a custom water loop with an RX360 rad I'm around 68c on the hottest core.

I'm about to re-house my rig into a CaseLabs SM8 case with an upgraded loop, RX480 and RX360 for CPU + GPU so I might see what my chip will do at 4.4, although 1.3v is really the max I'm willing to go for 24/7 use since I don't want to degrade another expensive CPU


----------



## xkm1948

I have finally done it. 0.988V Vcache with cache overclocking to 3GHz.. Idle at 1.5GHz
All core turbo to 4.2GHz, 1.232V offset mode, 100BCLK
DDR4-3000, 128GB, 14-14-14-36 CR2
VCCSA is at 1.088V, Load Line Calibration level 2.
I am surprised it is rock solid. Passed 4hr of Realbench Stress test and a brief 1h AIDA64 Stress Test. Per core overclocking seems to be unstable for 1 core 4.4GHz. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.











Max load temp is about 68C during any type of stress testing. Room temp is 25C. Noctua D15 is one hell of a cooler.









Cine bench 15


----------



## JMTH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> I have finally done it. 0.988V Vcache with cache overclocking to 3GHz.. Idle at 1.5GHz
> All core turbo to 4.2GHz, 1.232V offset mode, 100BCLK
> DDR4-3000, 128GB, 14-14-14-36 CR2
> VCCSA is at 1.088V, Load Line Calibration level 2.
> I am surprised it is rock solid. Passed 4hr of Realbench Stress test and a brief 1h AIDA64 Stress Test. Per core overclocking seems to be unstable for 1 core 4.4GHz. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Max load temp is about 68C during any type of stress testing. Room temp is 25C. Noctua D15 is one hell of a cooler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cine bench 15


I found that trying to set one or two cores 2-3X above the others caused instability unless you used the same or a little bit more voltage needed to sync all cores at the same multiplier. Most times it would even cause an increase in temp above the same multiplier using sync all cores.

Just ditch it and sync to where you are comfortable!

Also I dont call it stable until I can pass this testing regiment;

1. RealBench 8 hour stress test.
2. x265 Benchmark, 4k, overkill x4, Very High @ .999
3. Stressapptest (GSAT) 3 hours ~90% RAM value, for me using 64GB of RAM its stressapptest -W -M 59392 -s 10800 --pause_delay 11000 in BASH. OR 2000% in the new RamTest program on this thread
4. HCI Memtest >1000%

I dropped the AIDA64 Cache test as I was passing a 2-3 hour test but getting errors in HCI due to not enough cache voltage.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMTH*
> 
> I found that trying to set one or two cores 2-3X above the others caused instability unless you used the same or a little bit more voltage needed to sync all cores at the same multiplier. Most times it would even cause an increase in temp above the same multiplier using sync all cores.
> 
> Just ditch it and sync to where you are comfortable!


I will stop at 4.2GHz for now. I am not terribly confident with the VRM of TUF X99


----------



## Bal3Wolf

any one had cache degrade for months i could run 3600mhz cache then it just got unstable no matter what but 3500 still works fine.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> any one had cache degrade for months i could run 3600mhz cache then it just got unstable no matter what but 3500 still works fine.


Yes. Both my 5820K and 1st 6950X degraded cache over time. My 5820K would do 4.2GHz cache initially. It got so unstable I had to lower it 3.7GHz before I sold it.

My 1st 6950X would do 3.5GHz cache initially. Then it just died. It was running 1.24v vcache though.

For my current 6950X I am only running 3GHz at 0.988V


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> any one had cache degrade for months i could run 3600mhz cache then it just got unstable no matter what but 3500 still works fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Both my 5820K and 1st 6950X degraded cache over time. My 5820K would do 4.2GHz cache initially. It got so unstable I had to lower it 3.7GHz before I sold it.
> 
> My 1st 6950X would do 3.5GHz cache initially. Then it just died. It was running 1.24v vcache though.
> 
> For my current 6950X I am only running 3GHz at 0.988V
Click to expand...

i see yea i liked 3600 cache gave me another 50-70hash mining but then it started to freeze up the pc droped to 3.5 and stable again using 1.16v for cache at 3500.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i see yea i liked 3600 cache gave me another 50-70hash mining but then it started to freeze up the pc droped to 3.5 and stable again using 1.16v for cache at 3500.


You have a MSI board so you should be fine. ASUS X99's OC socket have a tendency to fry CPU when cache is overclocked. Latest victim I know is KedarWolf, who lost his superb 5960X in the process.

I say try to keep cache overclocking as minium as possible. If you do OC your cache make sure you purchase the Intel Tuning plan. Aint funny to loose an expensive CPU.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i see yea i liked 3600 cache gave me another 50-70hash mining but then it started to freeze up the pc droped to 3.5 and stable again using 1.16v for cache at 3500.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a MSI board so you should be fine. ASUS X99's OC socket have a tendency to fry CPU when cache is overclocked. Latest victim I know is KedarWolf, who lost his superb 5960X in the process.
> 
> I say try to keep cache overclocking as minium as possible. If you do OC your cache make sure you purchase the Intel Tuning plan. Aint funny to loose an expensive CPU.
Click to expand...

i have owned my cpu for about 7 months not sure i can still get the tuning plan now.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i have owned my cpu for about 7 months not sure i can still get the tuning plan now.


Yes you can.


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> i see yea i liked 3600 cache gave me another 50-70hash mining but then it started to freeze up the pc droped to 3.5 and stable again using 1.16v for cache at 3500.


Hi,
I've been using cache min 24 and max 38 since I first got x99
Unless I'm missing something I've never changed any voltages and left them at auto except vcore
So if you or someone else can share a screen shot of where the voltages are being altered that are killing cpu's it sure would help me understand the killing part









As it is now I'm just calling it a old cpu and new bios deal
X series is well known for throwing too much voltage.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> I've been using cache min 24 and max 38 since I first got x99
> Unless I'm missing something I've never changed any voltages and left them at auto except vcore
> So if you or someone else can share a screen shot of where the voltages are being altered that are killing cpu's it sure would help me understand the killing part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it is now I'm just calling it a old cpu and new bios deal
> X series is well known for throwing too much voltage.


Nah it is more of a Broadwell-E thing. Haswell-E cache can take quite a beating comparing to Broadwell-E. See my previous post.

Now if you swap that 5930K of yours for a 6900K and keep OC cache like you did before let's see how long it will last.

I have owned both HWE and BWE, BWE has stronger IMC, but a lot weaker in cache durability comparing to HWE.

Most of the killing happned during initial booting up when large dose of voltage is applied and the user is greeted with q QCODE 00 error.

And dude I know your 5930K is pretty durable. It is as real as many BWE owners who have lost their processors. Stay on your 2101 all you want since it is only running with a 5930K. If you wanna experience the killing go for a BWE and see for yourself.

Hell KendarWolf used to taunt the exact same thing over and over like how his 5960X can take a beating. Well, until one day that 5960X died and he moved on to 8700K.

So enjoy while you can. You never know whether your processor is gonna bite the bullet next power up.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> I've been using cache min 24 and max 38 since I first got x99
> Unless I'm missing something I've never changed any voltages and left them at auto except vcore
> So if you or someone else can share a screen shot of where the voltages are being altered that are killing cpu's it sure would help me understand the killing part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it is now I'm just calling it a old cpu and new bios deal
> X series is well known for throwing too much voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah it is more of a Broadwell-E thing. Haswell-E cache can take quite a beating comparing to Broadwell-E. See my previous post.
> 
> Now if you swap that 5930K of yours for a 6900K and keep OC cache like you did before let's see how long it will last.
> 
> I have owned both HWE and BWE, BWE has stronger IMC, but a lot weaker in cache durability comparing to HWE.
> 
> Most of the killing happned during initial booting up when large dose of voltage is applied and the user is greeted with q QCODE 00 error.
> 
> And dude I know your 5930K is pretty durable. It is as real as many BWE owners who have lost their processors. Stay on your 2101 all you want since it is only running with a 5930K. If you wanna experience the killing go for a BWE and see for yourself.
> 
> Hell KendarWolf used to taunt the exact same thing over and over like how his 5960X can take a beating. Well, until one day that 5960X died and he moved on to 8700K.
> 
> So enjoy while you can. You never know whether your processor is gonna bite the bullet next power up.
Click to expand...

So what im seeing mosty ASUS boads kill them not MSI and what max voltage would be safe i read most places say stay under 1.25 on BW-E.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*
> 
> So what im seeing mosty ASUS boads kill them not MSI and what max voltage would be safe i read most places say stay under 1.25 on BW-E.


yeah mostly it is an ASUS thing. Bad implementation of OC socket maybe? Who knows.

I say below 1.15V for BWE and below 1.25V for HWE.

1.25V is too high for BWE, that is how my 1st 6950X was fried along with the motherboard


----------



## awdrifter

I'm running 1.15v on 34x for the cache overclock on a 6800k, is that safe for long term use?


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *awdrifter*
> 
> I'm running 1.15v on 34x for the cache overclock on a 6800k, is that safe for long term use?


1.15 should be good.

Is that the lowest you can go? Might worth investigate whether you can lower even more. You never know, maybe you only need 1.1V


----------



## Jbravo33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *awdrifter*
> 
> I'm running 1.15v on 34x for the cache overclock on a 6800k, is that safe for long term use?


i been running 4.3 @ 1.299. cache at 37 on my 6850K since january. when i bench to max i can do 4.6 @ 1.465. have not had one hiccup with this X99 rig. out of 1950x (sold) 7980XE (problems with board) and 8700k i have to say my X99 has been the most stable and rock solid so far. been using as my stream rig until i get another R6E.


----------



## L36

Interesting consensus on frying bw-e. I have a 6950x with cache at 3.7. Voltage is 1.275 under load.

I have a x99 deluxe. One thing I noticed when I dropped my cpu into the motherboard is that it set my VCCIO voltage to 1.16V which is in the red zone. I noticed when you run fast ram, the motherboard will automatically bump the voltage for the VCCIO to the red zone.

I caught it before applying it and set it to the 1.05V default.

Nonetheless, I have been running my Bw-e since summer of last year at that voltage for cache and have not experienced any cache degradation.

Cores are at 4.4, around 1.3V under load.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L36*
> 
> Interesting consensus on frying bw-e. I have a 6950x with cache at 3.7. Voltage is 1.275 under load.
> 
> I have a x99 deluxe. One thing I noticed when I dropped my cpu into the motherboard is that it set my VCCIO voltage to 1.16V which is in the red zone. I noticed when you run fast ram, the motherboard will automatically bump the voltage for the VCCIO to the red zone.
> 
> I caught it before applying it and set it to the 1.05V default.
> 
> Nonetheless, I have been running my Bw-e since summer of last year at that voltage for cache and have not experienced any cache degradation.
> 
> Cores are at 4.4, around 1.3V under load.


My msi will do same on auto it will set my VCCIO and CPU SA thru the moon if i let it set it to auto at ddr 3200 like .60 more then is needed to be perfectly stable


----------



## awdrifter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> 1.15 should be good.
> 
> Is that the lowest you can go? Might worth investigate whether you can lower even more. You never know, maybe you only need 1.1V


1.15v is the lowest I can get it to run stable at 34x. I usually run the core at 4.05ghz (1.275v) and only push it to 4.26ghz (1.38v) when I play a game that needs it, so it's rarely running at that high of a vcore. Hopefully this will allow it to survive for 3 years or so.


----------



## Aenra

Have read similar accounts about uncore elsewhere; while too soon for anything definitive, i set up my 6900K early January 2017.

Still going fine at 4.5GHz core / 3.6GHz uncore with 1.395v core / 1.255 ring (vrin at 1.950, sa at +0.35, vccio at 1.150, vccu at +0.25, llc at extreme).

* likewise with RAM, 4x8Gigs at 3400, 15-18-18-38-1T with 1.430v (an exact 1.450v with llc factored in), it's just as stable; i mean, you know, IMC issues, have read a lot about those too, especially with 1T, where all of a sudden BIOS only recognises 2/3 out of 4 modules. Nothing like that; yet *

Not a golden chip as you can see by the voltages, but even so, runs Prime now just as it did in February i think was the last time?

Of course, i'm not using an Asus board.. surprise.. not. As always, YMMV


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Nah it is more of a Broadwell-E thing. Haswell-E cache can take quite a beating comparing to Broadwell-E. See my previous post.
> 
> Now if you swap that 5930K of yours for a 6900K and keep OC cache like you did before let's see how long it will last.
> 
> I have owned both HWE and BWE, BWE has stronger IMC, but a lot weaker in cache durability comparing to HWE.
> 
> Most of the killing happned during initial booting up when large dose of voltage is applied and the user is greeted with q QCODE 00 error.
> 
> And dude I know your 5930K is pretty durable. It is as real as many BWE owners who have lost their processors. Stay on your 2101 all you want since it is only running with a 5930K. If you wanna experience the killing go for a BWE and see for yourself.
> 
> Hell KendarWolf used to taunt the exact same thing over and over like how his 5960X can take a beating. Well, until one day that 5960X died and he moved on to 8700K.
> 
> So enjoy while you can. You never know whether your processor is gonna bite the bullet next power up.


Hi,
Thank you that is more details that what I started with


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> Have read similar accounts about uncore elsewhere; while too soon for anything definitive, i set up my 6900K early January 2017.
> Still going fine at 4.5GHz core / 3.6GHz uncore with 1.395v core / 1.255 ring (vrin at 1.950, sa at +0.35, vccio at 1.150, vccu at +0.25, llc at extreme).
> 
> * likewise with RAM, 4x8Gigs at 3400, 15-18-18-38-1T with 1.430v (an exact 1.450v with llc factored in), it's just as stable; i mean, you know, IMC issues, have read a lot about those too, especially with 1T, where all of a sudden BIOS only recognises 2/3 out of 4 modules. Nothing like that; yet *
> 
> Not a golden chip as you can see by the voltages, but even so, runs Prime now just as it did in February i think was the last time?
> 
> Of course, i'm not using an Asus board.. surprise.. not. As always, YMMV


Are you using the Oak Plank revision 1 or 2 board? Really though, what are you using?


----------



## Aenra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Oak Plank .. Really though, what are you using?


^^

Currently on a Gigabyte X99 Designare EX, the numbers you see and everything are on this one.

I also happen to have a SOC which does even better; it gives me the exact same clocks but with *edit* 0.012v less on the core (which yes, is a lot), but doesn't offer all the bells and whistles.

When i don't go Gigabyte, case in point the TR4 socket (they lack external BCLK), i go Asrock.

The last 4 platforms, four mind you, i've had mobos from Asus and Gigabyte side by side, to compare clocks and voltages. In all four platforms, Asus was proven to be subpar; and never mind their costing more. Not gonna tell you "i'll never buy Asus again", things always change. I would just need some serious facts before i changed my mind. And the facts only keep piling up in the opposite direction.

As always, just my opinion, to each their own.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> ^^
> Currently on a Gigabyte X99 Designare EX, the numbers you see and everything are on this one.
> I also happen to have a SOC which does even better; it gives me the exact same clocks but with *edit* 0.012v less on the core (which yes, is a lot), but doesn't offer all the bells and whistles.
> When i don't go Gigabyte, case in point the TR4 socket (they lack external BCLK), i go Asrock.
> 
> The last 4 platforms, four mind you, i've had mobos from Asus and Gigabyte side by side, to compare clocks and voltages. In all four platforms, Asus was proven to be subpar; and never mind their costing more. Not gonna tell you "i'll never buy Asus again", things always change. I would just need some serious facts before i changed my mind. And the facts only keep piling up in the opposite direction.
> As always, just my opinion, to each their own.


Thanks for the backstory. Glad to know Gigabyte still makes great boards. I heard stories about them between X58 and now where they had some issues. ASRock has been nothing short of brilliant for me with the 3 boards I've used from them. By far the fastest boot times of any machines I've worked on as well (P67, Z75, Z77).


----------



## Aenra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Glad to know Gigabyte still makes great boards. I heard stories


Oh i heard them too.

With the danger of further alienating (already have to some extent) some of the resident, erm, persistent(?) forum posters, i find it's a bit more complicated than that:

- Some folks with this hobby remain in the emotional age of 12..15.. or near enough. They need many buttons, flashy lights, sub panels within sub panels, menus expanding into sub menus, etc. Faced with simplicity, they find fault. Even when said simplicity guarantees the exact same outcome. You see this in practice when viewing the countless of posts describing Gigabyte's uefi GUI as horrible, bad, ugly, you name it. So few buttons to click, must be wrong.

- Hype. Sadly, even more so in here. Cool kids get 'x' brand and so must we.

- Lies. Example? There is a very respected member of this community having made post after post about a certain recent Gigabyte mobo "frying" the VRM. I have this very same mobo, set it up myself for a PC i gifted to my father for his birthday. Just.. lies.

+ And a true fact, namely the occasional BIOS drivers hickup or delay. This does happen, but all it takes is a bit of reading. If you're here, ie overclocking isn't an option for you but a certainty, you're going to do it with each and every cpu you have, i'd assume reading is not your weakest point. And as mentioned, that's all it takes, bit of reading before updating to the latest Gigabyte BIOS; which between you and me, one must not do unless one's facing issues. I happen to own, right now, two mobos that reportedly "suck" because BIOS. Both do grand. One in fact exceeded my expectations, 1800X at 4.2, Prime stable. I just used my brain. On said mobo mentioned above btw, the one "frying" the VRM. True story!

(why do i then mention this as true? Because there is the odd chance that you will have a BIOS-related issue. If you do, it may indeed be that a solution will come later than it would have in say Asus or Asrock. Has happened, will again. I won't weigh the positives and the negatives for you, just giving you the facts here)


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> Oh i heard them too.
> With the danger of further alienating (already have to some extent) some of the resident, erm, persistent(?) forum posters, i find it's a bit more complicated than that:
> 
> - Some folks with this hobby remain in the emotional age of 12..15.. or near enough. They need many buttons, flashy lights, sub panels within sub panels, menus expanding into sub menus, etc. Faced with simplicity, they find fault. Even when said simplicity guarantees the exact same outcome. You see this in practice when viewing the countless of posts describing Gigabyte's uefi GUI as horrible, bad, ugly, you name it. So few buttons to click, must be wrong.
> - Hype. Sadly, even more so in here. Cool kids get 'x' brand and so must we.
> - Lies. Example? There is a very respected member of this community having made post after post about a certain recent Gigabyte mobo "frying" the VRM. I have this very same mobo, set it up myself for a PC i gifted to my father for his birthday. Just.. lies.
> + And a true fact, namely the occasional BIOS drivers hickup or delay. This does happen, but all it takes is a bit of reading. If you're here, ie overclocking isn't an option for you but a certainty, you're going to do it with each and every cpu you have, i'd assume reading is not your weakest point. And as mentioned, that's all it takes, bit of reading before updating to the latest Gigabyte BIOS; which between you and me, one must not do unless one's facing issues. I happen to own, right now, two mobos that reportedly "suck" because BIOS. Both do grand. One in fact exceeded my expectations, 1800X at 4.2, Prime stable. I just used my brain. On said mobo mentioned above btw, the one "frying" the VRM. True story!
> 
> (why do i then mention this as true? Because there is the odd chance that you _will_ have a BIOS-related issue. If you do, it may indeed be that a solution will come later than it would have in say Asus or Asrock. Has happened, will again. I won't weigh the positives and the negatives for you, just giving you the facts here)


I think you're over-thinking and generalizing some of the above. A hobby is a hobby. Some are drawn to benchmarking, some to beautiful visual impact, some to on-the-job performance and who knows what else or combination thereof.

And yes as we well know, the "facts" are just what people have stated, not necessarily what actually happened in reality and often basically opinion. However opinion is not a defect, merely opinion, and can be constructive as long as stated properly as such. And not over & over







.

But I thank you for making me feel 15 again


----------



## Aenra

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> thank you for making me feel 15 again


You're more than welcome. Am sure we'll soon have an RGB lights sub section, further inducing that feeling for many, many more.

As to how opinion can be constructive, that depends on whom is shouting the loudest; and longest. If you see a majority of people repeatedly favoring 'x' product, chances are you'd think there's a valid reason for it. Chances are you won't immediately condemn them all and do the exact opposite, would you? In fact, you might even go buy it, because hell, someone's bound to know better than you.

And in such a scenario, as has been in this thread to name just one instance, no, not really.. opinions can be just as misleading as they can be constructive. To put it politely. To put it differently, when we have moved past any semblance of empiricity and straight into hyping, one begs to differ.

Not sure if making a statement that goes against the flow twice (two posts over a period of many days) counts as "over and over", may be for some.

Have been reading your (figuratively) Asus praising over and over however for years now (long lurker) and up to now, you haven't seen me complaining/disagreeing, now have you? So a literal number of two posts total should be ok, all things considered. You're as always welcome to disagree of course.

* edit: Anyway, next time my post bothers someone, by all means spare me the diplomacy and tell me you were annoyed. If i did something wrong, i can assure you i'm also the person to admit it and change my ways.

The posts that may have annoyed/got attention however were about experiences i have had; personally. No third persons, no hearsay. Bought mobos, of different companies, put to the test. Over and over. This was one more user, like y'all, stating his opinion about a company you neither work nor live for.
So all things under consideration please.


----------



## xenkw0n

I just appreciate hearing stories/examples from other people so I can make my own decisions on what I want to do. Part of my overclock is so that I never actually touch 70c in real world usage scenarios. The examples I have heard from other people talking about certain boards is not just one of those random 'quirks' to me anymore since I also experienced 2 chips die in one of my ASUS boards. Thing is, I understand that to everyone else I'm also one of those random strangers spouting off, who, may also not be worth trusting. And it's not always a personal thing with trust, I might be entirely honest in my beliefs, it just doesn't always mean they are correct. The well-intended remarks are there, and that's what really matters, because it can only help others also come up with their own conclusions.

In the end, I'm still not even really sure WHY my chips died. Sure, it could have been an "auto" setting related to VCCIO or something the first time around but definitely not the second, and I never used Auto for VCCSA, ever. I'm sure the auto voltages are absurdly high for the types of overclocks being attempted but then why would I have a second chip die when I made sure to not leave auto voltages? It wasn't until the 2nd chip dying that I actually started posting in this thread instead of reading through pages. This was about 5-6 months ago now and with this third chip I also got ASUS to replace my motherboard (they like to say they don't have stock, I'm sure a lot of you have heard this, but then magically they had one to send to me after I explained I already had 2 chips die and an open inquiry with Intel with full disclosure). If this chip doesn't die, there has to be a defect in the board. I've had them die on different BIOS versions, and different PSU's... I know there are more controls but it just points to a defect of sorts.

I also feel sorry for whoever may end up with my old board. Cosmetically, I took care of it, but I can tell the board they sent me was not brand new. It was probably another return. I sent my first board in to them the first time around because I thought that went bad initially, not the CPU, CPU's need crazy voltage to die, right!?. I got the very descriptive "test ok" reply from them and knew if they used a working CPU that the board would appear to be fine. It was a fight.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> You're more than welcome. Am sure we'll soon have an RGB lights sub section, further inducing that feeling for many, many more.
> 
> As to how opinion can be constructive, that depends on whom is shouting the loudest; and longest. If you see a majority of people repeatedly favoring 'x' product, chances are you'd think there's a valid reason for it. Chances are you won't immediately condemn them all and do the exact opposite, would you? In fact, you might even go buy it, because hell, someone's bound to know better than you.
> And in such a scenario, as has been in this thread to name just one instance, no, not really.. opinions can be just as misleading as they can be constructive. To put it politely. To put it differently, when we have moved past any semblance of empiricity and straight into hyping, one begs to differ.
> 
> Not sure if making a statement that goes against the flow twice (two posts over a period of many days) counts as "over and over", may be for some.
> *Have been reading your (figuratively) Asus praising over and over however for years now (long lurker) and up to now, you haven't seen me complaining/disagreeing, now have you?* So a literal number of two posts _total_ should be ok, all things considered. You're as always welcome to disagree of course.
> 
> * edit: Anyway, next time my post bothers someone, by all means spare me the diplomacy and tell me you were annoyed. If i did something wrong, i can assure you i'm also the person to admit it and change my ways.
> The posts that may have annoyed/got attention however were about experiences i have had; personally. No third persons, no hearsay. Bought mobos, of different companies, put to the test. Over and over. This was one more user, like y'all, stating his opinion about a company you neither work nor live for.
> 
> So all things under consideration please.


First, my comments although in response to your post were not about you specifically but in general. Nothing should be taken personal - not my thing.

Second, what praise of Asus? My posts tend to describe what I do in my OC and my specific experience, not "Asus is wonderful", and occasionally I mention I'm lucky. If I've had good experiences with my Asus MBs I apologize.

But anyway, have a great New Year OC'ing whatever make of board you select


----------



## xkm1948

For ASUS RMA you have to get in contact with one of their Taiwan based engineers. They usually camp out on ROG forum. My RMA issue was resolved with a new board directly shipped from Taiwan.

8700K seems really good now comparing to our aging X99. If you don't have super high RAM capacity need might as well switch to coffee lake or Zen+ if your chip is fried again. 6 core 12 threads close to 5GHz is pretty damn cool.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> For ASUS RMA you have to get in contact with one of their Taiwan based engineers. They usually camp out on ROG forum. My RMA issue was resolved with a new board directly shipped from Taiwan.
> 
> 8700K seems really good now comparing to our aging X99. If you don't have super high RAM capacity need might as well switch to coffee lake or Zen+ if your chip is fried again. 6 core 12 threads close to 5GHz is pretty damn cool.


Thanks for the advice on the contact. My hopes was to be able to replace my media server with this machine once I upgrade (5+ years?) again, and keep cycling. I wanted X99 because of the Xeons I could put in it when I'm done with gaming... Just hoping that the prices drop significantly after 4-5 years. Did that with X58.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Thanks for the advice on the contact. My hopes was to be able to replace my media server with this machine once I upgrade (5+ years?) again, and keep cycling. I wanted X99 because of the Xeons I could put in it when I'm done with gaming... Just hoping that the prices drop significantly after 4-5 years. Did that with X58.


With the current trend of high core count wars between AMD and Intel, this platform would be obsolete soon. I wouldn't hold onto it too long


----------



## xenkw0n

That's very true, and I might not actually need anything much more powerful than the X58 for media since it does 1080p playback for multiple simultaneous sources just fine right now.

I guess I'll be patiently waiting Ice-Lake's reveal.


----------



## Aenra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Second, what praise of Asus?
> 
> But anyway, have a great New Year


I wasn't referring to you specifically; i even mentioned it in a parenthesis, you as in figuratively, ie plural. It's all good 

And definitely a happy new year to you (non figuratively), and everyone else here. Opinions aside and all ^^


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aenra*
> 
> I wasn't referring to you specifically; i even mentioned it in a parenthesis, you as in figuratively, ie plural. It's all good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And definitely a happy new year to you (non figuratively), and everyone else here. Opinions aside and all ^^


----------



## Krzych04650

Just got 6900K today for a replacement for 5960X that died for unknown reasons and I can already feel the downgrade. This 5960X was one great chip, 4.65 core and 4.45 cache at 1.365 and 1.3V respectively. Don't know why it died, most likely memory controller failure because mobo was acting like there is no RAM installed. This new 6900K can't do 4.4 even at 1.4V, cache stops at around 3.6 with 1.3V, and it is much hotter than 5960X, at 4.25 1.275V core and 3.5 1.26 cache I am getting basically the same temperatures like on max overclocked 5960X, which is up to high 80s, depending on load. So far from initial benchmarking I am expecting 6-7% performance loss vs 5960X, thats with the same memory. I didn't expect to get such a good sample as this 5960X, but I thought that newer architecture is going to make up to for some frequency loss and I will end up with meaningless differences, but 6-7% is a huge difference between so similar chips.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> Just got 6900K today for a replacement for 5960X that died for unknown reasons and I can already feel the downgrade. This 5960X was one great chip, 4.65 core and 4.45 cache at 1.365 and 1.3V respectively. Don't know why it died, most likely memory controller failure because mobo was acting like there is no RAM installed. This new 6900K can't do 4.4 even at 1.4V, cache stops at around 3.6 with 1.3V, and it is much hotter than 5960X, at 4.25 1.275V core and 3.5 1.26 cache I am getting basically the same temperatures like on max overclocked 5960X, which is up to high 80s, depending on load. So far from initial benchmarking I am expecting 6-7% performance loss vs 5960X, thats with the same memory. I didn't expect to get such a good sample as this 5960X, but I thought that newer architecture is going to make up to for some frequency loss and I will end up with meaningless differences, but 6-7% is a huge difference between so similar chips.


4.45/1.3 is roasting the 5960x uncore. 1.3v specifically was where Asus reported they started to see the uncore getting "brutalized" I believe was the phrase.

3.6-3.7 is "the wall" with BWE cache. 4.4-4.5 core is also normal.

The IPC did go up ~5-8% in most cases, but 4.45 cache was outstanding (a little too outstanding it seems) for the 5960x.

The BWE should have a better IMC, so get to work on those secondary timings and you should be able to match a 4.6 HWE with a 4.4BWE.


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> 4.45/1.3 is roasting the 5960x uncore. 1.3v specifically was where Asus reported they started to see the uncore getting "brutalized" I believe was the phrase.
> 
> 3.6-3.7 is "the wall" with BWE cache. 4.4-4.5 core is also normal.
> 
> The IPC did go up ~5-8% in most cases, but 4.45 cache was outstanding (a little too outstanding it seems) for the 5960x.
> 
> The BWE should have a better IMC, so get to work on those secondary timings and you should be able to match a 4.6 HWE with a 4.4BWE.


I might have pushed this 5960X too far, no denying, but it had such a potential... CPUs don't just randomly die after few months, it was probably my fault.

How about cache voltage on BW-E? Same as HW-E or can it go higher more safely?

I am probably not going mess with those secondary timings, after some cache overclocking on 6900K it is within 5% from 5960X, with 4.25 core and 3.5 cache so not pushed to the max like 5960X was, so it is not that bad, if this 5960X wasn't such a good sample and did for example 4.5/4.0 then they would probably be within 1-2% of each other.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> I might have pushed this 5960X too far, no denying, but it had such a potential... CPUs don't just randomly die after few months, it was probably my fault.
> 
> How about cache voltage on BW-E? Same as HW-E or can it go higher more safely?
> 
> I am probably not going mess with those secondary timings, after some cache overclocking on 6900K it is within 5% from 5960X, with 4.25 core and 3.5 cache so not pushed to the max like 5960X was, so it is not that bad, if this 5960X wasn't such a good sample and did for example 4.5/4.0 then they would probably be within 1-2% of each other.


Just flip back a few pages. We have jusy finished discussion on BWE cache. Generally speaking BWE cache is a lot less durable compared to HWE. With the way you are OCing now I won't be surprised if your 6900K dies within a few month


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Just flip back a few pages. We have jusy finished discussion on BWE cache. Generally speaking BWE cache is a lot less durable compared to HWE. With the way you are OCing now I won't be surprised if your 6900K dies within a few month


Hm. Pushing things is tempting but I will see what I can get on 1.10-1.15V cache and if nothing sensible then I will just leave it alone, it is pointless anyway. Getting over 1 GHz of extra cache frequency on 5960X was something, but here gains are so small that it is just not worth the risk at all. Generally I will look into some of voltages because Asus mobos really like to crank things up, I already had everything set manually with 5960X because mobo was going a bit crazy. Right now after just using XMP profile mobo sets cache to 1.25V effective, 1.225 on IO and 1.336 on VCCSA. Pretty crazy


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> Hm. Pushing things is tempting but I will see what I can get on 1.10-1.15V cache and if nothing sensible then I will just leave it alone, it is pointless anyway. Getting over 1 GHz of extra cache frequency on 5960X was something, but here gains are so small that it is just not worth the risk at all. Generally I will look into some of voltages because Asus mobos really like to crank things up, I already had everything set manually with 5960X because mobo was going a bit crazy. Right now after just using XMP profile mobo sets cache to 1.25V effective, 1.225 on IO and 1.336 on VCCSA. Pretty crazy


Do not use XMP. Set everything manually, including speed and timings


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> Just got 6900K today for a replacement for 5960X that died for unknown reasons and I can already feel the downgrade. This 5960X was one great chip, 4.65 core and 4.45 cache at 1.365 and 1.3V respectively. Don't know why it died, most likely memory controller failure because mobo was acting like there is no RAM installed. This new 6900K can't do 4.4 even at 1.4V, cache stops at around 3.6 with 1.3V, and it is much hotter than 5960X, at 4.25 1.275V core and 3.5 1.26 cache I am getting basically the same temperatures like on max overclocked 5960X, which is up to high 80s, depending on load. So far from initial benchmarking I am expecting 6-7% performance loss vs 5960X, thats with the same memory. I didn't expect to get such a good sample as this 5960X, but I thought that newer architecture is going to make up to for some frequency loss and I will end up with meaningless differences, but 6-7% is a huge difference between so similar chips.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Do not use XMP. Set everything manually, including speed and timings


^^^ What he said. Avoid the XMP mode.

Check the sig in the post before yours (or this one) - I'm getting real nice results from my 6900K, Maybe I'm lucky but it took lots of trial & error to get there. You need to get (besides VCORE, VDIMM & VCACHE) the VCCSA and VRM volts right.


----------



## xkm1948

Windows 10 just forced on installation of a security patch that is supposed to fix the "meltdown" security flaw. Not seeing much performance difference from Cinebench though.


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Do not use XMP. Set everything manually, including speed and timings


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> ^^^ What he said. Avoid the XMP mode.
> 
> Check the sig in the post before yours (or this one) - I'm getting real nice results from my 6900K, Maybe I'm lucky but it took lots of trial & error to get there. You need to get (besides VCORE, VDIMM & VCACHE) the VCCSA and VRM volts right.


I used XMP because I thought I won't have an option to set 3000 MHz manually like with two previous RAM kits. But this one has full frequency list available. Previous ones had 2933 and then 3200 with nothing in between, no idea why, it was the same on both MSI X99A and this Sabertooth.

I have dealt with a fact that this time I have to go economical because there is nothing to push really in this sample. I am getting some really nice stability with 4.2 GHz 1.275V adaptive, 3.4 GHz 1.080 cache, 3000 MHz RAM and all voltages set manually to low values. Temps are just about right too for a stress test loads. I will stress test it for some more hours and leave it there. I just hope this kind of restrained approach will result in perfect stability as a reward for not pushing things to the limits








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Windows 10 just forced on installation of a security patch that is supposed to fix the "meltdown" security flaw. Not seeing much performance difference from Cinebench though.


Because there will be no performance difference, anywhere. All of this fuss about Intel taking up to 30% hit to performance because of this fix and AMD getting ahead in performance is the biggest bs I have read in months, if not years. What someone needs to have in his head to even think that something like this could ever happen... 30%...


----------



## v0dka

Alright gents, I picked up a used X99 Strix Gaming, 6850k and a new 32Gb Corsair kit (CMK32GX4M4C3000C15) which cost me an arm and a leg.

However, this kit is nowhere near stable at 3000Mhz with timings from SPD / XMP. Anyone have a template that I can start off with? Because I'm getting nowhere on auto timings and voltages. Did try playing with the System Agent and IO voltages and manually set the Vdimm to 1.35. It uses a 125 strap on default for 3000 DDR which should be fine. Now anything below 3000Mhz is perfectly stable but at soon as I set 3000Mhz windows fails to boot and gives me an instant warning that a kernel file is damaged. So It's bouncing between stable and completely out of whack unstable.

I was a pretty experienced overclocker years ago but haven't upgraded since X58 so I really need some help here. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## BrainSplatter

System- and IO voltages on XMP+auto are often higher than necessary. Therefore I would try 1.4v for the RAM to see if that helps.


----------



## v0dka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BrainSplatter*
> 
> System- and IO voltages on XMP+auto are often higher than necessary. Therefore I would try 1.4v for the RAM to see if that helps.


Alright will try and report back.


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *v0dka*
> 
> Alright will try and report back.


Hi,
From that thread something you might try
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> 125 BCLK is ok for benching. 100 is best for every day computing. 2400, 2666 MHz = 100 strap 2800, 3000 MHz 125 strap, 3200MHz 100 strap is the sweet spot on XMP. You can manually tune your 3000 to run 100 BCLK. Any memory you decide to get manual tuning will always be the best solution.


----------



## v0dka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> From that thread something you might try


Yeah, from what I gathered 125 BCLK is preferred for DDR3000, which is also what XMP sets automatically. 100BCLK won't even boot while 125 will at least take me to failed windows boot. I suppose I could get 100BLCK stable with enough tweaking but 125 should be easier it looks like. Unless uncore is flipping out because of the higher BCLK but I don't think so because the 125 strap is stable with lower memory clocks (like 2750 that I'm running now).


----------



## Nastya

Anybody have any input as far as performance losses for BW-E go regarding the Microsoft security fixes for Meltdown/Spectre?


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *v0dka*
> 
> Yeah, from what I gathered 125 BCLK is preferred for DDR3000, which is also what XMP sets automatically. 100BCLK won't even boot while 125 will at least take me to failed windows boot. I suppose I could get 100BLCK stable with enough tweaking but 125 should be easier it looks like. Unless uncore is flipping out because of the higher BCLK but I don't think so because the 125 strap is stable with lower memory clocks (like 2750 that I'm running now).


Hi,
Max bclk I've used is 100.3 on x99 2666 c15 mem xmp profile 1 or 2
x299 on 3200 is still using 100 default on trident z with it's only xmp profile which is 3200 and it works well.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AndiWandi*
> 
> Anybody have any input as far as performance losses for BW-E go regarding the Microsoft security fixes for Meltdown/Spectre?


Far as a normal desktop computer for gaming general use not any or very little, places that might see the loss are datacenters that run huge amounts of VM's.


----------



## v0dka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> Max bclk I've used is 100.3 on x99 2666 c15 mem xmp profile 1 or 2
> x299 on 3200 is still using 100 default on trident z with it's only xmp profile which is 3200 and it works well.


Ok well 125 is what XMP gives me, however 100 makes no diffence. Same radical instability between 3000Mhz and anything lower. I'm either missing something completely or there is something seriously wrong. I'm guessing it's the former.

No dice with 1.4v by the way, or more relaxed CL at 16


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *v0dka*
> 
> Alright gents, I picked up a used X99 Strix Gaming, 6850k and a new 32Gb Corsair kit (CMK32GX4M4C3000C15) which cost me an arm and a leg.
> 
> However, this kit is nowhere near stable at 3000Mhz with timings from SPD / XMP. Anyone have a template that I can start off with? Because I'm getting nowhere on auto timings and voltages. Did try playing with the System Agent and IO voltages and manually set the Vdimm to 1.35. It uses a 125 strap on default for 3000 DDR which should be fine. Now anything below 3000Mhz is perfectly stable but at soon as I set 3000Mhz windows fails to boot and gives me an instant warning that a kernel file is damaged. So It's bouncing between stable and completely out of whack unstable.
> 
> I was a pretty experienced overclocker years ago but haven't upgraded since X58 so I really need some help here. Thanks for taking the time.


I've had similar issues with 16 GB 4x4 kit of this exact Corsair memory, on both MSI X99A and Asus Sabertooth. System would not boot like 1 out of 4 tries and when it did all stress tests like AIDA, OCCT or MemTest86 were throwing errors. At the time I have even found one thread on Corsair forum with many people complaining about having issues, especially on Asus boards. They were okay one step below advertised speed, but they couldn't do advertised 3000 MHz without throwing errors, no matter voltage or timings. They ended up on RMA and I got a replacement but I already had different kit so I sold them. I have never seen such problematic memory before, actually I never had any issues and I thought that a chance of getting faulty memory kit is like 0,0000000000001% so at first I thought it was mobo's fault. But it wasn't, CPU was also ok because it was running different 4x4 kit at overclocked 3308 MHz with lower timings than this Corsair kit had.

Don;t know what the problem is but you are definitely not the first one to have serious issues with this exact CMK**GX4M4C3000C15 or CMD**GX4M4C3000C15 Corsair memory


----------



## v0dka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> I've had similar issues with 16 GB 4x4 kit of this exact Corsair memory, on both MSI X99A and Asus Sabertooth. System would not boot like 1 out of 4 tries and when it did all stress tests like AIDA, OCCT or MemTest86 were throwing errors. At the time I have even found one thread on Corsair forum with many people complaining about having issues, especially on Asus boards. They were okay one step below advertised speed, but they couldn't do advertised 3000 MHz without throwing errors, no matter voltage or timings. They ended up on RMA and I got a replacement but I already had different kit so I sold them. I have never seen such problematic memory before, actually I never had any issues and I thought that a chance of getting faulty memory kit is like 0,0000000000001% so at first I thought it was mobo's fault. But it wasn't, CPU was also ok because it was running different 4x4 kit at overclocked 3308 MHz with lower timings than this Corsair kit had.
> 
> Don;t know what the problem is but you are definitely not the first one to have serious issues with this exact CMK**GX4M4C3000C15 or CMD**GX4M4C3000C15 Corsair memory


BIOS update to 1801 fixed it.

It was just a gamble but it works. If someone is able to provide help with manual volts on the X99 Strix would be great. Same for tighter subtimings.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *v0dka*
> 
> BIOS update to 1801 fixed it.
> 
> It was just a gamble but it works. If someone is able to provide help with manual volts on the X99 Strix would be great. Same for tighter subtimings.


You should use RIGBUILDER and put it in your sig so we know what you have.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *v0dka*
> 
> BIOS update to 1801 fixed it.
> 
> It was just a gamble but it works. If someone is able to provide help with manual volts on the X99 Strix would be great. Same for tighter subtimings.


There's a lot of recent data on an overclock I just set up in the last couple pages, SS's from HWiNFO showing all voltages and all


----------



## Krzych04650

Got my 6900K running stable at 4.3 GHz with 1.325 adaptive voltage and 3.4 cache at 1.08V. Going higher with cache is causing issues and 4.4 GHz core is crashing quickly even at 1.38V so no point on going higher either because temps are going to get out of control.

In Cinebench I am getting 180cb single core score and 1803 multi instead of 190/1900 that this dead 5960X 4.65 core/4.45 cache was getting. For other references, 4.5 GHz 4690K had exactly the same 180cb single core, 5960X at 4.5 was like 182-183cb and 4820K at 4.5 GHz had only 163 cb, so there are some continuous IPC gains gen to gen. There is quite a loss vs max overclocked 5960X, around 5%, but considering how pushed to the limits it was and how quickly it died because of that, normal safe OC scores would be more like 185/1850 or a bit less, meaning less than 3% difference vs 6900K. So there isn't too much of a downgrade and OC settings on 6900K are way more economical and safe. So not too bad in the end, although those new architectures for HEDT are pretty disappointing, even very.

Anyways, here are some screenshots from benchmarks, HWiNFO and etc.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> Got my 6900K running stable at 4.3 GHz with 1.325 adaptive voltage and 3.4 cache at 1.08V. Going higher with cache is causing issues and 4.4 GHz core is crashing quickly even at 1.38V so no point on going higher either because temps are going to get out of control.
> 
> In Cinebench I am getting 180cb single core score and 1803 multi instead of 190/1900 that this dead 5960X 4.65 core/4.45 cache was getting. For other references, 4.5 GHz 4690K had exactly the same 180cb single core, 5960X at 4.5 was like 182-183cb and 4820K at 4.5 GHz had only 163 cb, so there are some continuous IPC gains gen to gen. There is quite a loss vs max overclocked 5960X, around 5%, but considering how pushed to the limits it was and how quickly it died because of that, normal safe OC scores would be more like 185/1850 or a bit less, meaning less than 3% difference vs 6900K. So there isn't too much of a downgrade and OC settings on 6900K are way more economical and safe. So not too bad in the end, although those new architectures for HEDT are pretty disappointing, even very.
> 
> Anyways, here are some screenshots from benchmarks, HWiNFO and etc.


VCCIO is kinda high. Stick to 1.05V whenever possible.
Vcore is also pretty high. Compare your OC at 4.2GHz and 4.3GHz. If you can do 1.2V 4.2GHz then extra 100MHz is REALLY not worth it for 0.1V extra voltage.
Vcache is OK. I would lower down to 3.3GHz and try maybe 1.03V. That is if you actually want to use this 6900K longer than your old 5960X.
VCCSA is kinda high for mere 16GB of RAM running at pretty loose timing with just DDR4-3000. Try lower that to 1.05V

BTW I am also using TUF Sabertooth X99. This board does not have the best VRM. My previous one died and killed the original 6950X. Be conservative on OC.

Also, TUF now has 3801 BIOS. Go update it, Make sure to disable OC before updating BIOS, *and use USB flashback ONLY* 3801 BIOS does seem to be better in terms of allowing lower voltage for the same OC across the board.

Lastly, I would focus on fine tuning secondary timings instead of pushing everything to the absolute limit on a board like TUF X99. It is simply not built for extreme OC.


----------



## djgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> Got my 6900K running stable at 4.3 GHz with 1.325 adaptive voltage and 3.4 cache at 1.08V. Going higher with cache is causing issues and 4.4 GHz core is crashing quickly even at 1.38V so no point on going higher either because temps are going to get out of control.
> 
> In Cinebench I am getting 180cb single core score and 1803 multi instead of 190/1900 that this dead 5960X 4.65 core/4.45 cache was getting. For other references, 4.5 GHz 4690K had exactly the same 180cb single core, 5960X at 4.5 was like 182-183cb and 4820K at 4.5 GHz had only 163 cb, so there are some continuous IPC gains gen to gen. There is quite a loss vs max overclocked 5960X, around 5%, but considering how pushed to the limits it was and how quickly it died because of that, normal safe OC scores would be more like 185/1850 or a bit less, meaning less than 3% difference vs 6900K. So there isn't too much of a downgrade and OC settings on 6900K are way more economical and safe. So not too bad in the end, although those new architectures for HEDT are pretty disappointing, even very.
> 
> Anyways, here are some screenshots from benchmarks, HWiNFO and etc.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Work with the VCCSA - lower it in .01 steps and see how it plays.


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> VCCIO is kinda high. Stick to 1.05V whenever possible.
> Vcore is also pretty high. Compare your OC at 4.2GHz and 4.3GHz. If you can do 1.2V 4.2GHz then extra 100MHz is REALLY not worth it for 0.1V extra voltage.
> Vcache is OK. I would lower down to 3.3GHz and try maybe 1.03V. That is if you actually want to use this 6900K longer than your old 5960X.
> VCCSA is kinda high for mere 16GB of RAM running at pretty loose timing with just DDR4-3000. Try lower that to 1.05V
> 
> BTW I am also using TUF Sabertooth X99. This board does not have the best VRM. My previous one died and killed the original 6950X. Be conservative on OC.
> 
> Also, TUF now has 3801 BIOS. Go update it, Make sure to disable OC before updating BIOS, *and use USB flashback ONLY* 3801 BIOS does seem to be better in terms of allowing lower voltage for the same OC across the board.
> 
> Lastly, I would focus on fine tuning secondary timings instead of pushing everything to the absolute limit on a board like TUF X99. It is simply not built for extreme OC.


I tried to lower VCCIO to 1.10 but it always freezes at Windows loading screen. 1.15 is still much lower than what mobo sets after applying high memory frequency if on auto mode (1.23V). Maybe I will try something like 1.12, but it doesn't make much sense to induce instability for such a tiny voltage change.

Core voltage is not that high. 4.2 GHz works at 1.275V and nothing lower, so 4.3 at 1.325V makes sense. I tried 4.4 at 1.375 but it crashes quickly and this is the point where trying to push further gives more issues than gains. There are no issues with 1.325 though, everything is perfectly stable, temps are in mid 70s in OCCT, performance has reached quite nice level too, everything is just about right.

Cache is already at 1.080V in BIOS, so thats "kinda" lower than 1.3







5960X died, maybe because of cache and maybe not, but I am not going to get paranoid now to the point of sticking to stock voltages.

VCCSA is one thing that can probably go much lower easily, but I never really bothered with this voltage unless it helped with stabilizing the memory, but in this case no matter if lowered or increased I still cannot get anything more from those sticks. Thats to be expected, 3200 version of those sticks is 16-18-18. Micron ones, not very good from what I heard. But there wasn't much choice, poor availability and terrible prices.

Generally I am satisfied with how things are working now and I don't really know what you are talking about with "absolute limit" and "extreme OC", there is not a single voltage or frequency that would be even high, let alone extreme. If I have pushed 1.5 on core, 1.35 on cache and 1.3 on SA and IO then yes, but now? Those voltages are way lower than what 90% of users are running after applying XMP and leaving things on auto. Cache, SA, IO, all of that is going above 1.2 with auto, actually closer to 1.25.


----------



## xkm1948

Just going with my experience of the Sabertooth X99. End of the day your stuff your decision. As long as you still have warranty on the board and the CPU you can OC whatever you want.

Also get 3801 BIOS. My last BWE died on the 3701 BIOS you are running now


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Just going with my experience of the Sabertooth X99. End of the day your stuff your decision. As long as you still have warranty on the board and the CPU you can OC whatever you want.
> 
> Also get 3801 BIOS. My last BWE died on the 3701 BIOS you are running now


Its all new with more than 2,5 years of warranty. Whatever happens it is going to be replaced anyway. Ofc I am much more careful this time, but like I said, I am not going to get paranoid.

It could have died or any other BIOS version, things just happen, you cannot even know why because there are so many factors and we don't have any tools to make proper research and actually back up anything with actual data, those are all assumptions.

EDIT

And suddenly I started to get booting issues at 4.3 GHz, increasing the voltage didn't really help. Interesting. Anyway, I have backed up to 4.2 1.275V, temps are really nice with this settings, mostly in high 60s with some of the better cores not exceeding 65. I am leaving things there like they are and not touching anything anymore. This should be perfectly stable.


----------



## xkm1948

What booting issues? Windows 10 BSOD on starting up? Or initial UEFI failed to boot?


----------



## Krzych04650

Windows loading screen will just freeze instantly after Windows logo appears, even before this loading circle appears. This never happens at [email protected]


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> Windows loading screen will just freeze instantly after Windows logo appears, even before this loading circle appears. This never happens at [email protected]


disable fast boot in BIOS and Windows 10. See if that helps at 4.3GHz


----------



## inedenimadam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *v0dka*
> 
> BIOS update to 1801 fixed it.
> 
> It was just a gamble but it works. If someone is able to provide help with manual volts on the X99 Strix would be great. Same for tighter subtimings.
> 
> 
> 
> You should use RIGBUILDER and put it in your sig so we know what you have.
Click to expand...

Good advice.

You will find plenty of folks around here willing to work with you on your overclock, but we need to know what we are working with.


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> disable fast boot in BIOS and Windows 10. See if that helps at 4.3GHz


It does not. This is a bit strange. Just couple of hours ago everything was fine at 4.3 and easily getting through stress testing, and now it won't boot no matter voltage. 4.2 is working perfectly though.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> It does not. This is a bit strange. Just couple of hours ago everything was fine at 4.3 and easily getting through stress testing, and now it won't boot no matter voltage. 4.2 is working perfectly though.


That is degradation right there. Stress testing usually accelerates the degrading process. Is it a used CPU or a new one?

Also what is your CPU input voltage? If you increase CPU input to 1.8 or 1.85v you may be able to lower VCCIO

Another thing is what's your load line calibration?


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> That is degradation right there. Stress testing usually accelerates the degrading process. Is it a used CPU or a new one?
> 
> Also what is your CPU input voltage? If you increase CPU input to 1.8 or 1.85v you may be able to lower VCCIO
> 
> Another thing is what's your load line calibration?


This CPU is 4 days old. I got it for a replacement for this 5960X from Intel through RMA, factory sealed. And I tried 4.3 GHz only today, how can it degrade in few hours?

Input voltage is 1.880 in BIOS, around 1.9 effective.

I didn't use load line calibration. But like I said 4.3 won't boot now no matter voltage, I can even give it 1.375 instead of 1.325 and it will still freeze on Windows loading screen. Strange behavior to say the least.


----------



## moonbogg

I think my memory bandwidth is lower than it should be. I wanted to check with you guys. I've seen older CPU's with slow DDR3 getting the same bandwidth. Seems like something is off...

i7 6800K @ 4.2ghz with default cache speed
16gb (4x4) DDR4 3000 cas 15

48-50 gb/sec.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonbogg*
> 
> I think my memory bandwidth is lower than it should be. I wanted to check with you guys. I've seen older CPU's with slow DDR3 getting the same bandwidth. Seems like something is off...
> 
> i7 6800K @ 4.2ghz with default cache speed
> 16gb (4x4) DDR4 3000 cas 15
> 
> 48-50 gb/sec.


Are you using XMP, or have you manually tuned your timings?

Difference between stock and fully tweaked timings, at the same memory clock, can easily be 20%+ in bandwidth and a similar reduction in latency.

Stock cache speed on a 6800K is also only 2.8GHz...most can do at least 500MHz higher with minimal tuning. This will make a difference as well.


----------



## xkm1948

Saw this on ASUS ROG forum. It is about default voltage for Intel Broadwell-E processors. Use it for your safe OC accordingly.

Stock VCCIO for Broadwell-E: 0.95v
Stock VCCSA for Broadwell-E: 0.95v
Stock VCCIN for Broadwell-E:1.8v
Critical voltages for SA/IO is 1.3v.
If is more than 1.3v you potentialy have ability have dead CPU across month with MB Q-CODE:00.
When overclock ram always maunaly fix SA/IO .ASUS motheboard like overvoltage this rails CPU.
See DC Spec vol. 1 DS for Broadwell-E.

source 1: https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?98584-Default-voltages-for-VCCIO-VCCSA-amp-CPU-VRM
source 2: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-6xxx-lga2011-v3-datasheet-vol-1.html


----------



## Krzych04650

I have found a solution to my booting issues. When I use adaptive mode voltage, I cannot give everything to Additional Turbo Mode Voltage, I have to use offset too. So instead of giving all 1.325 to additional voltage, I give 0.15 to offset and 1.175 to addtional. This not only boots properly, but also allowed VCCIO to be reduced to 1.10 and VCCSA reduced from 0.200 to 0.100 offset. One drawback is that the software is now reading voltages incorrectly. Reported core voltage is as high as 1.44, while this is obviously not true because power consumption and temperatures are exactly the same like with 1.325V used before. VCSSA is also reported at 0.95 which is not true because real value is 1.06, down by 0.100 from previous 1.16.

This is true for HWiNFO, AIDA 64 and CPU-Z. Is there any software that can read voltages properly when using offset+additonal turbo voltage?

This could also explain why everything worked perfectly and then stopped. Everything was always stable in stress tests but at some point started to freeze at Windows loading screen. When it somehow booted, it was always stable in OCCT for example. So it looks the issue was with boot exclusively. Maybe booting process simply changed since few days ago and was no longer stable, I don't really know how it works.

One thing that remains unexplained is why it won't boot with manual fixed voltage, even 1.35 or 1.375, while offset+additional, 0.15+1.175=1.325 is booting properly. The other differences are lower VCCSA and VCCIO that were not possible with manual fixed voltage, so maybe thats why. I have already seen something like this on my previous X79 setup, booting with CPU OC and 2400 memory at the same time was possible only with the lowest possible VCCSA.


----------



## xarot

Fixed manual voltage will always be the best option when trying to find the correct voltage. Have you tried booting at 4.3 GHz and checking the VID for the cores? It could be that you are actually running 1.44, because adaptive voltage cannot be set lower than VID. If the board gives 1.44 V at 4.3 GHz as VID, it will be set to 1.44 V.


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> Fixed manual voltage will always be the best option when trying to find the correct voltage. Have you tried booting at 4.3 GHz and checking the VID for the cores? It could be that you are actually running 1.44, because adaptive voltage cannot be set lower than VID. If the board gives 1.44 V at 4.3 GHz as VID, it will be set to 1.44 V.


I said that software including HWiNFO is reporting 1.44, so obviously reported VID is also 1.44. While BIOS clearly says 1.325 final voltage.

Doesn't matter anyway, temps and power draw is exactly the same like with 1.325 and BIOS says 1.325, so software is just stupid and cannot read voltage properly.


----------



## xkm1948

Xarot is absolutely correct. BWE’s VID system is quite different from HWE. I have to use negative vcore offset to get mine running at 1.232v. Simply because adaptative vcore cannot be set at lower value than your highest vid. Each BWE processor has a different vid based on silicon lottery


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> I said that software including HWiNFO is reporting 1.44, so obviously reported VID is also 1.44. While BIOS clearly says 1.325 final voltage.
> 
> Doesn't matter anyway, temps and power draw is exactly the same like with 1.325 and BIOS says 1.325, so software is just stupid and cannot read voltage properly.


You're not running full throttle when in the BIOS. You are most likely running at 1.44v, whether you want to think so or not. Which is why you're stable now.


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> You're not running full throttle when in the BIOS. You are most likely running at 1.44v, whether you want to think so or not. Which is why you're stable now.


I hope he didn't stress tested his CPU at that insanely high vcore. That is 100% guaranteed degradation right there.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> I hope he didn't stress tested his CPU at that insanely high vcore. That is 100% guaranteed degradation right there.


I don't think degradation is going to happen as fast as you're referencing. 1.44v is high but I wouldn't consider it that risky for temporary runs or looking for your overclock. Before my chips died they showed no signs of any degradation, they just died. The one time I was actually using it, just shut off, that was it. It might be from different reasons that we had our issues but chips typically need to be abused with lots of voltage and heat for a while before they start really degrading. You can see a lot of other people on here running high vcore for quite a while so I don't think any of us would really be able to tell unless someone goes down some serious motherboard + voltage testing with a board known to kill chips.


----------



## v0dka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> Xarot is absolutely correct. BWE's VID system is quite different from HWE. I have to use negative vcore offset to get mine running at 1.232v. Simply because adaptative vcore cannot be set at lower value than your highest vid. Each BWE processor has a different vid based on silicon lottery


What do you mean exactly? You let the Vcore scale automatically with clocsk, and use negative offset to reduce the actual Vcore?


----------



## xkm1948

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *v0dka*
> 
> What do you mean exactly? You let the Vcore scale automatically with clocsk, and use negative offset to reduce the actual Vcore?


Correct.

I do not need 1.27v( Intel's max turbo VID for this specific processor) for absolute stability for my workload. Thus why I utilize negative offset to reduce core temp as well as power consumption


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> I hope he didn't stress tested his CPU at that insanely high vcore. That is 100% guaranteed degradation right there.


Man you are so paranoid. Every dies and degrades, right away








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> You're not running full throttle when in the BIOS. You are most likely running at 1.44v, whether you want to think so or not. Which is why you're stable now.


By BIOS I mean what mobo says about final voltage that is going to be applied.

But it doesn't matter now because I have found real cause of booting problems. USB. I have 2x 5m active USB 3.0 cables with active USB 3.0 HUB at the end, with its own power supply (both cables have that option too, but not connected now).Thats because I keep my PC in different room to avoid noise and coil whine. There is basically no real reason to have it next to me, with the way it is placed right now - no noise, full cooling potential. Anyway, if I disconnect the USB, booting is proper, no matter if voltage is manual or not, no matter VCCSA or VCCIO, it is just as stable as it always should.

This is also not the first time I see something like this. There were zero issues with that on X79, but both X99 boards had some problems. I have a lot of those cables and HUBs so I have used like 3 sets with all different parts, so it is not like one specific part is causing this.

Any idea why would that happen?

Not a big problem, just disconnect USB while booting once a day, but still...

Here is how it looks:

PC>5m USB 3.0 active cable>5m USB 3.0 active cable>7-port USB 3.0 active HUB with its own power source>connected devices: 2x lightpack, external sound card, 1m 3.0 passive cable to another HUB>passive 3.0 4-port HUB>connected devices: wireless mouse and keyboard


----------



## xxgpxx

First time post[er] here so forgive my noobness. Skip to the bottom if you prefer to avoid a long story...

Built my first rig with the 6850K, Asus x99 Deluxe II, H115i, 64GB 3200, GTX 1080ti FTW3 Hybrid, with a mild overclock of 4.2Ghz and 1.2V. I set all values to manual in ai tweaker and the system was stable. Everything was good for the past 4 months until I experienced 3 random crashes when rendering or playing CoD WWII. I know this particular game is buggy, but my temps were cool and components seem to be fine, but the entire system froze. I made sure all drivers were up-to-date and the only thing I could think of was updating BIOS from 1701 to 1802. It all went downhill from here...

I 'updated' through EZ Flash 3 and went through the steps I did previously when updating the BIOS. Formatted FAT32 with USB 2.0, but forgot to rename CAP file. Progress made it to 100%, system restarted, but I didn't have video. I restarted the system again... no video. Q code 4F was displayed. Tried unplugging/plugging video card, HDMI connections, restarting, and still same issue.

Called Asus and the rep couldn't provide accurate instructions to flash the BIOS to an earlier version (1701), but I figured it out and gave it a try. The LED kept blinking as if it was trying to install for over 30 minutes, so I called Asus again and spoke to another rep who told me I shouldn't have updated the BIOS using EZ Flash 3; that was extremely helpful. I switched the power off, per his instruction, pulled the drive out, and turned the system on. However, the system wouldn't turn on for longer than a second then shut off, turn back on for less than a second, then turn off... you get the idea. This time the Q code was 00. Tried swapping RAM sticks, resetting CPU, CMOS, MEM OK, unplugged everything, flashed the BIOS again, but no luck. Still not sure if the CPU is fried, but RMA'd the motherboard and still waiting to hear back from Asus.

Can anyone recommend a reliable LGA 2011-v3 motherboard that hasn't been known to die in less than a year while taking the CPU with it or is it worth investing in a different, more reliable system (Skylake/Coffee lake) altogether? I understand these also have their risks, but it seems the x99 boards and Broadwell‑E CPU's have greater issues.


----------



## JMTH

I had the same board Deluxe ii, I also had problems with it. Not the same as yours though. If I hadn't bought 64gb of ram ($700ish) that wouldn't work with Z370 I would of switched.
When I sent the Dii in for an RMA, I ended up buying a RVE10. Which while having quirky pcie lanes is pretty rock solid so far. Just have to sell the Deluxe ii now.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> By BIOS I mean what mobo says about final voltage that is going to be applied.


Got it. I thought you meant the value next to it. On my ASUS board it doesn't actually tell me what my final target voltage will be with offset + adaptive voltages applied. It has a current value sensor and that's always lower for me while in the BIOS than when I'm watching voltages during a stress test.


----------



## blodflekk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxgpxx*
> 
> First time post[er] here so forgive my noobness. Skip to the bottom if you prefer to avoid a long story...
> 
> Built my first rig with the 6850K, Asus x99 Deluxe II, H115i, 64GB 3200, GTX 1080ti FTW3 Hybrid, with a mild overclock of 4.2Ghz and 1.2V. I set all values to manual in ai tweaker and the system was stable. Everything was good for the past 4 months until I experienced 3 random crashes when rendering or playing CoD WWII. I know this particular game is buggy, but my temps were cool and components seem to be fine, but the entire system froze. I made sure all drivers were up-to-date and the only thing I could think of was updating BIOS from 1701 to 1802. It all went downhill from here...
> 
> I 'updated' through EZ Flash 3 and went through the steps I did previously when updating the BIOS. Formatted FAT32 with USB 2.0, but forgot to rename CAP file. Progress made it to 100%, system restarted, but I didn't have video. I restarted the system again... no video. Q code 4F was displayed. Tried unplugging/plugging video card, HDMI connections, restarting, and still same issue.
> 
> Called Asus and the rep couldn't provide accurate instructions to flash the BIOS to an earlier version (1701), but I figured it out and gave it a try. The LED kept blinking as if it was trying to install for over 30 minutes, so I called Asus again and spoke to another rep who told me I shouldn't have updated the BIOS using EZ Flash 3; that was extremely helpful. I switched the power off, per his instruction, pulled the drive out, and turned the system on. However, the system wouldn't turn on for longer than a second then shut off, turn back on for less than a second, then turn off... you get the idea. This time the Q code was 00. Tried swapping RAM sticks, resetting CPU, CMOS, MEM OK, unplugged everything, flashed the BIOS again, but no luck. Still not sure if the CPU is fried, but RMA'd the motherboard and still waiting to hear back from Asus.
> 
> Can anyone recommend a reliable LGA 2011-v3 motherboard that hasn't been known to die in less than a year while taking the CPU with it or is it worth investing in a different, more reliable system (Skylake/Coffee lake) altogether? I understand these also have their risks, but it seems the x99 boards and Broadwell‑E CPU's have greater issues.


I also have the RVE10 and it's been great and haven't had any issues.


----------



## JMTH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Got it. I thought you meant the value next to it. On my ASUS board it doesn't actually tell me what my final target voltage will be with offset + adaptive voltages applied. It has a current value sensor and that's always lower for me while in the BIOS than when I'm watching voltages during a stress test.


Humm that sounds like what my board was doing. Try reseating the cpu, check for damage of the plastic that centers the cpu. Also check the pin alignment.
If your not watching (like I wasn't hehe) then the cpu can be a little off center and damage the plastic. That may prop up a corner or two of the cpu and could cause pins to either not align to the right pad or or something.
I had to put a lot of pressure on the black plastic alignment tool to get it to sit all the way into the socket. I had a tiny gap the fist time I installed the cpu.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMTH*
> 
> Humm that sounds like what my board was doing. Try reseating the cpu, check for damage of the plastic that centers the cpu. Also check the pin alignment.
> If your not watching (like I wasn't hehe) then the cpu can be a little off center and damage the plastic. That may prop up a corner or two of the cpu and could cause pins to either not align to the right pad or or something.
> I had to put a lot of pressure on the black plastic alignment tool to get it to sit all the way into the socket. I had a tiny gap the fist time I installed the cpu.


Im talking about the sensor to the left of the voltage offset/adaptive numbers. Thats how they're supposed to work.


----------



## Krzych04650

About those boot issues with USB deviced connected... There is an option in Boot menu in BIOS called USB Support, there I can either make all USB devices available during post (Full initialization), only mouse and keyboard (Partial initialization) or no devices (Disabled). Disabled would probably solve the issue, but then I won't be able to enter BIOS unless I reset the CMOS to reset bios to default, right?

Also just simply hibernating instead of shutting down should help too, for now it was getting up from hibernation with no issues. But when I want to change something in BIOS then I need to make changes, save and then disconnect USB before booting starts or it will freeze on Windows loading screen again. So definitely an USB issue, not with overclock. Thats generally good, a simple issues with simple solution (unplug when booting), but still I would like to solve it properly.


----------



## JMTH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Im talking about the sensor to the left of the voltage offset/adaptive numbers. Thats how they're supposed to work.


Yeah thats what I am talking about, I would get 0.000 no matter what I set it too.
Ahh sounds like you are getting something, just not the same as what is read by AIDA64/HWiNFO/etc... Mine does that as well, under a stress test it will be a little different. When your looking at the BIOS there is no stress on the system so its at the low level. I believe (but dont know for sure) that this is the base or low level and then the adaptive or offset is applied when under stress bumping it up to the high value.


----------



## xenkw0n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JMTH*
> 
> Yeah thats what I am talking about, I would get 0.000 no matter what I set it too.
> Ahh sounds like you are getting something, just not the same as what is read by AIDA64/HWiNFO/etc... Mine does that as well, under a stress test it will be a little different. When your looking at the BIOS there is no stress on the system so its at the low level. I believe (but dont know for sure) that this is the base or low level and then the adaptive or offset is applied when under stress bumping it up to the high value.


Right, I wouldn't expect it to be the same unless I was using a manual voltage. It's not even the low-end value, my software monitoring sensors report the chip downvolting all the way to .75v when in idle. I'm just saying if you're using adaptive or offset voltage, I would not expect the value reported in the BIOS to be the same as the value reported from software monitoring tools while the chip is being stressed.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Hello everyone
Anyone with BWE CPU has performance impact caused by meltdown and spectre?
Anyone received BIOS update to the microcode of the BWE CPU?
i have strix x99 and 6900k, till now no bios update


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Hello everyone
> Anyone with BWE CPU has performance impact caused by meltdown and spectre?
> Anyone received BIOS update to the microcode of the BWE CPU?
> i have strix x99 and 6900k, till now no bios update


Haven't been able to measure... stupid ddr4 market has me in pieces... I'm shuffling things around, so I might soon, but its looking like a few weeks more before my BWE system is back up...


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cekim*
> 
> Haven't been able to measure... stupid ddr4 market has me in pieces... I'm shuffling things around, so I might soon, but its looking like a few weeks more before my BWE system is back up...


Hi,
Yeah ddr4 yikes
I just came back down to reality and sent back some really over priced 3200 c14 4x8gb kit for nearly 500.us to newegg
I already had c16 same kit not sure what I was thinking at the time but I was going to put the c16 kit in my x99 but blew it off.


----------



## djgar

My original and wonderful 3200 C14 which got baked by my failing pump was ~250. Must be inflation


----------



## xkm1948

These RAM price man. I guess i got super lucky. Bought my 128GB C14 DDR4-3000 kit for a little over $600 early 2016. It almost tripled the price now. Hardware rise in value, what a time


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xkm1948*
> 
> These RAM price man. I guess i got super lucky. Bought my 128GB C14 DDR4-3000 kit for a little over $600 early 2016. It almost tripled the price now. Hardware rise in value, what a time


Yeah, same here... I have a small herd of computes, each with 128G in them that cost me around that much.

For me its the pain of knowing prices _should_ come down significantly, but perhaps not until late this year or next. It has me paralyzed on buying new ram...

and hey, ebay is about to get a flood of bugged servers that work just fine behind a firewall and without user logins or browsers...


----------



## ELIAS-EH

**** this world we are living in.
I bought my 1080ti strix for 750$, now it is priced at 1400-1600$.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> **** this world we are living in.
> I bought my 1080ti strix for 750$, now it is priced at 1400-1600$.


chuckle/Holy [email protected]#$

Just looked at prices for various things have doing less than they could in my basement... GTX980s, 980ti's.... 1080's have been getting less and less utilization since I got the 1080ti's.

Might be time to sell some on principle. I like keeping older stuff around for experiments.... but... my god.... those even used prices...


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> **** this world we are living in.
> I bought my 1080ti strix for 750$, now it is priced at 1400-1600$.


Hi,
Pretty silly seeing the titan xp is 1200.us








https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/titan/titan-xp/


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThrashZone*
> 
> Hi,
> Pretty silly seeing the titan xp is 1200.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/titan/titan-xp/


Hello
Wow!

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/B06XXZBPHZ/ref=olp_tab_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new


----------



## Nizzen

Pretty normal prizes for 1080ti in Norway, and many models in stock


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Anyone received broadwell-e BIOS update for spectre and meltdown ?


----------



## blodflekk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Anyone received broadwell-e BIOS update for spectre and meltdown ?


I did see an update for my RVE10 just come out recently like version 1801 or something but there was no mention of meltdown or spectre. I'd like to know if that's what it's for and whether that would increase or decrease performance. I already lost a good 10fps in my games with the latest windows updates and that's running win7, I'd hate to think how much worse the win10 systems were affected.


----------



## axiumone

Version 1901 for your board includes the meltdown/spectre microcode updates, not 1801. It's not out yet. I'm very hesitant to update as there are confirmed reports of random reboots on haswell/broadwell systems post fix.


----------



## arestavo

I updated my X99 Classified/6950X with the new BIOS/microcode the other day and I'm seeing performance well within the margin of error for gaming and 3D benchmarks:

About a 1% decrease in Firestrike physics performance - https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/14683669/fs/14564450

And about 2% faster in Timespy physics - https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/3127750/spy/2177613


----------



## ELIAS-EH

It should be BIOS 1901

https://www.asus.com/News/V5urzYAT6myCC1o2

I have installed the update for meltdown on windows 10 and no performance lost.
spectre needs a BIOS update

I7 6900K
ROG STRIX X99


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> I updated my X99 Classified/6950X with the new BIOS/microcode the other day and I'm seeing performance well within the margin of error for gaming and 3D benchmarks:
> 
> About a 1% decrease in Firestrike physics performance - https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/14683669/fs/14564450
> 
> And about 2% faster in Timespy physics - https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/3127750/spy/2177613


good news no performance hit.
did you have any reboot/crashed issue ?
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-spectre-bios-crash-broadwell-haswell,36324.html


----------



## L36

Seems like X99 Deluxe is not on the list. Guess I'll use UBU to patch my BIOS with the latest microcode.


----------



## xenkw0n

Wait why are only 2 X99 ASUS boards on the list?


----------



## arestavo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> good news no performance hit.
> did you have any reboot/crashed issue ?
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-spectre-bios-crash-broadwell-haswell,36324.html


No problems that I've seen get.


----------



## Agent-A01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L36*
> 
> Seems like X99 Deluxe is not on the list. Guess I'll use UBU to patch my BIOS with the latest microcode.


Don't.

Broadwell-e and haswell-e mcu have their own set of issues you don't want.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> Don't.
> 
> Broadwell-e and haswell-e mcu have their own set of issues you don't want.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xenkw0n*
> 
> Wait why
> 
> Agent is right
> Don't do it!


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> No problems that I've seen get.


Thank u
And asus till now no bios for x99.
Seems like next month!


----------



## Krzych04650

Just came across Asus Thermal Control Tool. What a great tool. Basically you set the line between heavy and light load through temperature limit and you can choose the frequency and voltage for both situations. So for example I have set 4.4 GHz 1.375V adaptive in BIOS (along with C states so frequency and voltage go down to very low values there is no real load), and this I have set in Asus Tool to work up to 55 C, so it will work in games and other things that will rely more on single threaded performance, and when the temp exceeds 55C the CPU is going down to 4.2 GHz with -100mv offset (so 1.275V) for heavier workloads.

So for general use like web browsing there are C states, so after hours of doing that average voltage is like 0.8x and average clock is below 2 GHz, so thats like zero stress on the CPU, it is barely doing anything, when there is a need clock jumps to 4.4 GHz for single threaded loads, and for heavy multithreaded tasks where the temps can go high and CPU could degrade with around 1.4V voltage (actually cooler won't take it in the first place) I am maintaining economical settings with low voltage and temperatures thanks to this Asus Tool. Win-win-win


----------



## xTesla1856

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> **** this world we are living in.
> I bought my 1080ti strix for 750$, now it is priced at 1400-1600$.


Sell it and upgrade to a Titan


----------



## Tlow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> Anyone received broadwell-e BIOS update for spectre and meltdown ?


Yes, EVGA has been quick. I updated my FTW-K. CPU-Z benchmark is nearly the same, could be margine of error. CS GO peak FPS are 5 frames lower.
Haven´t tested a lot yet. M.2 SSD performance took a hit.
bevor BIOS update

after BIOS update


----------



## arestavo

For those wanting the Spectre/Meltdown microcode update - certain Linux distros already have the update, going back even before the Pentium 4. Just snag a spare drive and install Linux on it and it should pull the update for you.

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27431/Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-File


----------



## Kimir

Updating your microcode on your Linux installation won't magically add it to your bios nor apply to your windows install.
Just pointing that out, before someone ask about it.


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tlow*
> 
> Yes, EVGA has been quick. I updated my FTW-K. CPU-Z benchmark is nearly the same, could be margine of error. CS GO peak FPS are 5 frames lower.
> Haven´t tested a lot yet. M.2 SSD performance took a hit.
> bevor BIOS update
> 
> after BIOS update


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> For those wanting the Spectre/Meltdown microcode update - certain Linux distros already have the update, going back even before the Pentium 4. Just snag a spare drive and install Linux on it and it should pull the update for you.
> 
> https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27431/Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-File


What about your OC ?
It is still stable? Better or worse?


----------



## Tlow

I haven´t noticed a difference with my OC.
I still have randome freeze issues with my pm961, but these were present bevor the update also... diffrent story.


----------



## arestavo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Updating your microcode on your Linux installation won't magically add it to your bios nor apply to your windows install.
> Just pointing that out, before someone ask about it.


What? How does updating a CPU's microcode not update the CPU's microcode?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELIAS-EH*
> 
> What about your OC ?
> It is still stable? Better or worse?


Exactly the same, and no issues with reboots like the 1150 processors since the X99 is a different code based off of the Xeon lineup.


----------



## Agent-A01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> What? How does updating a CPU's microcode not update the CPU's microcode?


Why don't you take a moment to think about that.

How is installing software(linux) on a spare drive and having the (software) microcode fix for linux going to have any affect on windows.

Secondly, how is a software going to apply a fix to the firmware of the CPU on a BIOS level.

Answer, it can't.

The only way to update CPU firmware is through a bios update.

Executing a software microcode is an entirely different process.
Linux environment does not affect windows as the fix for linux runs during the boot phase of the OS.

This is applicable when a host computer does not have an updated BIOS with newer microcode included.
Software/=/firmware

Updating microcode in linux is a software fix for linux, it has nothing to do with actual firmware microcode.


----------



## arestavo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> Why don't you take a moment to think about that.
> 
> How is installing software(linux) on a spare drive and having the (software) microcode fix for linux going to have any affect on windows.
> 
> Secondly, how is a software going to apply a fix to the firmware of the CPU on a BIOS level.
> 
> Answer, it can't.
> 
> The only way to update CPU firmware is through a bios update.
> 
> Executing a software microcode is an entirely different process.
> Linux environment does not affect windows as the fix for linux runs during the boot phase of the OS.
> 
> This is applicable when a host computer does not have an updated BIOS with newer microcode included.
> Software/=/firmware
> 
> Updating microcode in linux is a software fix for linux, it has nothing to do with actual firmware microcode.


Oh, so the CPU microcode is NOT written to the CPU? And instead is 100% executed by the OS?

Apparently I've been living a lie, as the CPU microcode that I'm aware of resides on the CPU and acts as the go between for the OS and underlying CPU architecture.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> Don't.
> 
> Broadwell-e and haswell-e mcu have their own set of issues you don't want.


I haven't run into any problems with my BW-E or HW-E setups with the new microcode, and the BW-E setup has been running 24/7 with the new microcode for ten days at this point.

No change to overclocking, no perceptible performance hit beyond the OS patches, and no instability/reboots.

Can't rule out there being issues I haven't seen yet, and I'd be hesitant to apply them to a mission critical server without further testing, but I highly doubt there is enough issue to dissuade any desktop user.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> Oh, so the CPU microcode is NOT written to the CPU? And instead is 100% executed by the OS?


No, to both.

You can't write anything to a CPU like that, it doesn't have any non-volatile memory.

Microcode can be applied two ways: at POST by the system firmware, or at driver initialization by the OS.

Windows loads drivers too late for the mitigations to function correctly with an OS applied microcode (I tried it), but Linux running natively on a system can get full benefit from loading it's own microcode instead of using the firmware's.


----------



## Agent-A01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arestavo*
> 
> Oh, so the CPU microcode is NOT written to the CPU? And instead is 100% executed by the OS?
> 
> Apparently I've been living a lie, as the CPU microcode that I'm aware of resides on the CPU and acts as the go between for the OS and underlying CPU architecture.


The CPU does not have memory.
Firmware is executed locally though from the BIOS.

To execute newer fixes, you have to flash an updated BIOS with the new microcode or have local OS execute newer software microde at boot phase.

The point is, if linux has microcode update, it only affects linux, not a windows install.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I haven't run into any problems with my BW-E or HW-E setups with the new microcode, and the BW-E setup has been running 24/7 with the new microcode for ten days at this point.


You haven't run into any problems but there are plenty of others that have.
Intel suggests skipping the update too.


----------



## djgar

As I understand it, CPU microcode resides in the CPU itself not as part of BIOS firmware - the BIOS is used to update it. Of course I could be wrong, but I just don't see BIOS firmware executing at 3+GHz.


----------



## cekim

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djgar*
> 
> As I understand it, CPU microcode resides in the CPU itself not as part of BIOS firmware - the BIOS is used to update it. Of course I could be wrong, but I just don't see BIOS firmware executing at 3+GHz.


Yes, bios houses it and loads it as a binary blob keyed to processor family, model, stepping.

It's not firmware executing like the bios or os, but rather it alters the nature of instructions themselves to whatever degree the processor architecture allows...

Each of the fields of the processor decodes to some functionality which may or may not also factor in uCode data specific to that instruction to control exactly how the chip functions.

A uCode load doesn't flash non-volatile memory, it just loads a register file (block of registers/memory) in the cpu. A reset clears this memory.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> You haven't run into any problems but there are plenty of others that have.


How many is plenty?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> Intel suggests skipping the update too.


The only customers I've heard of Intel advising to skip the updates are enterprise customers where near perfect uptime is a requirement.

https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-security-issue-update-addressing-reboot-issues/

https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr

Unless the reboot flaw is far more common and far more serious than anyone has hinted at, it's probably foolish for end-users to avoid them.


----------



## Agent-A01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> How many is plenty?
> The only customers I've heard of Intel advising to skip the updates are enterprise customers where near perfect uptime is a requirement.
> 
> https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-security-issue-update-addressing-reboot-issues/
> 
> https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr
> 
> Unless the reboot flaw is far more common and far more serious than anyone has hinted at, it's probably foolish for end-users to avoid them.


*both client and data center.*
*End user's should follow manufacturers recommendation*

There's a reason why a ton of boards manufacturers like X99 series, Z77-z97 etc haven't mass updated due to aforementioned issues.

If you want proof, simply search microcode update here, you will see plenty of people in several threads, especially the haswell one.

Considering there are zero exploits of this issue, which will take some time to develop, there's a good reason to wait another week or two per intels recommendation for revised firmware.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> There's a reason why a ton of boards manufacturers like X99 series, Z77-z97 etc haven't mass updated due to aforementioned issues.


Mostly because most manufacturers have support that sucks.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> If you want proof, simply search microcode update here, you will see plenty of people in several threads, especially the haswell one.


I'm familiar with the threads you mention. I certainly haven't see any proof of a wide-spread, major issue, on end-user systems. Some instabilities on a handful, the expected performance loss with tasks that access the kernel frequently, but not enough of anything to make me think real problems are likely.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Agent-A01*
> 
> Considering there are zero exploits of this issue, which will take some time to develop, there's a good reason to wait another week or two per intels recommendation for revised firmware.


Sure there is an argument for waiting, but I see the argument for patching as being at least as compelling. The odds of an exploit existing now are low. The odds of having issues with the microcode appear to be low. The cost of an exploit being used could be high. The cost of an issue with the microcode is having to spend ten minutes flashing an old version and reverting settings.

As for the time frame on Intel's next microcode, I hope it's only a week or two, but I'm not optimistic.


----------



## Nastya

I modded my Asrock bios myself with the updated microcode. Been running the 6900K for about a week with the microcode and in conjunction with the Windows update that they released.

No issues whatsoever.


----------



## Tlow

Has someone else noticed whea wornings with error-code 19 within the eventlogger?
I noticed that yesterday, flashed my FTW-K back to Bios 2.03 and it seems like no new warnings are ocurring.


----------



## blodflekk

I just noticed on an article on guru3d yesterday stating Intel just (or still) said they want people to wait and not update for haswell and broadwell systems until they have fix all of the bugs that people are suffering. Doesn't affect me yet as 1901 hasn't been released for the RVE10 yet.


----------



## blodflekk

I was wanting to ask you guys about BW-E temps when stressing. I am running my 6850k @ 4.2 with 1.26v and stressing for one hour in OCCT gets me to 80c and in the 70s with realbench after 2 hours. I'm a gamer and I am only overclocking for my games. I play alot of BF1 which seems to be the most CPU intensive game I own and in that I only hit mid 50s on CPU, so my question about temps is should I give it a little more juice and go for 4.3/4.4 or is that 80c I am getting in OCCT already showing me I am as far I should go.


----------



## JMTH

blodflekk said:


> I was wanting to ask you guys about BW-E temps when stressing. I am running my 6850k @ 4.2 with 1.26v and stressing for one hour in OCCT gets me to 80c and in the 70s with realbench after 2 hours. I'm a gamer and I am only overclocking for my games. I play alot of BF1 which seems to be the most CPU intensive game I own and in that I only hit mid 50s on CPU, so my question about temps is should I give it a little more juice and go for 4.3/4.4 or is that 80c I am getting in OCCT already showing me I am as far I should go.


You can try to bump it up a little and see what you get. The safest way to ensure you do not shorten your CPU's life (due to thermal EOS damage at least) is to keep your final OC at a level that your most strenuous use case produces temperatures less than 62 deg C on your CPU Package temp. You will most likely still be causing electromigration damage to some degree. The 6850K's "safe" CPU core voltage is "supposed" to be 1.35V according to multiple sources on the internet, but that doesnt mean its true hehe.

Personally I run mine at 4.5 core / 3.5 uncore on 1.385V adaptive / 0.186v (reads 1.184). When I was stress testing my system using RealBench (8 hours) my max package temp was 68 deg C. I dont have time to play games these days unfortunately. So my most taxing program only gets the case to around 38-40 deg C. On a 8-10 hour day my average temp is like 33-34 deg C usually.


----------



## blodflekk

post deleted


----------



## ELIAS-EH

Hello all
Anyone’s saw a performance decrease in memory write and copy in aida64 benchmarks after updating from bios 1701 to bios 1801 on asus x99 strix or rampage?
Thank u


----------



## blodflekk

ELIAS-EH said:


> Hello all
> Anyone’s saw a performance decrease in memory write and copy in aida64 benchmarks after updating from bios 1701 to bios 1801 on asus x99 strix or rampage?
> Thank u


Are you sure the performance decrease is coming from bios 1801? Its not the spectre/meltdown update, I got a decrease in performance across the board with the windows updates


----------



## blodflekk

I was able to push my 6850k to 4.4 at 1.37v, cpu input at 1.9, SA at 1.0v and it was stable in all my testing except for BF1, it would always crash it after about 1 hour of gameplay. Is this telling me that 4.3 is going to be my chips limit or is there another voltage I need to increase?


----------



## KCDC

Dang, now I don't know if I'm dealing with HW degradation or windows........

Dare I use my one-time Tuning Plan replacement over a 100mhz decrease? le sigh


----------



## djgar

KCDC said:


> Dang, now I don't know if I'm dealing with HW degradation or windows........
> 
> Dare I use my one-time Tuning Plan replacement over a 100mhz decrease? le sigh


For me, Tuning Plan replacement is for 100% degradation


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

Hey guys, I think I posted on this thread before about my 6850K on my Asus X99M WS dying. Well my second chip just died again after about 5 months later...

Was running it at 4.3GHz 1.37v (Its a crap chip) and temps were never over 80C on my H80i V2, was 1.37v really too much? I thought the first chip was dead because Asus set the VCCSA too high when you OC so on the second one I just set it manually. But it died again...

What do you guys think? Problem with Asus X99 boards in general or specific to my board? I'm gonna try to put in an RMA again but I am now doubting using my X99M-WS again.


----------



## DaveyWar

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> Hey guys, I think I posted on this thread before about my 6850K on my Asus X99M WS dying. Well my second chip just died again after about 5 months later...
> 
> Was running it at 4.3GHz 1.37v (Its a crap chip) and temps were never over 80C on my H80i V2, was 1.37v really too much? I thought the first chip was dead because Asus set the VCCSA too high when you OC so on the second one I just set it manually. But it died again...
> 
> What do you guys think? Problem with Asus X99 boards in general or specific to my board? I'm gonna try to put in an RMA again but I am now doubting using my X99M-WS again.


I've been running my 6850K at 4.5ghz, 1.375v since April of 2017.. haven't had any issues yet. Just changed my motherboard from the MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon to the MSI X99A Godlike Gaming Carbon. Needed it for better PCIe bandwidth support for SLI 1080 Ti's

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

DaveyWar said:


> I've been running my 6850K at 4.5ghz, 1.375v since April of 2017.. haven't had any issues yet. Just changed my motherboard from the MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon to the MSI X99A Godlike Gaming Carbon. Needed it for better PCIe bandwidth support for SLI 1080 Ti's
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


hmm could it be Asus' OC Socket that's killing my CPU and loads of other people's on Asus boards? Interesting yours works just fine at an even higher voltage than mine though.


----------



## xkm1948

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> hmm could it be Asus' OC Socket that's killing my CPU and loads of other people's on Asus boards? Interesting yours works just fine at an even higher voltage than mine though.


Are you overclocking your cache? If so can you list all the OC as well as voltage you have?


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

xkm1948 said:


> Are you overclocking your cache? If so can you list all the OC as well as voltage you have?


I can only remember setting the Vcore to 1.37v at 4.3GHz and the cache at somewhere around 1.2v at 3.6GHz. Also set the VCCSA to stock levels manually. The rest I can't remember since its in the BIOS and I can't access it atm. 

Anyways I'm going to RMA this and replace my PSU (just in case) and then set everything manually from now on.


----------



## xkm1948

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> I can only remember setting the Vcore to 1.37v at 4.3GHz and the cache at somewhere around 1.2v at 3.6GHz. Also set the VCCSA to stock levels manually. The rest I can't remember since its in the BIOS and I can't access it atm.
> 
> Anyways I'm going to RMA this and replace my PSU (just in case) and then set everything manually from now on.


Yep. 1.2V of Cache voltage did it. I used 1.2V as well for my last 6950X. Both my ASUS mobo and the chip was fried.

I run my cache at 0.9V @ 3GHz and my VCCSA at 1.05V now.

Some tips:

1. Dont run auto voltage on vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA, Vcache and VDRAM
2. Don't use XMP. Always set everything manually
3. Vcore wont hurt much. It is usually cache overclocking that kills your chip. Keep your cache as close to 1V as possible
4. VCCSA is the same thing. Keep it as close to 1V as possible.
5. Provide adequate cooling for the VRM if you are using AIO.


----------



## djgar

xkm1948 said:


> Yep. 1.2V of Cache voltage did it. I used 1.2V as well for my last 6950X. Both my ASUS mobo and the chip was fried.
> 
> I run my cache at 0.9V @ 3GHz and my VCCSA at 1.05V now.


I've been running 1.29/1.30 vcache on my Strix / 6900K for over a year, no problems.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

xkm1948 said:


> Yep. 1.2V of Cache voltage did it. I used 1.2V as well for my last 6950X. Both my ASUS mobo and the chip was fried.
> 
> I run my cache at 0.9V @ 3GHz and my VCCSA at 1.05V now.
> 
> Some tips:
> 
> 1. Dont run auto voltage on vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA, Vcache and VDRAM
> 2. Don't use XMP. Always set everything manually
> 3. Vcore wont hurt much. It is usually cache overclocking that kills your chip. Keep your cache as close to 1V as possible
> 4. VCCSA is the same thing. Keep it as close to 1V as possible.
> 5. Provide adequate cooling for the VRM if you are using AIO.


Damn cache at 1.2v is too high?? I thought that was alright seeing Asus doing 1.3v 3.8GHz in their Broadwell-E guide. Also I did set XMP so it might be it set VCCIO too high and I didn't realize too. 
My motherboard's VRM are ice cold though they never go above 70C on the Asus X99M-WS. 
I'll keep all these in mind then thanks.


----------



## Jpmboy

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> Damn cache at 1.2v is too high??* I thought that was alright seeing Asus doing 1.3v 3.8GHz in their Broadwell-E guide.* Also I did set XMP so it might be it set VCCIO too high and I didn't realize too.
> My motherboard's VRM are ice cold though they never go above 70C on the Asus X99M-WS.
> I'll keep all these in mind then thanks.


nope - you didn't see that in an ASUS guide (for cache clock or voltage).


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

Jpmboy said:


> nope - you didn't see that in an ASUS guide (for cache clock or voltage).


Actually they did
http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/3/


----------



## xkm1948

djgar said:


> I've been running 1.29/1.30 vcache on my Strix / 6900K for over a year, no problems.


Good for you. Hope it will last longer for you.


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
i am trying a i7 6900K on my ASUS Deluxe II (Biso 1802).
I was formerly with a i7-5930K.

Adapatative voltage was working perfect on i7-5930K, but with the i7-6900K, it seems impossible to rely bios values of CPU Core voltage offset and Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage and Core voltage under windows.

For example :
If I set in Bios
CPU Core voltage offset = 0.005
Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage=> 1.22

==> I had 1.23V under windows with the i7-5930K


But with the i7-6900K, I have 1.258V in CPUZ and under full load

In AIda; CPU vid is floating between 1.23V and 1.28V !!!
CPU Vcore is fixed in aida with a value of 1.23V....

Is there something that I mliss ?
Are there known issues with broadwell-e's and adapatative voltages?


----------



## djgar

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> i am trying a i7 6900K on my ASUS Deluxe II (Biso 1802).
> I was formerly with a i7-5930K.
> 
> Adapatative voltage was working perfect on i7-5930K, but with the i7-6900K, it seems impossible to rely bios values of CPU Core voltage offset and Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage and Core voltage under windows.
> 
> For example :
> If I set in Bios
> CPU Core voltage offset = 0.005
> Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage=> 1.22
> 
> ==> I had 1.23V under windows with the i7-5930K
> 
> 
> But with the i7-6900K, I have 1.258V in CPUZ and under full load
> 
> In AIda; CPU vid is floating between 1.23V and 1.28V !!!
> CPU Vcore is fixed in aida with a value of 1.23V....
> 
> Is there something that I mliss ?
> *Are there known issues with broadwell-e's and adapatative voltages?*


They work fine for me. I do use Auto offset and my target vcore as turbo voltage. You may be on the adaptive low limit.


----------



## GRABibus

djgar said:


> They work fine for me. I do use Auto offset and my target vcore as turbo voltage. You may be on the adaptive low limit.


It seems that everything set above 1.26V as Adaptative voltage is Bios, is exactly the same value in windows.
But, if I set adaptative voltage below 1.25V in Bios (Exemple 1.22V), in windows I have 1.258V in CPUZ and Aida is showing CPU vid changing between 1.23V and 1.28V,....

It seems my CPU vid=1.258V ! lol

It's crazy ?

When you say : I do use Auto offset and my target vcore as turbo voltage. You may be on the adaptive low limit. 

What do you mean ?


----------



## GRABibus

This is exactly my issue, as this guy :

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/633548-core-voltage-to-high-when-using-adaptive-mode-6900k/


----------



## djgar

GRABibus said:


> It seems that everything set above 1.26V as Adaptative voltage is Bios, is exactly the same value in windows.
> But, if I set adaptative voltage below 1.25V in Bios (Exemple 1.22V), in windows I have 1.258V in CPUZ and Aida is showing CPU vid changing between 1.23V and 1.28V,....
> 
> It seems my CPU vid=1.258V ! lol
> 
> It's crazy ?
> 
> When you say : I do use Auto offset and my target vcore as turbo voltage. You may be on the adaptive low limit.
> 
> What do you mean ?


The behavior you described - adaptive level is limited at the low end by some VID limit (what I can recall reading, maybe somebody more familiar with the situation can chime in). I never get this low


----------



## GRABibus

Vid=1.258V.... ?

My chip is defected, no ?


----------



## djgar

GRABibus said:


> Vid=1.258V.... ?
> 
> My chip is defected, no ?


I don't think so - have you tried a negative offset?


----------



## GRABibus

djgar said:


> I don't think so - have you tried a negative offset?


Yes.
I can manage to have around 1.24V if I want with negative offset in adaptative mode.
BUT, in AIDA 64, Vid is still changing from 1.24V to 1.28V.
And Vcore value in Aida=1.24V.


----------



## GRABibus

Here is a screenshot of Vid read by HWINfo during a test Prime95 26.6 SMall FT's (Non AVX version of Prime) :



As you can see, Vid is changing with a big range of values from 1.243V to 1.285V depending on the core.

In Bios, Vcore is set on Adaptative with :
CPU Core voltage offset => 0.005
Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage => 1.24

Strange, no ?


----------



## xkm1948

Simple, you cannot use additional turbo voltage lower than the max per core VID.

To put it simply BWE and newer CPU have an internal reference chart that CPU use to turbo single core up to certain speed. That is for 1 core temporary the VID maybe anywhere from 1.25V to 1.28V. You cannot set anything lower than that in adaptive mode. So assuming your highest VID in your processor's VID table is 1.26V, then your manually input 1.24V will be ignored. However if you input 1.35V, your processor will happily turbo all the way up to 1.35V.

What I did is use negative offset mode. This one when all cores are at max speed you won't worry about over volting. Problem is you have to figure out a sweet spot. As negative offset is applied to both all core max as well as all core min. If you negative offset too much then you end up with stability problem at low system load.

Hope that helps.


----------



## GRABibus

xkm1948 said:


> Simple, you cannot use additional turbo voltage lower than the max per core VID.
> 
> To put it simply BWE and newer CPU have an internal reference chart that CPU use to turbo single core up to certain speed. That is for 1 core temporary the VID maybe anywhere from 1.25V to 1.28V. You cannot set anything lower than that in adaptive mode. So assuming your highest VID in your processor's VID table is 1.26V, then your manually input 1.24V will be ignored. However if you input 1.35V, your processor will happily turbo all the way up to 1.35V.
> 
> What I did is use negative offset mode. This one when all cores are at max speed you won't worry about over volting. Problem is you have to figure out a sweet spot. As negative offset is applied to both all core max as well as all core min. If you negative offset too much then you end up with stability problem at low system load.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Thank you for explanation. 
I though I had a faulty chip..

But to be sure I understaood, *I have additionnal question : on the screenshot I posted above, all cores are synchronised at frequency=4.3GHz.

See this screenshot now :



Here, I set in Bios : frequency of cores = 3.9GHz (All synchronised) and adapatative voltage as follow :
CPU Core voltage offset => 0.005
Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage => 1.20

So, I can go below 1.25V. so, my input at 1.20V is not ignored....

So when you write "you cannot use additional turbo voltage lower than the max per core VID", I don't understand.
Here, it seems that I can because I am far below the values of my former screenshot (Post # 7509)


----------



## JMTH

GRABibus said:


> Thank you for explanation.
> I though I had a faulty chip..
> 
> But to be sure I understaood, *I have additionnal question : on the screenshot I posted above, all cores are synchronised at frequency=4.3GHz.
> 
> See this screenshot now :
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I set in Bios : frequency of cores = 3.9GHz (All synchronised) and adapatative voltage as follow :
> CPU Core voltage offset => 0.005
> Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage => 1.20
> 
> So, I can go below 1.25V. so, my input at 1.20V is not ignored....


The table adjusts the voltage minimum as you change the frequency. So by going down to 3.9 you have also changed the position of your min in the table. 
Think of it as a table with columns for each cores min voltage, by rows with the core frequency. 
At least that's how I look at it.

I think he meant min not max.


----------



## xenkw0n

xkm1948 said:


> Yep. 1.2V of Cache voltage did it. I used 1.2V as well for my last 6950X. Both my ASUS mobo and the chip was fried.
> 
> I run my cache at 0.9V @ 3GHz and my VCCSA at 1.05V now.
> 
> Some tips:
> 
> 1. Dont run auto voltage on vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA, Vcache and VDRAM
> 2. Don't use XMP. Always set everything manually
> 3. Vcore wont hurt much. It is usually cache overclocking that kills your chip. Keep your cache as close to 1V as possible
> 4. VCCSA is the same thing. Keep it as close to 1V as possible.
> 5. Provide adequate cooling for the VRM if you are using AIO.


I agree 100% on all the tips you outlined but my 1st chip died with 1.07v uncore and second one died at 1.04v uncore. On my 3rd chip now and a different motherboard (ASUS still, got a replacement for my X99 A-II). It's amusing how long X99 has been out and how many chips die on this system but no one actually knows what triggers it. It's probably just ASUS having some type of defect in a big portion of their boards.


----------



## xkm1948

xenkw0n said:


> I agree 100% on all the tips you outlined but my 1st chip died with 1.07v uncore and second one died at 1.04v uncore. On my 3rd chip now and a different motherboard (ASUS still, got a replacement for my X99 A-II). It's amusing how long X99 has been out and how many chips die on this system but no one actually knows what triggers it. It's probably just ASUS having some type of defect in a big portion of their boards.


Damn that sucks. 2 chips in a row. Wow. I would have given up after the 2nd one is dead.

I am only running 3GHz cache with 0.95V Vcache. We will see how long this chip lasts.


----------



## GRABibus

I test my new i7-6900K since 2 days.

After several partial sessions of RealBench v2.56 (4 hours), MemTest v6.0 (2 hours) and Aida64 v5.95.4500 Cache stress test (2 hours), it seems that my optimised OC will be :
Core=4.3GHz
Cache=3.8Ghz
Vccin=1.8V
Vcore=1.28V adaptative
Vcache=1.28V (Offset mode with offset=+0.29V)
Vccsa=0.8V (Offset mode with Offset=-0.11V)
Vccio=1.05V
32GB Trident Z CL14 @ 3200MHz @ 13-14-13-34-1T @ Vdimm=1.4V

I will now perform my criterias to valid :
8 hours of RealBench v2.56 stress test (32GB RAM test)
MemTest v6.0, Coverage mini 1000%.
4 hours of Aida64 v5.95.4500 Cache stress test


----------



## djgar

GRABibus said:


> I test my new i7-6900K since 2 days.
> 
> After several partial sessions of RealBench v2.56 (4 hours), MemTest v6.0 (2 hours) and Aida64 v5.95.4500 Cache stress test (2 hours), it seems that my optimised OC will be :
> Core=4.3GHz
> Cache=3.8Ghz
> Vccin=1.8V
> Vcore=1.28V adaptative
> Vcache=1.28V (Offset mode with offset=+0.29V)
> Vccsa=0.8V (Offset mode with Offset=-0.11V)
> Vccio=1.05V
> 32GB Trident Z CL14 @ 3200MHz @ 13-14-13-34-1T @ Vdimm=1.4V
> 
> I will now perform my criterias to valid :
> 8 hours of RealBench v2.56 stress test (32GB RAM test)
> MemTest v6.0, Coverage mini 1000%.
> 4 hours of Aida64 v5.95.4500 Cache stress test


Nice cache!


----------



## xkm1948

1.28v vcache. Welp let’s hope it may last a while


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I noticed when updating Asus bios to the latest patch some of the auto setting changed, higher voltage. Manually set the cache voltage as well, I can see how everyone is frying their chips so easily.


----------



## GRABibus

xkm1948 said:


> 1.28v vcache. Welp let’s hope it may last a while


It is offset mode, so 1.28v is not 100% or thé Time applied.
My former 5930k had 1.24v since une Year.

Everything below 1,30v should be ok


----------



## GRABibus

Neo_Morpheus said:


> I noticed when updating Asus bios to the latest patch some of the auto setting changed, higher voltage. Manually set the cache voltage as well, I can see how everyone is frying their chips so easily.


All my voltages are manual.
At auto setting, I didn’t See any suspect High voltages


----------



## GRABibus

I am currently testing my i7-6900k since one week and I see something stranges concerning some voltages values since yesterday.
This concerns : Vcache, Vccsa and vccio 1.05V.

Until now, there are ste like this :
Cache offset mode with offset=+0.29V, which was given Vcache=1.28V under load (By Aida, HWinfo, etc.....)
Vccio 1.05V set manually to 1.05V, which was given 1.048V (By Aida, HWinfo, etc.....)
Vccsa set with offset = -0.11V which was given 0.8V (By Aida, HWinfo, etc.....)


Now, since yesterday evening, without changing anything in Bios, I have :
Cache offset mode with offset=+0.29V, gives now 1.26V instead of 1.28V (By Aida, HWinfo, etc.....)
Vccio 1.05V set manually to 1.05V, gives now 1.04V instead of 1.048V (By Aida, HWinfo, etc.....)
Vccsa set with offset = -0.11V, gives now 0.76V instead of 0.8V (By Aida, HWinfo, etc.....)

In Bios, I can also see those 3 values which have decreased accordingly.

Any idea what happens here ?


----------



## GosuPl

I have a problem with my second CPU - i7 6950X. Unfortunately, it turns out that the CPU has damaged A few drops of liquid drop on X99 Rampage Edition 10.

After all, when I dried the motherboard, it turned out that it have shutdowns. I sent it to rma. Some path was burned, but they fixed the equipment. Unfortunately, when the mobo reached me, it turned out that I still had a shutdowns.

I also sent the mobo once more to the rma. In the meantime, I bought another E10, which turned out to be DOA ... A black series of events: D

So I made a change to X299, waiting for the repaired E10 to return. I decided that X99 will be my backup platform.

Well, in the meantime my friend took 6950X from me and it turned out that he is also shutdowns ... It turns out that the CPU has failed while flooding the motherboard liquid. Unfortunately, the CPU is ES, it also has no warranty.

Sometimes it works a few hours, everything is ok. At other times it turns off twice in an hour. I wonder what really happened to him and whether there is a real way to repair this CPU.

Have any of you had similar experiences?


----------



## blodflekk

What do you guys consider good or "safe" voltages for memory on this platform? my kit is xmp rated to 1.35 so I have left the voltage there and tried to tighten the timings with no success, is it ok to push voltage higher or should I stay here ?


----------



## xkm1948

blodflekk said:


> What do you guys consider good or "safe" voltages for memory on this platform? my kit is xmp rated to 1.35 so I have left the voltage there and tried to tighten the timings with no success, is it ok to push voltage higher or should I stay here ?


1.4V feels like the highest I would go. Provide your RAM is adequately cooled.


----------



## blodflekk

xkm1948 said:


> 1.4V feels like the highest I would go. Provide your RAM is adequately cooled.


That's what I was thinking but I wanted to get some feedback before I started bumping it up


----------



## xkm1948

How many of you are using fully manual mode for overclocking BWE? I like the aspect of CPU clocking down during idle, but I don't enjoy seeing the 1.25V full load vcore at the same time.


----------



## jsutter71

xkm1948 said:


> How many of you are using fully manual mode for overclocking BWE? I like the aspect of CPU clocking down during idle, but I don't enjoy seeing the 1.25V full load vcore at the same time.


I have with no issues with my 6950X. Doing so I haven't really found any performance increase for everyday usage. After hours of tweaking and benchmarking I discovered that for maximum performance you need a good combination of fast memory, fast storage, and fast GPU's. You can only go so far with CPU settings. For everyday usage I run my CPU 4.3GHz. for benchmarking I'll dial up to 4.4GHz. Sometimes I keep it at 4.4GHz. It's also a good way to determine when I need a water change. Old water decreases overclockability. 

Little off topic.
Most of my fittings are EK, and I use Bitspower PETG tubing, but during my last water change I sprung a leak during stress testing which required me to replace some of the tubing.The culprit was the compression fittings. After a couple years of usage the fittings around the PETG loosened up. Fortunately the leak was in the fitting directly in front of the reservoir so I caught it right away. The leak was a gusher and a significant amount of water leaked out in the time it took to grab a towel that was within arms reach. Props to Caselabs for quality. The bottom chamber did not see a single drop even though the leak was in the middle chamber.


----------



## KCDC

jsutter71 said:


> I have with no issues with my 6950X. Doing so I haven't really found any performance increase for everyday usage. After hours of tweaking and benchmarking I discovered that for maximum performance you need a good combination of fast memory, fast storage, and fast GPU's. You can only go so far with CPU settings. For everyday usage I run my CPU 4.3GHz. for benchmarking I'll dial up to 4.4GHz. Sometimes I keep it at 4.4GHz. It's also a good way to determine when I need a water change. Old water decreases overclockability.
> 
> Little off topic.
> Most of my fittings are EK, and I use Bitspower PETG tubing, but during my last water change I sprung a leak during stress testing which required me to replace some of the tubing.The culprit was the compression fittings. After a couple years of usage the fittings around the PETG loosened up. Fortunately the leak was in the fitting directly in front of the reservoir so I caught it right away. The leak was a gusher and a significant amount of water leaked out in the time it took to grab a towel that was within arms reach. Props to Caselabs for quality. The bottom chamber did not see a single drop even though the leak was in the middle chamber.


Glad you caught that, dude. Could've been bad news. Glass was harder to work with, but now I feel a little more at peace that the tubes will never change diameter. Also props to caselabs for that seal. That new SMA8 revision is my next case!

I had my 6900k at 4.4 1.380 for about 9 months cache at 37 1.270v.

maybe it was my chip, but I had to back it down to 4.2 and 3.1 for daily. cpu 1.270 now, cache at 1.190. I fear I degraded the chip. Everything watercooled to the max.

Might use my tuning plan after I try to max it out once again.


----------



## jsutter71

KCDC said:


> Glad you caught that, dude. Could've been bad news. Glass was harder to work with, but now I feel a little more at peace that the tubes will never change diameter. Also props to caselabs for that seal. That new SMA8 revision is my next case!
> 
> I had my 6900k at 4.4 1.380 for about 9 months cache at 37 1.270v.
> 
> maybe it was my chip, but I had to back it down to 4.2 and 3.1 for daily. cpu 1.270 now, cache at 1.190. I fear I degraded the chip. Everything watercooled to the max.
> 
> Might use my tuning plan after I try to max it out once again.


To be fair I fully expected to reach 4.3 with no issues. I purchased from Silicon Lottery which had already stress tested the chip to run at 4.3. With the amount of cooling in my system I would have been disappointed to have not reached 4.4. I have pushed further but at the risk of stability. Some chips just don't like going past certain speeds no matter how much cooling they have. Running a 6950x at 4.4 GHz stable is a 48% increase in speed. IMHO that's impressive. BTW. If you look at my postings on futuremark *SOME* of my competition are using exotic cooling solutions such as external chillers or liquid nitrogen which accounts for massive speed improvements. My cooling consists of 4 rads with push/pull fans and distilled water. Nothing fancy.


----------



## blodflekk

Just thought I would report back on my ram tuning. I am pretty happy with the results. The kit I have is the G.Skill 32GB 3200MHz xmp rated at 16-18-18-38 2T @1.35. I bumped voltage to 1.4 and SA to 1.1 and I was able to get 3200MHz @ 15-16-16-16 1T


----------



## zerophase

Have any batch numbers been found for golden chips?


----------



## ThrashZone

blodflekk said:


> What do you guys consider good or "safe" voltages for memory on this platform? my kit is xmp rated to 1.35 so I have left the voltage there and tried to tighten the timings with no success, is it ok to push voltage higher or should I stay here ?


Hi,
My 3200 shows 1.37v plus a hair usually on auto.


----------



## ThrashZone

xkm1948 said:


> How many of you are using fully manual mode for overclocking BWE? I like the aspect of CPU clocking down during idle, but I don't enjoy seeing the 1.25V full load vcore at the same time.


Hi,
I've been mostly on auto with more than that 1.31v and a hair for 4.6 cooling is good and stable
I tried manual at 1.34v and I think it needs more on 4.7 probably 1.35v plus some other tweaks to get benchmarks to run just can't dial it in


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi, Oops wrong thread


----------



## moonbogg

I had to lower my ddr4 3200 to 2800mhz for my 6800K to be prime95 blend stable. It was crashing in about an hour but now is over 9 hours stable. Weak IMC or something else? Ever hear of a 6800K not being stable beyond 2800mhz ram?


----------



## glnn_23

Back playing with memory on a 6950X on an Asus X99-M WS board. Ok so far but doesn't want to run over 3400Mhz.


----------



## gtz

Just got my hands on a 6950X. I traded my 2696V3 for it and some cash. 

Can't wait to start testing it out.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

I started messing around with my 3rd 6850K again. Learning my lesson killing my last 2 chips I didn't use a cache voltage higher than 1v and only got to 3.4GHz cache since people told me my cache voltage was what killed my previous chip. 

Anyways this third chip seems to be pretty good I think, got 4 cores at 4.5GHz 1.39v and one core at 4.6GHz 1.42v and one core at 4.7GHz 1.45v. Now I know that 2 of the cores are over 1.4v but its completely stress stable and never crash even with me using it to render videos a lot. Temps also never hit 80C (ie. low 70s) even under 100% rendering load so I think I'm good. But what do you guys think should I just back it down to 4.5GHz all core at 1.38v that it could do?


----------



## gtz

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> I started messing around with my 3rd 6850K again. Learning my lesson killing my last 2 chips I didn't use a cache voltage higher than 1v and only got to 3.4GHz cache since people told me my cache voltage was what killed my previous chip.
> 
> Anyways this third chip seems to be pretty good I think, got 4 cores at 4.5GHz 1.39v and one core at 4.6GHz 1.42v and one core at 4.7GHz 1.45v. Now I know that 2 of the cores are over 1.4v but its completely stress stable and never crash even with me using it to render videos a lot. Temps also never hit 80C (ie. low 70s) even under 100% rendering load so I think I'm good. But what do you guys think should I just back it down to 4.5GHz all core at 1.38v that it could do?


What cache voltage were you using? Would not want to kill my 6950X.


----------



## xenkw0n

I have had 2 chips die with 1.05v Cache voltage. I'm not saying it was the Cache voltage that did it, but that's where I had mine set at. I never thought that would be anything close to enough voltage to cause issues. Anyone got proof of this? Would be cool to put together a list of boards as well. I still think it has to do with some design flaw in ASUS boards.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

gtz said:


> What cache voltage were you using? Would not want to kill my 6950X.


Running it at about 1v atm.



xenkw0n said:


> I have had 2 chips die with 1.05v Cache voltage. I'm not saying it was the Cache voltage that did it, but that's where I had mine set at. I never thought that would be anything close to enough voltage to cause issues. Anyone got proof of this? Would be cool to put together a list of boards as well. I still think it has to do with some design flaw in ASUS boards.


I was previously using over 1.2v on my dead 6850Ks and even 1.3v at some point for a while. At first I thought I just got a dud chip but the second time it died I went asking in forums and researching, apparently cache voltage kills BW-E. And yea I also read its also some flaw with Asus' OC Socket or something pushing more volts to the cache as they even advertise an extra voltage pin just for the cache to push cache clocks higher so maybe their implementation is messed up or something. I'm on an Asus X99M-WS


----------



## GXTCHA

Picked up a used 6950x recently and did a quick OC to 4.4 @ 1.31v adaptive and running 32gb's of g.skill @ 3200C14 and a -3 for AVX on a R5E10.

Something I've noticed which is different from my x299 setup is that the "Turbo Attenuation" flag is set to on with the x99 setup. Have people run into this before? It seems related to the AVX offset but that flag is absent on x299... Is this a CPU defect or Mobo issue?

Anyone have any thoughts on where I could improve?


----------



## xkm1948

My Sabertooth X99 killed my 1st 6950X at 1.2V cache, OC @ 3.5GHz Cache and 4.2GHz core.

It was not overnight death, but a slow degredation. Eventually it just failed to boot, QCODE00 error.

For my current chip I no longer touch the cache overclocking, Just not worth it


----------



## Blameless

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> I was previously using over 1.2v on my dead 6850Ks and even 1.3v at some point for a while. At first I thought I just got a dud chip but the second time it died I went asking in forums and researching, apparently cache voltage kills BW-E. And yea I also read its also some flaw with Asus' OC Socket or something pushing more volts to the cache as they even advertise an extra voltage pin just for the cache to push cache clocks higher so maybe their implementation is messed up or something. I'm on an Asus X99M-WS


I've killed a few BW-E, but never via cache voltage. If anything, they've proven quite resilient in this regard.

However, I've mostly been using a non-OC socket board with BW-E. All my samples have also been lower leakage/higher voltage tolerance (and generally poor OCing) B or G batch parts.


----------



## xarot

I put my 6950X into my X99-M WS board some months ago, it was previously in my RVE10 board. I saw with XMP that the X99-M WS tries to overvolt the VCCIO and VCCSA to insta-kill levels (I think those were around 1.3V and 1.4V?). I have all set manually now with a mild core OC with no problems. There's still around 1.5 years warranty left too...not really impressed with the BIOS of that board. Seems like they completely forgot BW-E and voltages there.


----------



## gtz

xarot said:


> I put my 6950X into my X99-M WS board some months ago, it was previously in my RVE10 board. I saw with XMP that the X99-M WS tries to overvolt the VCCIO and VCCSA to insta-kill levels (I think those were around 1.3V and 1.4V?). I have all set manually now with a mild core OC with no problems. There's still around 1.5 years warranty left too...not really impressed with the BIOS of that board. Seems like they completely forgot BW-E and voltages there.


I have noticed the same with my x99 godlike. XMP enabled raised VCCSA to 1.36 and VCCIO to 1.3. Sadly to run my DDR4 over 2800 I need VCCSA at 1.2 and VCCIO at 1.1

Are those values safe? Also I got a dud 6950X I need 1.26 volts for a 4.1 OC. Was kinda hoping for more.


----------



## GXTCHA

Only had time for a quick bench tonight but was able to complete a 15 minute run with the following:

4.4 @ 1.265v adaptive and running 32gb's of g.skill @ 3200C14 and a -3 for AVX on a R5E10.

full settings:

44x @ 1.265v adaptive
AVX = -3
vccin @ 1.80v w/ LLC = 6
IO/SA @ 1.05 / .84
3200CL14 w/ 14-14-14-34 1T @ 1.35v

I'll be testing this for 1 and 2 hours runs tomorrow with RB2.56

Any thoughts or feedback is appreciated.


----------



## F-man4

Is this post available to discuss Broadwell-EP?
Just got an E5 v4 18C36T 2.3GHz (on full loading) for software decoding 8K x264 video.
But it only performed 8K @ 24Hz and had glitches, which was far from what I expected.
There was one thing strange: When it got glitches at decoding that 8K x264 video, all the 18C36T had only 40-60% loading but not full.

For reference, 6850K had 8K @ 5Hz, 8700 had 8K @ 1.9Hz, both were on the same video.
6850K had better 4K frame-rates than E5 18C36T 2.3GHz, especially on decoding 4K HDR videos, though both of them got glitches.

HW & SW:
MPC-HC, LAV, MadVR (tweaked for maximized frame-rate), Windows 7 (for 8700 it's Windows 10)
16GB DDR4-3000 CL15 (for E5 it's 2133) (only 8GB was used), RX550 2GB, NVMe SSD


----------



## KCDC

I have no idea what killed my first BW-E chip, I just know I was new to the whole build, and OCing, and pretty sure most settings were set to Auto when it happened, code 00. 

With the replacement chip, my cache voltage has been up to 1.27 in the past without issue. After a lot of reading, I have since then turned it down. Same mobo.


----------



## Vlada011

How much is average OC of i7-6900K, I saw something less than i7-5960X, but how much.
Is it worth 150 euro higher price?


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

xarot said:


> I put my 6950X into my X99-M WS board some months ago, it was previously in my RVE10 board. I saw with XMP that the X99-M WS tries to overvolt the VCCIO and VCCSA to insta-kill levels (I think those were around 1.3V and 1.4V?). I have all set manually now with a mild core OC with no problems. There's still around 1.5 years warranty left too...not really impressed with the BIOS of that board. Seems like they completely forgot BW-E and voltages there.


Dude yes my board does that...seems like the BW-E support on it was half-assed baked in. I'm pretty sure that's what contributed to killing my 2 previous chips too. Since then I don't use XMP and just enter everything manually.


----------



## Blameless

Vlada011 said:


> How much is average OC of i7-6900K, I saw something less than i7-5960X, but how much.
> Is it worth 150 euro higher price?


Assuming cooling isn't the limiting factor, final performance is going to be about the same. BW-E tends to clock 100-200MHz lower than HW-E, and the difference is even wider with AVX.

BW-E also has a severe disadvantage when it comes to uncore clocks, at least when talking about OC socket boards. This largely negates the advantages of BW-E's improved memory controller.

I would not pay more for a 6900K than a 5960X, unless you know for certain that the 6900K is a strong sample or that the software you use is stuff that particularly favors Broadwell over Haswell.



Awesomeguy10578 said:


> Dude yes my board does that...seems like the BW-E support on it was half-assed baked in. I'm pretty sure that's what contributed to killing my 2 previous chips too. Since then I don't use XMP and just enter everything manually.


Quite a few boards that pre-date BW-E's release never saw flawless BW-E support (this is a trend with earlier tick vs. tocks as well) and XMP has always been able to do iffy things with memory controller related voltages.


----------



## blodflekk

I have just seen that the RVE10 has released a 1902 beta bios. Has anyone tried this? This should be the performance patch for spectre/meltdown correct ?


----------



## KCDC

blodflekk said:


> I have just seen that the RVE10 has released a 1902 beta bios. Has anyone tried this? This should be the performance patch for spectre/meltdown correct ?


Yes, it's the spectre/meltdown fix. A lot of Asus's X99 Mobos got the beta bios yesterday. While some have installed it without issue, I am gonna wait until it's out of beta. You can check the Asus x99 forum, some there have it installed.

http://www.overclock.net/forum/6-in...support-thread-north-american-users-only.html


----------



## blodflekk

Thanks champ. I'll go and have a read of it. I was, like you cautious about using a beta bios


----------



## spooklexity

So I've just replaced my X58 platform with an X99 one and started off with a 6800k. For now I have achieved

4.2 GHz Core @ 1.256V, AVX-Offset = 0

3.2 GHz Ring @ 1.05V, allegedly the default according to my mainboard. Now I've read here that 1.05V might be already very dangerous and the official intel specifications imply that the maximum allowed might be 1V, anyone knows more regarding this?


Same regarding RAM that will follow soon. XMP loads 1.35V which is outside specifications (1.26V max allowed), so I'm a bit hesistant for now. Do you have specific tips with which CCIO and CCSA voltages are necessary for certain RAM Frequencies? Also, do you know what the "VccU offset" is for? Description says it has "something" to do wich Ring/Uncore, but isn't more specific...

Thanks in advance!


----------



## L36

Its a beta BIOS as out motherboards are past 3 years of production. These BIOSes will never become non beta.


----------



## Desolutional

VCCIO has an absolute maximum rating of 1.35V, like Haswell-E, and nominal cache voltage is 0.95V. Intel allows 5% over that at *stock*, so it is quite difficult to see how 1.00V on cache (which is rounded to Intel's nom+5%) alone could kill the CPU. Seems more likely to be a motherboard issue, or another voltage setting. VCCIN and VCCSA will kill your CPU very quickly if set incorrectly. You can also destroy your CPU instantly if you overvolt VTT.


----------



## JMTH

spooklexity said:


> So I've just replaced my X58 platform with an X99 one and started off with a 6800k. For now I have achieved
> 
> 4.2 GHz Core @ 1.256V, AVX-Offset = 0
> 
> 3.2 GHz Ring @ 1.05V, allegedly the default according to my mainboard. Now I've read here that 1.05V might be already very dangerous and the official intel specifications imply that the maximum allowed might be 1V, anyone knows more regarding this?
> 
> 
> Same regarding RAM that will follow soon. XMP loads 1.35V which is outside specifications (1.26V max allowed), so I'm a bit hesistant for now. Do you have specific tips with which CCIO and CCSA voltages are necessary for certain RAM Frequencies? Also, do you know what the "VccU offset" is for? Description says it has "something" to do wich Ring/Uncore, but isn't more specific...
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Dram voltage of 1.45-1.5 is not uncommon for ocing ram. This thread has all the information you could ever want to know about dram ocing.

http://www.overclock.net/forum/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription#/topics/1569364?page=1

They also post all sorts of timing configurations. Search through the thread using your ram kits part number, someone most likely will have posted the timings they used.


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

Desolutional said:


> VCCIO has an absolute maximum rating of 1.35V, like Haswell-E, and nominal cache voltage is 0.95V. Intel allows 5% over that at *stock*, so it is quite difficult to see how 1.00V on cache (which is rounded to Intel's nom+5%) alone could kill the CPU. Seems more likely to be a motherboard issue, or another voltage setting.


I went through 2 6850Ks dying on my X99M-WS, but that's according to what I read and you guys probably because of the motherboard setting the voltage for VCCSA and VCache and VCCIO too high with XMP. My third one is still doing just fine with voltages set manually.

But right now I've just got an insane deal on a 6950X and am now tweaking again, what I want to know what's the consensus for safe Vcache voltage? Some said 1v is about where you should keep it at but you mentioned that's basically intel's stock voltage and also you're running the 5820K at 1.2v? 

I really don't want to break this 6950X lol but so far its running at 1.31v 4.3GHz on 3 cores, 1.34v 4.4GHz on 4 cores, 1.37v 4.5GHz on 3 cores using per core ratio in the BIOS and the cache is at 1.04v 3.2GHz. Yes I really tune my stuff to the absolute limits lol that's why the per core ratio for tuning each cores. Scored 2323cb on cinebench too so its no slouch at all but hey more cache frequency would be nice.


----------



## JMTH

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> Desolutional said:
> 
> 
> 
> VCCIO has an absolute maximum rating of 1.35V, like Haswell-E, and nominal cache voltage is 0.95V. Intel allows 5% over that at *stock*, so it is quite difficult to see how 1.00V on cache (which is rounded to Intel's nom+5%) alone could kill the CPU. Seems more likely to be a motherboard issue, or another voltage setting.
> 
> 
> 
> I went through 2 6850Ks dying on my X99M-WS, but that's according to what I read and you guys probably because of the motherboard setting the voltage for VCCSA and VCache and VCCIO too high with XMP. My third one is still doing just fine with voltages set manually.
> 
> But right now I've just got an insane deal on a 6950X and am now tweaking again, what I want to know what's the consensus for safe Vcache voltage? Some said 1v is about where you should keep it at but you mentioned that's basically intel's stock voltage and also you're running the 5820K at 1.2v?
> 
> I really don't want to break this 6950X lol but so far its running at 1.31v 4.3GHz on 3 cores, 1.34v 4.4GHz on 4 cores, 1.37v 4.5GHz on 3 cores using per core ratio in the BIOS and the cache is at 1.04v 3.2GHz. Yes I really tune my stuff to the absolute limits lol that's why the per core ratio for tuning each cores. Scored 2323cb on cinebench too so its no slouch at all but hey more cache frequency would be nice.
Click to expand...

I tried the by core method and found that it usually takes the same voltage as setting all cores to the same level. At least to be 8h Realbench stress test. Also it ran cooler as well, usually by 5 deg c. Which was not what I was expecting. 

Needless to say I just went with setting all cores to the same speed. Uncore was a pita though. I was using AIDA64 cache stress testing for 2h, but when I started memory ocing I was getting tons of failures in HCI. After 100s of hours of testing I finally figured out that it was my uncore voltage. I had to bump it up an additional 0.05v in the end to get it stable. 1.2v is the max I will go, but that's still in the iffy range. 

Been running at the oc in my sig, at least I think it's still there I'm on my phone so I don't see it lol, for 10 months now. So far no degeration, knock on wood, but who knows hehe. 

I plan on delidding it next time I disassemble the water cooling loop for cleaning. Might be able to drop the voltage a bit after that.


----------



## Desolutional

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> I went through 2 6850Ks dying on my X99M-WS, but that's according to what I read and you guys probably because of the motherboard setting the voltage for VCCSA and VCache and VCCIO too high with XMP. My third one is still doing just fine with voltages set manually.
> 
> But right now I've just got an insane deal on a 6950X and am now tweaking again, what I want to know what's the consensus for safe Vcache voltage? Some said 1v is about where you should keep it at but you mentioned that's basically intel's stock voltage and also you're running the 5820K at 1.2v?
> 
> I really don't want to break this 6950X lol but so far its running at 1.31v 4.3GHz on 3 cores, 1.34v 4.4GHz on 4 cores, 1.37v 4.5GHz on 3 cores using per core ratio in the BIOS and the cache is at 1.04v 3.2GHz. Yes I really tune my stuff to the absolute limits lol that's why the per core ratio for tuning each cores. Scored 2323cb on cinebench too so its no slouch at all but hey more cache frequency would be nice.


Lucky for you, I've spent the last few days tuning my uncore, retested with HCI memtest (AIDA takes way too long, in excess of 6 hours before a cache fault, and is faster than Prime95 with 800K to 960K range FFTs). Run this on a low core multi, with more core voltage than needed for stock. You can also use Prime95 without AVX using the following options in local.txt for P95, you can use this with P95 29.4, leave FMA3 enabled:
CpuSupportsAVX=0
CpuSupportsAVX2=0

Doing the test with VCCIN at around 1.85V, and a bit more Vcore than needed for stock AVX loads should eliminate those from the contributing factors, assuming you also have RAM running at JEDEC-2133 spec. That will leave just cache as the variable being stressed. Also may be worth noting that combining a stable "stock everything else" cache with an overclock, may need a little more cache voltage.

Cache Ratio (Vring needed for stability)
36x (1.280V)
35x (1.190V)
34x (1.090V)
33x (0.980V)

As for performance increases, the reduction in package TDP from not overclocking cache will give you ample room to continue tuning core, which is more effective for BW-E; ASUS posted this on their edge-up, 30W increase with 1.30V of Vring: https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/3/


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I've never had issue on 5930k using 
Min [email protected]
Max [email protected]
Using Offset mode +0.175 
Which puts cache voltage just under 1.15 or so.

I toned it down a bit and 
Min [email protected]
Max cache 34
Using offset mode +0.150 which is around 1.1v max according to hwinfo64 free.


----------



## Desolutional

They use different memory controllers, so Haswell-E tends to work quite nicely at or below 1.25V of cache. I used 1.20V for 3.9 GHz and a 1.15V VTT, which has lasted 3 years, and still running fine. From your example, 0.4GHz extra ring speed for 0.05V extra is a good trade off. Not so much the case for Broadwell-E, but also stock BW-E IMC is better as well. Cache does give a little bit of a boost for BW-E, but not enough to justify the ~0.10V jumps per bin, compared to HW-E.


----------



## xenkw0n

This is disheartening. I come back after taking a break from the forums for a couple months and the first thing being talked about is the ASUS boards murdering Broadwell-E chips. Have we come to a consensus as to why?

I'm pretty sure it's related to Cache overclocks, but could also be amplified by VCCIO and VCCSA voltages. I actually wanted to come back and specifically make this post. The ASUS OC Socket is specifically intended to take advantage of non-official CPU pins in intel specs and enable them to provide potentially more voltage for Cache overclocking. On Haswell-E chips this worked great and allowed people to push their Cache overclocks without much harm but I firmly believe the Broadwell-E chips are more sensitive to Cache overclocking and the OC socket is juicing them up too much. I've seen a trend with my personal chips that died (2x6800ks 3.4ghz Cache @ 1.10v OFFSET) and with a few other members who have posted their scenarios in that their computer will work fine one day and then try to either TURN IT ON or WAKE IT UP and it just doesn't boot, or seems to die right then and there. During initial power cycles or wake events the OC socket is essentially surging voltage into the chip temporarily to make sure it's up and running, stable. The higher the overclock, the more juice is being pumped into it since we can't actually tweak the OC socket behavior. Can't actually track the events since it's before Windows ever loads, and unless someone can use a multimeter to track Cache voltage, no one will ever be able to actually prove it....

Thoughts? I'm running 3.0ghz Cache .98v OFFSET right now. Getting off this platform soon, too many headaches left a sour taste in my mouth.


----------



## xkm1948

xenkw0n said:


> This is disheartening. I come back after taking a break from the forums for a couple months and the first thing being talked about is the ASUS boards murdering Broadwell-E chips. Have we come to a consensus as to why?
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's related to Cache overclocks, but could also be amplified by VCCIO and VCCSA voltages. I actually wanted to come back and specifically make this post. The ASUS OC Socket is specifically intended to take advantage of non-official CPU pins in intel specs and enable them to provide potentially more voltage for Cache overclocking. On Haswell-E chips this worked great and allowed people to push their Cache overclocks without much harm but I firmly believe the Broadwell-E chips are more sensitive to Cache overclocking and the OC socket is juicing them up too much. I've seen a trend with my personal chips that died (2x6800ks 3.4ghz Cache @ 1.10v OFFSET) and with a few other members who have posted their scenarios in that their computer will work fine one day and then try to either TURN IT ON or WAKE IT UP and it just doesn't boot, or seems to die right then and there. During initial power cycles or wake events the OC socket is essentially surging voltage into the chip temporarily to make sure it's up and running, stable. The higher the overclock, the more juice is being pumped into it since we can't actually tweak the OC socket behavior. Can't actually track the events since it's before Windows ever loads, and unless someone can use a multimeter to track Cache voltage, no one will ever be able to actually prove it....
> 
> Thoughts? I'm running 3.0ghz Cache .98v OFFSET right now. Getting off this platform soon, too many headaches left a sour taste in my mouth.



I am running stock cache speed. The gain is minimum and simply not worth the risk. ASUS attempted to fix this issue since the x802 version of X99 BIOS.As long as you don't enable XMP and don't OC cache it should be fairly safe. 

For anyone with fried BWE and ASUS X99 I say RMA then sell the parts and move onto either Threadripper or X299. X99 is way too difficult to deal with TBH.


----------



## blodflekk

Has anyone done a delid on a BW-E ? Does the der8auer delid tool even work on bw-e ?


----------



## Tlow

der8auer did a video on Brodwell-E delidding.
to sum it up he got an avg. temp drop of 4 degrees.


----------



## Desolutional

xkm1948 said:


> I am running stock cache speed. The gain is minimum and simply not worth the risk. ASUS attempted to fix this issue since the x802 version of X99 BIOS.As long as you don't enable XMP and don't OC cache it should be fairly safe.
> 
> For anyone with fried BWE and ASUS X99 I say RMA then sell the parts and move onto either Threadripper or X299. X99 is way too difficult to deal with TBH.


Not overclocking cache wouldn't solve the issue if it was a physical and firmware defect with the O.C. socket. XMP on the other hand usually sets very high voltages for VCCSA and VCCIO, which *massively* speed up degradation. I would stay below 1.00V of VCCSA and 1.10V of VTT (VCCIO PCH, VCCIO CPU). Now the really interesting thing is that the ASUS boards set VCCSA to some stupid levels like 1.2V and VCCIO CPU to 1.25V when using *auto* frequency rules for DRAM beyond 2666MHz. This is *not even XMP settings, but auto settings using BIOS*. This is probably what is causing the degradation because a user doesn't realise the board has pumped VCCIO so high.

My advise would be to manually set VCCSA offset (start with +0.001V), and VTT (set both VCCIO PCH and VCCIO CPU) to 1.05V. That will absolutely stop the motherboard pumping stupid voltages to those rails. As seen earlier on this thread, users have been running more than 1.10V of cache voltage for more than 8 months without a problem, so the common thread seems to be XMP or auto voltage settings. (Unless a user has been running JEDEC spec 2133MHz RAM for months with a reasonable core and cache overclock, then we can assume it is cache).


----------



## rogerwilco6850K

*6850K defaults to 4.00 Ghz*

Hi,

Getting a weird issue with the Windows 10 Insider Preview builds and overclocking my 6850K. Basically, the issue is this:

- I use the sync all core settings in BIOS
- set multiplier to 43x
- set the voltage to auto
- hit apply

Now, when I boot up with these settings on a publicly issued build of Windows 10/latest non-Insider Preview build of Windows 10, the BIOS settings take effect, and my CPU is overclocked to 4.3 Ghz.

However, when I boot up in my Insider Preview partition, the CPU defaults to a strange 3.99/4.0 Ghz clock state on all 6 cores. I then have to open XTU, set the multiplier to 43x and hit apply. Only then does the clock speed ramp back up to the 4.3 Ghz that is set in the BIOS. 

Why does this only happen in the Insider Preview build? Any thoughts?

This has been happening consistently for a good 3-4 months now with my Insider Preview Partition.

Thanks for the tip!

PS: Also tried to clean install the Insider Preview build, the same issue. Reinstalled build 1803, no issue.


----------



## xenkw0n

Desolutional said:


> Not overclocking cache wouldn't solve the issue if it was a physical and firmware defect with the O.C. socket. XMP on the other hand usually sets very high voltages for VCCSA and VCCIO, which *massively* speed up degradation. I would stay below 1.00V of VCCSA and 1.10V of VTT (VCCIO PCH, VCCIO CPU). Now the really interesting thing is that the ASUS boards set VCCSA to some stupid levels like 1.2V and VCCIO CPU to 1.25V when using *auto* frequency rules for DRAM beyond 2666MHz. This is *not even XMP settings, but auto settings using BIOS*. This is probably what is causing the degradation because a user doesn't realise the board has pumped VCCIO so high.
> 
> My advise would be to manually set VCCSA offset (start with +0.001V), and VTT (set both VCCIO PCH and VCCIO CPU) to 1.05V. That will absolutely stop the motherboard pumping stupid voltages to those rails. As seen earlier on this thread, users have been running more than 1.10V of cache voltage for more than 8 months without a problem, so the common thread seems to be XMP or auto voltage settings. (Unless a user has been running JEDEC spec 2133MHz RAM for months with a reasonable core and cache overclock, then we can assume it is cache).


My VCCSA and VCCIO voltages were manually set and never ran above 1.10v the first two times my chips died in less than a year. The only thing really common betweent he two OC's that could be considered out of the norm was a 1.05v Cache overclock at 3.4ghz. I'm running .95 for VCCSA and VCCIO voltages now with stock Cache @ 3000mhz memory. Not that the astronomically high numbers for VCCSA and VCCIO aren't also causing issues for people.


----------



## Desolutional

xenkw0n said:


> My VCCSA and VCCIO voltages were manually set and never ran above 1.10v the first two times my chips died in less than a year. The only thing really common betweent he two OC's that could be considered out of the norm was a 1.05v Cache overclock at 3.4ghz. I'm running .95 for VCCSA and VCCIO voltages now with stock Cache @ 3000mhz memory. Not that the astronomically high numbers for VCCSA and VCCIO aren't also causing issues for people.


What VCCIN voltage are you running, and with what LLC?


----------



## spooklexity

JMTH said:


> Dram voltage of 1.45-1.5 is not uncommon for ocing ram. This thread has all the information you could ever want to know about dram ocing.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/forum/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription#/topics/1569364?page=1
> 
> They also post all sorts of timing configurations. Search through the thread using your ram kits part number, someone most likely will have posted the timings they used.


Thanks for the hint. I've been pulling up my RAM speeds, but the maximum that seems to work for now is 2866. Going to 2933, even with 1.38V VDIMM, 1.15V VCCSA, and 1.1V VCCIO leads to a stable system, but one of the DIMMs not being recognized (so I end up with only 8 GiB instead of 16). I've tried changing the other (VDIMM-derived) voltages to exactly 2x/0.5x VDIMM, but that didn't change anything either. On the other hand, 2866 runs with 0.98 VCCIO, 1.03 VCCSA and 1.29 VDIMM. So for now, I'm sticking with 2866 and might try to optimize the timing. Probably it was a dumb idea to not get a kit listed on the board's QVL...

But overall I'm so far content with my results. I've also noticed that using an AVX offset doesn't help me with higher clocks without putting significantly more voltage. 4.3 needs almost 1.28V, regardless of the AVX offset. So most likely the sweet spot of my CPU is already around 4.0-4.1 GHz - not so great. Luckily, I have no such massive thermal limitation. Even with Prime95 small in-place FFTs, I don't exceed 73-74°C in ~26-27°C ambient. All other loads, OCCT/Intel Burn Test, end up around 13-15°C cooler.


----------



## Desolutional

AVX offset is useless after 4.0GHz as the Intel Turbo Boost bin voltage stops scaling after 4.0GHz. Thermal throttling still scales though, so you could always test the PC in a cold location and set TJ max in the BIOS to a more conservative value to throttle under heavy loads.

I.e. this means that:
4.0GHz 1.20V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -3, it will throttle to 3.7GHz at ~1.10V.

4.3GHz 1.33V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -3, it will throttle to 4.0GHz at 1.33V. VERY HOT!

4.3GHz 1.33V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -4, it will throttle to 3.9GHz at 1.30V. HOTTER!

4.3GHz 1.33V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -6, it will throttle to 3.7GHz at 1.24V. HOT!

4.3GHz 1.33V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -7, it will throttle to 3.6GHz at 1.20V, WARM! 3.6GHz vs 4.0GHz, you've lost 0.4GHz for no reason besides Intel's stupid voltage scaling when using AVX offset with offset voltage (adaptive works, but up to around 4.1GHz or so, you will need to use manual or offset voltage as you should be stable with a -ve offset).


----------



## spooklexity

Desolutional said:


> AVX offset is useless after 4.0GHz as the Intel Turbo Boost bin voltage stops scaling after 4.0GHz. Thermal throttling still scales though, so you could always test the PC in a cold location and set TJ max in the BIOS to a more conservative value to throttle under heavy loads.
> 
> I.e. this means that:
> 4.0GHz 1.20V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -3, it will throttle to 3.7GHz at ~1.10V.
> 
> 4.3GHz 1.33V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -3, it will throttle to 4.0GHz at 1.33V. VERY HOT!
> 
> 4.3GHz 1.33V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -4, it will throttle to 3.9GHz at 1.30V. HOTTER!
> 
> 4.3GHz 1.33V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -6, it will throttle to 3.7GHz at 1.24V. HOT!
> 
> 4.3GHz 1.33V Vcore, you set AVX offset to -7, it will throttle to 3.6GHz at 1.20V, WARM! 3.6GHz vs 4.0GHz, you've lost 0.4GHz for no reason besides Intel's stupid voltage scaling when using AVX offset with offset voltage (adaptive works, but up to around 4.1GHz or so, you will need to use manual or offset voltage as you should be stable with a -ve offset).


This is pretty interesting. Thanks for the extensive elaboration. I should have mentioned that I'm using adaptive VCC. But yeah, this kind of scaling cutoff is a pretty awkward design choice for purposes of OCing. Temp is really not an issue right now as I've mentioned - I'm using a custom water loop with a 4x180 external radiator + a 280 internal one.

What kind of voltage do you think one can use for a 24/7 basis? I will keep this one according to current plans for up to 8-9 years, serving most likely as a secondary computer.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hi guys I am having a problem that is driving me nuts. 

6900K + Asus REV10 

Trying to set all cores to 45x. 
It always set the multiplier on windows to just one core 45x the rest 44x.
Also de the voltage is only being applied to that exact same core. 

It does not matter if I choose Sync All cores or by specific core. It just do not care. 
Is like there is a limit or something. I can not surpass 44x. Once I step up over those values motherboard only applies the values to one core. 

Does anyone of you may know why on Earth is this happening? 

I have no clue at all. 

Regards


----------



## Desolutional

Is it thermal throttling on the other cores? Temperature limit throttling (TJmax) is per core, not the whole package. That exact same core is probably the "special" core with a "*" on it in the BIOS, they usually run a few degrees cooler than the rest.


----------



## Nikos4Life

Desolutional said:


> Is it thermal throttling on the other cores? Temperature limit throttling (TJmax) is per core, not the whole package. That exact same core is probably the "special" core with a "*" on it in the BIOS, they usually run a few degrees cooler than the rest.


The issue seem to have gone, no clue why it came, no clue how it went away.
But so far so good. 

Now I am focused on memory overclocking. 

Here is my actual config: 

6900K @ 4.4GHz all cores no AVX offset
Vcore - 1.39 vCore (temperatures are just fine)
Uncore - 3700MHz
Cache voltage - 1.30-1.32 I am trying to find the perfect value

As for memory related settings:

3400 - 14-16-16-36-2T @ 1.45-1.475

VCSA - 1.25
VCCIO - 1.15 

This settings can pass RealBench 8 hours and 500% HCI memtest.

But it does not offer any kind of stability as soon as I do change memory timmings such as command rate (which is not properly a timming AFAIK)

So I went back to auto VCSA & VCCIO and keep it raising from those values. 
Hope I do find the good ones. If possible I will share my full settings value on the case it can help anyone.


----------



## Desolutional

If you plan on keeping this as a regular system, and not for benchmarking:

I would keep VTT (VCCIO CPU, VCCIO PCH combined) below 1.15V, VCCSA below 1.25V (you have to try different voltages for this, sometimes higher isn't better and higher can be worse). I would also keep DRAM voltage below 1.40V (but that would be for the CPU IMC side of things, the DDR4 modules can easily handle up to 1.9V - the IMC can't however).

Cache voltage *stay below 1.20V at all times*, 1.25V+ caused degradation after a year of occasional gaming on Haswell-E (source was on Haswell-E thread). I would be more inclined to stay below 1.10V due to the reports of CPU failure due to cache voltage on this thread, which I didn't understand at first, but I'm not risking it, my personal recommendation would be to avoid cache overclock unless you have 2011-v3 with additional cache pins "O.C. socket", or have the Intel Tuning Plan. It is mostly beneficial for benchmarking and file compression.

DRAM command rate affects lots of different timings, so at high frequencies it can cause a borderline stable DDR4 overclock to fail, either raise timings and decrease command rate (1T is better than dropping all timings by 1) and benchmark again. Realbench is useless for RAM testing, use HCI to 1000% or use "stressapptest" for 6 hours. A lot more info on DDR4 tuning is here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...-intel-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.html

Also for VCCIN, stay below 1.90V at Medium or Level 5 LLC, or below 1.95V with minimum or no LLC.


----------



## Blameless

Broadwell-E can usually handle ~3.3GHz cache without much trouble and without needing a significant bump to voltage. This is still significantly better than stock and has almost no downsides, so I'd target that after you get the rest of your OC dialed in.

Of course, it's often possible to go further, but every BW-E sample I've had has started to have issues past 3.5GHz. A few were fully stable at 3.5, but it took a lot of cache and VCCU. 3.6GHz was very nearly stable on one of my parts, but the voltages were getting well past what I'd consider safe (like 1.35-1.4v cache and +200-300mV VCCU to pass OCCT). Anything past that was just benchmark or suicide run stuff.

Note this is for 24/7 use with air/water cooling. Sub ambient cooling will dramatically increase attainable cache clocks.

Also, the OC socket helps Haswell-E only. There is essentially no difference between BW-E cache clocks between OC socket and non-OC socket boards with BW-E. The reserved voltages the extra pins control apparently don't work the same way with BW-E. You do get a new voltage to play with though (VCCU) which is generally needed for anything past 3.3-3.4GHz cache to be 24/7 stable without extreme cooling.


----------



## Desolutional

Didn't know that about the O.C. socket, the pin layout must of changed for BW-E, at least that helps me figure out how much to spend for a spare board now.

Is there any information regarding VCCU on BW-E CPUs long term stability, or was that limited to benchmarks only. I can't seem to find any data regarding VCCU on the datasheets for BW-E, not sure if that voltage could cause accelerated wear on the IMC, already managed to degrade the IMC on a previous processor with VCCSA and VCCIO, cache stability remained the same though (1.20V of Vring, stable as day one, but XMP timings, not auto volts, wouldn't work, even with BIOS flashback).


----------



## Blameless

I haven't seen much regarding Broadwell-E longevity at various voltage levels, not anything more reliable than one off anecdotes anyway.

I did deliberately try to kill one of my worst clocking 6800Ks with excessive cache and VCCU (I mined XMR on it for two months with 1.45v cache and +500mV VCCU), but it proved amazingly durable. It was a very low leakage sample though (high stock VID and stayed relatively cool even at high volts).

Conservatively, I'd think 1.2v cache and +100mV VCCU would probably safe 24/7, even under protracted heavy use. For the more adventurous 1.3v cache and as much as +250mV VCCU might be acceptable. Again though, I haven't had enough samples nor done enough testing over a long enough period of time for any of that to be taken as gospel.


----------



## blodflekk

I wanted a little bit of advice. I have a 6850k thats been rock solid at [email protected], cache [email protected] and can pass any stress test. I decided to tinker with it to see if I could get 4.4. I set core voltage to auto and left everything else as I had. Booted into windows just fine and did a quick run of prime95 v26.6 for 20 minutes followed by some gaming and gpu tests to see how much power it would go up to. The highest I saw in hwinfo was 1.383 so I went back into bios and manually set that (I think it came out to 1.385) booted into windows and seemed stable, passed IBT, stable in game for hours so I thought I was good, but wanted to run prime95 over night just to be sure, after a couple of hours it blue screened. Is this telling me that 4.4 isn't possible ? I don't think it means I need more vcore since even set to auto it wouldn't go past 1.383?


----------



## JMTH

blodflekk said:


> I wanted a little bit of advice. I have a 6850k thats been rock solid at [email protected], cache [email protected] and can pass any stress test. I decided to tinker with it to see if I could get 4.4. I set core voltage to auto and left everything else as I had. Booted into windows just fine and did a quick run of prime95 v26.6 for 20 minutes followed by some gaming and gpu tests to see how much power it would go up to. The highest I saw in hwinfo was 1.383 so I went back into bios and manually set that (I think it came out to 1.385) booted into windows and seemed stable, passed IBT, stable in game for hours so I thought I was good, but wanted to run prime95 over night just to be sure, after a couple of hours it blue screened. Is this telling me that 4.4 isn't possible ? I don't think it means I need more vcore since even set to auto it wouldn't go past 1.383?


Probably need more vcore, you also might need a little more cache voltage as well. Try running Realbench stress test for 8 hours with the ram set to what you have installed. Just turn any screen saver / sleep off, and turn off Sonic Foundry if you have it installed.


----------



## blodflekk

JMTH said:


> Probably need more vcore, you also might need a little more cache voltage as well. Try running Realbench stress test for 8 hours with the ram set to what you have installed. Just turn any screen saver / sleep off, and turn off Sonic Foundry if you have it installed.



Ok I will try it again tonight. But shouldn't setting voltage to auto let it keep increasing until it finds stability? I also have my SA at 1.1 and cpu input at 1.9


----------



## SauronTheGreat

may i ask for some decent benchmarking and stability tool for the 6950x, i am currently using the prime95 version 26.6 and i run the small FFTs test for one hour.


----------



## blodflekk

SauronTheGreat said:


> may i ask for some decent benchmarking and stability tool for the 6950x, i am currently using the prime95 version 26.6 and i run the small FFTs test for one hour.


When I am stress testing I use IntelBurnTest set to max memory for 20 passes, prime95 26.6 large FFTs for 12 hours and the other one I use time to time but others here use a lot is asus realbench


----------



## inedenimadam

blodflekk said:


> asus realbench



This has been pretty solid for me with x99 and broadwell.


IBT and prime are so far beyond any typical workload I could manage to ask of my CPU, that I dont touch them anymore. If you have a heady workload, these might be appropriate for you. My machine is mostly just gaming, with a smidgen of 3D render.


----------



## blodflekk

Yeah prime and IBT are way more than what you need, I'll run them and as long as I don't actually hit Tjmax I am fine, knowing my games will run anywhere from 15-30c cooler. I am a gamer but knowing I can pass these very intensive tests tells me my games will have no issue.


----------



## JMTH

blodflekk said:


> SauronTheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> may i ask for some decent benchmarking and stability tool for the 6950x, i am currently using the prime95 version 26.6 and i run the small FFTs test for one hour.
> 
> 
> 
> When I am stress testing I use IntelBurnTest set to max memory for 20 passes, prime95 26.6 large FFTs for 12 hours and the other one I use time to time but others here use a lot is asus realbench
Click to expand...

When I am adjusting or setting up a new OC I run the final battery of stability tests in this order. I try and use the quick and fast ones first because getting an error 10 hours into a test sucks hehe. 
1. XTU benchmark, it does pretty well at getting you in the ballpark for a <4 min test. Make sure to kill the XTU in the task window after you close the program. Also disable the service or it will run in the background all the time. Add .010 to .030 Vcore after you can pass the benchmark. 
2. Next I dial in VCC Input with x256, 4k, overkill x4, very high or high, shooting for >= .998. If it doesn't finish or crashes then add vcore, then add VCCIN until you get to .998+ score. 
3. I usually test the ram next with stressapptest for 1h or RamTest without cache to 1k%.
4. Then check the cache with RamTest with cache on for 1-2k%. At this point t you should be pretty stable and only been testing for 4h ish. 
5. Next is usually Realbench with matching ram amount 8h stress test.
6. Lastly, because it takes so long HCI ram test 1-1.5k%. If you pass stressapptest but fail this one then it's most likely your cache mult or voltage.
Once I pass all of these tests I call it 24/7 stable.

When looking for stable cpu freq/vcore I just test with XTU benchmark and X256. Then maybe the 4h Realbench stress test, before I move on to cache or memory.
For cache the best test is HCI, but it takes so long. I usually make an adjustment the run XTU and RamTest with cache on to 1k%. Then maybe a 4h Realbench. 
For adjusting memory timing or voltage setting, I usually make the adjustment then run 1h stressapptest or RamTest 1k%. It's not until I am finished making memory adjustments that I would run the test sequence above.
After any video card oc is when I usually make the final run.
You might need to make slight vcore/cache increases after each step to get those stable again as your ocing each component.
Some people do core/ram/cache/video, some do core/cache/ram/video.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Can anyone whom is using 3901 bios look at your vccio cpu 1.05 voltage on auto and also using 4.2 or 4.5 and see what it shows on xmp ?
I did 3901 bios and it had the above at 1.250v at 4.5 lol 
I bailed pretty quick didn't get a screen shot of it but know 2101 was only at a normal 1.05+- voltage 
Now I see what is frying chips 
Going to checkout 3801 and see if it's the same as silly 3901 showed :/

Might be a broadwell-e/ haswell-e clash thing no telling.


----------



## Desolutional

ThrashZone said:


> Might be a broadwell-e/ haswell-e clash thing no telling.


Broadwell-E stock VCCIO voltage is even lower at official Intel spec at 0.95V for VCCIO and also V_PECI.

Mobo implementation of XMP is very risky, it is practically successful almost always, but purely because it brute forces the voltages.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

so guys i recently bought a 6950x.... after a lot experimentation i have found the perfect OC for my pro is 4.4GHz @ 1.315 V i run realbench for 2 hours...... is it possible my pro could do a 4.5 ?


----------



## ThrashZone

Desolutional said:


> Broadwell-E stock VCCIO voltage is even lower at official Intel spec at 0.95V for VCCIO and also V_PECI.
> 
> Mobo implementation of XMP is very risky, it is practically successful almost always, but purely because it brute forces the voltages.


Hi,
The only brute force I've noticed on 2101 bios is system agent at 1.2v and vccin at 1.93v but those are of course max readings.

The vccio's are both max 1.056v so some thing fishy for sure with the newer bios so I can see why people say cpu's are suicide it's definitely the crap bios asus crapped out :thumbsdow


----------



## Desolutional

ThrashZone said:


> The vccio's are both max 1.056v so some thing fishy for sure with the newer bios so I can see why people say cpu's are suicide it's definitely the crap bios asus crapped out :thumbsdow


That's what I meant, I booted with XMP and saw the 1.25V VCCIO, and spammed F2 on reboot to check. Saw 1.25V, went "nah", set it manually. If it didn't happen with older BIOS' then I think ASUS must of done that intentionally, as I don't think they were meant to do anything other than update the BIOS for the microcode updates to fix the vulns.

The 1.25V VCCIO CPU also happens when leaving VCCIO on Auto and manually setting RAM frequency to around 3000MHz or so, didn't test it for long.


----------



## jsutter71

SauronTheGreat said:


> so guys i recently bought a 6950x.... after a lot experimentation i have found the perfect OC for my pro is 4.4GHz @ 1.315 V i run realbench for 2 hours...... is it possible my pro could do a 4.5 ?


It's possible. It really depends on cooling. I've ran mine stable @ 4.4 but I also have 4 rads with 30 fans. I've also discovered that system memory plays a role on how far you can push it. I noticed significant CPU improvements after replacing my old G-Skill DDR4 2600 to 3200 CL14. Almost night and day. These days I back off a little and run @ 4.2. Another thing to keep in mind. I purchased mine from Silicon Lottery which was pre stress tested to perform @ 4.3. 4.4 works fine for me normally but lets me know when it's time to change the coolant. I can go 9 to 12 months at that speed before system crashes start. A water change resets the clock. As far as 4.5. I can get to that but it will crash during benchmark so their's really no point in going further. Remember that 4.4 is a 48% performance improvement. Unless your crunching serious numbers or trying to break speed records their's really no reason to push it that far.


----------



## ThrashZone

Desolutional said:


> That's what I meant, I booted with XMP and saw the 1.25V VCCIO, and spammed F2 on reboot to check. Saw 1.25V, went "nah", set it manually. If it didn't happen with older BIOS' then I think ASUS must of done that intentionally, as I don't think they were meant to do anything other than update the BIOS for the microcode updates to fix the vulns.
> 
> The 1.25V VCCIO CPU also happens when leaving VCCIO on Auto and manually setting RAM frequency to around 3000MHz or so, didn't test it for long.


Hi,
I did my usual cashe voltage limit on offset mode and +0.175 and that was supposed to be the cpu killer there leaving it on auto.
But seeing the vccio cpu at 1.25v I thought I'd at least post it seeing we get very little info after the killings 
But yeah looks like a combination suicide from xmp and auto voltages 
Weird it would also shoot the vccio manually setting memory speed :/
Crazy !

On a happy note system agent and vccin were pretty much the same on newer bios as 2101 showed using xmp.


----------



## xkm1948

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Can anyone whom is using 3901 bios look at your vccio cpu 1.05 voltage on auto and also using 4.2 or 4.5 and see what it shows on xmp ?
> I did 3901 bios and it had the above at 1.250v at 4.5 lol
> I bailed pretty quick didn't get a screen shot of it but know 2101 was only at a normal 1.05+- voltage
> Now I see what is frying chips
> Going to checkout 3801 and see if it's the same as silly 3901 showed :/
> 
> Might be a broadwell-e/ haswell-e clash thing no telling.


Recently upgrade to 3901. Yes exactly the same 1.25V VCCIO, at freaking stock!


----------



## ThrashZone

xkm1948 said:


> Recently upgrade to 3901. Yes exactly the same 1.25V VCCIO, at freaking stock!


Hi,
What to do 3801 was exactly the same deal 

I believe I once tried 3505 never really looked too much into settings besides core temperature on auto lol :/

Yep 3505 is the same dang thing


----------



## SauronTheGreat

jsutter71 said:


> It's possible. It really depends on cooling. I've ran mine stable @ 4.4 but I also have 4 rads with 30 fans. I've also discovered that system memory plays a role on how far you can push it. I noticed significant CPU improvements after replacing my old G-Skill DDR4 2600 to 3200 CL14. Almost night and day. These days I back off a little and run @ 4.2. Another thing to keep in mind. I purchased mine from Silicon Lottery which was pre stress tested to perform @ 4.3. 4.4 works fine for me normally but lets me know when it's time to change the coolant. I can go 9 to 12 months at that speed before system crashes start. A water change resets the clock. As far as 4.5. I can get to that but it will crash during benchmark so their's really no point in going further. Remember that 4.4 is a 48% performance improvement. Unless your crunching serious numbers or trying to break speed records their's really no reason to push it that far.


thanks for the reply but i sort off have another strange issue or occurrence... my cpu was set at 4.4GHZ @ 1.315V at adaptive voltage.. but now i see in cpuz it is set to 3.5 ghz and lower voltage. is it because of intel turbo boost because it always start ups when windows starts .. i am awfully confused the overclock never failed . how did this happen


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I've never ever seen intel turbo boost in x99.
x299 yeah it gets installed automatically by windows or intel security management new name for mcafee ilk 
But anyway I just uncheck what I can and right click and select exit to close the crapware.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I've never ever seen intel turbo boost in x99.
> x299 yeah it gets installed automatically by windows or intel security management new name for mcafee ilk
> But anyway I just uncheck what I can and right click and select exit to close the crapware.


i have a ROG rampage V edition 10 board which Supports Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 .. i have a feeling i must uninstall this software


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Good luck with that lol
I sort of just live with exiting it from the action center on restart... like I said it just gets reinstalled.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

i have disabled the intel turbo boost tech software i hope it stays that way


----------



## SauronTheGreat

@ThrashZone 

omg sorry i was totally wrong, it is not that intel boost has lowered my cpu clocks. its just when i am browsing or watching videos i.e. doing less cpu intensive stuff the cpu runs at lower clocks such as 1200 Mhz, 2000 Mhz or 3500 Mhz. but as soon as i run a cpu bench marking software it reaches 4.4Ghz which its set at the bios .... is it normal for cpus to do this


----------



## ThrashZone

SauronTheGreat said:


> @ThrashZone
> 
> omg sorry i was totally wrong, it is not that intel boost has lowered my cpu clocks. its just when i am browsing or watching videos i.e. doing less cpu intensive stuff the cpu runs at lower clocks such as 1200 Mhz, 2000 Mhz or 3500 Mhz. but as soon as i run a cpu bench marking software it reaches 4.4Ghz which its set at the bios .... is it normal for cpus to do this


Hi,
Yes if you're using a balanced power plan it's minimum cpu is 5% 
You can change it or switch to the performance power plan at min cpu will be 100% and what ever multiplier you use will always show being used.

Usually besides opening on startup ITB won't do anything unless you add a benchmark or program .exe into it.


----------



## Madness11

Hey guys . Should i change my 6900k and strix x99 , To 9900k and motherboard???


----------



## djgar

Madness11 said:


> Hey guys . Should i change my 6900k and strix x99 , To 9900k and motherboard???


I don't know, should you?


----------



## Madness11

djgar said:


> I don't know, should you?


cmon bro )) I just ask heh)


----------



## djgar

Madness11 said:


> cmon bro )) I just ask heh)


What would we base an opinion on? We have NO idea what you do on your PC, what would motivate you, your personal situation, etc. etc.


----------



## Madness11

djgar said:


> What would we base an opinion on? We have NO idea what you do on your PC, what would motivate you, your personal situation, etc. etc.


Playing games  and sometime work


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Guys i need help.. I have a 6950x and ROG rampage v edition 10 board. When i bought this processor i ran it on 4.4Ghz @ 1.315V and stress tested it on real temp for two hours, as i am a gamer i forgot about everything.. recently i have come to notice that my cpu is running at 3.5 Ghz and lower voltages while its XMP is on as well its set at 4.4Ghz at bios. But its running at lower voltages such 1.2 ghz then 2.0 ghz and 3.5ghz and it varies in between these values. When its idle like i am when on youtube or doing less intensive things my core speed is minimal. Someone told me that i should go to bios and set it at high performance mode and turn off power saving or standard settings i fid but to no avail. But last when i go to intel Xtreme tuning utility i set my pro at 4.4ghz and 1.315 voltage it started working fine although the settings are the same in bios. Please someone help me to make my cpu run permanently at 4.4Ghz @ 1.315v because i have a open loop. So i do not need to go to intel XTU to make it run permanently at 4.4Ghz.


----------



## Tlow

set windows to high performance mode... But why don´t use speedstep? It boosts to 4.4 when needed anyway.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Tlow said:


> set windows to high performance mode... But why don´t use speedstep? It boosts to 4.4 when needed anyway.


when putting windows in high performance mode its setting cpu speed from 1.2ghz to 3.5ghz not at 4.4ghz.... but in xtu it is set ... i am soo damn confused


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Tlow said:


> set windows to high performance mode... But why don´t use speedstep? It boosts to 4.4 when needed anyway.


my issue has been resolved by updating to the newest bios, i also changed my power plan from balanced to high performance in the power settings as you mentioned but i still need to find out how to make them permanent as when i restart my computer it is switched back to balanced.


----------



## ThrashZone

Madness11 said:


> Playing games  and sometime work


Hi,
You should get three of these then


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hi there I am having some weird problem I talked about in the past but I do not have any clue how to solve it. 

Is there anyone with anything that you come up with to solve this CPU clocking diferently on each core?










I am using almost everything in manual. Just one thing I do have ASUS REV10 with just 8pin EPS connector? Could this be coming from there?

Kind regards


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
You might show what settings your using in bios might help.


----------



## Nikos4Life

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> You might show what settings your using in bios might help.


I have just flashed the BIOS to 1902 beta version. 
And applying exactly the same options it came back to where it should. 

Maybe the Window's latest update has something to do with it as the BIOS has changed the CPU's microcode to address the meltodown & spectre thing...


BEFORE 








AFTER 









Same settings, same everything, just this time it works xD


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hi there again, 

I am back trying to push the system a bit further. I am starting to tune the RAM but everytime I do touch any value HCI's test fails. Any advice would be much appreciated. 

System: 
ASUS REV10 BIOS 1902
6900K @ 4.4 - v1.381 / 3.8 @ v1.33 / VCCIN 1.95 LLC8 / VSSA 1.25 / VCCIO 1.05 (reading)
3400MHz 14-16-16-36 2T @ v1.45 (right now it is running under XMP profile)

Some screenshots:



























































The main goal right now is to push the memory as much as possible but there is no way right now to do so :|

Any help towards the right direction?

Kind regards,
Nikos


----------



## jsutter71

Nikos4Life said:


> Hi there again,
> 
> I am back trying to push the system a bit further. I am starting to tune the RAM but everytime I do touch any value HCI's test fails. Any advice would be much appreciated.
> 
> System:
> ASUS REV10 BIOS 1902
> 6900K @ 4.4 - v1.381 / 3.8 @ v1.33 / VCCIN 1.95 LLC8 / VSSA 1.25 / VCCIO 1.05 (reading)
> 3400MHz 14-16-16-36 2T @ v1.45 (right now it is running under XMP profile)
> 
> Some screenshots:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main goal right now is to push the memory as much as possible but there is no way right now to do so :|
> 
> Any help towards the right direction?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Nikos


I'd think you'd be able to push your system a bit further. This is dated but gives you an idea of what I could do with my 6950x.


----------



## HiLuckyB

I just lost my CPU overclock in Windows 10 Pro with my 6950X. It's just running at the stock 3.5 with boost to 4.0 every once in a while. I re flashed the newest bios for my EVGA FTW K, It's set for 4.4GHz in the bios. Made sure Windows was in high performance, With no luck :/


----------



## Nunzi

I'm having the same problem with 6850k ASUS rampage5 e10 .I removed the update kb4100347 for now 

ASUS needs to update bios again for the microcode changes .


----------



## ThrashZone

Nunzi said:


> I'm having the same problem with 6850k ASUS rampage5 e10 .I removed the update kb4100347 for now
> 
> ASUS needs to update bios again for the microcode changes .


Hi,
Not sure how you removed the microcode update but best way is to restore a system image.
At least one person didn't have a lot of luck removing the update when into boot loop death....
Beta bios I doubt will be fixed best to flash back to december 2017 and let MS deal with the microcode stuff as it will again anyway.


----------



## Nunzi

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Not sure how you removed the microcode update but best way is to restore a system image.
> At least one person didn't have a lot of luck removing the update when into boot loop death....
> Beta bios I doubt will be fixed best to flash back to december 2017 and let MS deal with the microcode stuff as it will again anyway.



removeing the update was ezzy I didn't have any problems..... keeping from reinstalling is a nother problem. I turned off windows update but it will turn back on in 30days ..

and i tried going back to 1803 & it does the same thing.. no overclocking

any help or info would be greatly appreciated …...Thanks


----------



## HiLuckyB

It was update kb4100347, Uninstalled it and i'm back to 4.4GHz. That's the first time I've ever had any problems with a windows update, Guess I've just been lucky till now lol. I'm also not seeing all 4 sticks on ram in windows with CPU-Z or HWMonitor but I still have my full 32GB of ram, Even after uninstalling update kb4100347. Really odd stuff


----------



## Desolutional

HiLuckyB said:


> It was update kb4100347, Uninstalled it and i'm back to 4.4GHz. That's the first time I've ever had any problems with a windows update, Guess I've just been lucky till now lol. I'm also not seeing all 4 sticks on ram in windows with CPU-Z or HWMonitor but I still have my full 32GB of ram, Even after uninstalling update kb4100347. Really odd stuff


Can also confirm this, the latest update overrides overclocking as soon as you boot into Windows, Linux still keeps the overclock. KB4100347 is the one to avoid for now.


----------



## ThrashZone

Desolutional said:


> Can also confirm this, the latest update overrides overclocking as soon as you boot into Windows, Linux still keeps the overclock. KB4100347 is the one to avoid for now.


Hi,
Wonder why haswell-e isn't effected


----------



## Desolutional

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Wonder why haswell-e isn't effected


The new update only affects Broadwell and Skylake for now, they haven't changed Haswell microcode yet:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb...or-windows-10-version-1803-and-windows-server


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Here mine at 4.6 still going and all inspectre enabled


----------



## Nunzi

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Here mine at 4.6 still going and all inspectre enabled


What CPU & board are you running ?


----------



## djgar

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Here mine at 4.6 still going and all inspectre enabled


Yep, no problems with my 4600 OC with latest Windows and microcode too ... :thumb:


----------



## xkm1948

Seems all those posts up there saying MS update mess up overclocking are all done by me. You guys agree? HiLuckyB Desolutional and Nunzi?


BTW here is me complaining about this update on TPU


https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...icrosoft-and-intel.247595/page-5#post-3905000



djgar said:


> Yep, no problems with my 4600 OC with latest Windows and microcode too ... :thumb:



What BIOS version are you on currently?


----------



## djgar

xkm1948 said:


> ...
> 
> What BIOS version are you on currently?


1902 Beta


----------



## ThrashZone

Nunzi said:


> What CPU & board are you running ?


Hi,
Sig rig lists both my rigs


----------



## Nunzi

djgar said:


> 1902 Beta


1902 for me.


----------



## Nunzi

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Sig rig lists both my rigs


Yeah it was right in front of my face ......LOL


----------



## Desolutional

Windows 10 (1809) breaks overclocking, your options are:

1. Don't upgrade.
2. Upgrade and wait for Microsoft to release a patch (no overclocking until they patch it).
3. Upgrade and delete the microcode update from "C:\Windows\System32\mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll", you are now vulnerable to Spectre v2, but should be protected against v1 with the latest ASUS beta BIOS. *I would recommend making a copy* of that DLL, and replacing it if Windows ever release a fix.


----------



## Nastya

Hey Guys,

hope you can give me some more input here. So I've bought a 32GB kit of G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL14, since that is plenty for future platforms and 3200 is what you would expect BW-E to be capable to handle.
So far I'm still fiddling around with the right System Agent Voltage, but I've found that an offset of 270mv works quite well. Together with a 4.2 GHz core and 3.4Ghz cache overclock I did get ATTEMPTED EXECUTE OF NOEXECUTE MEMORY BSOD quite often however, even on idle, and I was unable to find out the cause after increasing core, cache, system agent voltages. I did manually enter subtimings, so maybe those timings were too tight?
It was fine on 4.1 GHz and 34 Cache, however.

Anybody running a 32 GB kit at 3200, what is your SA voltage? Is +270mV too much?
Should I maybe aim to increase Input Voltage a bit (had it fixed to 1.8V) or should I give even more SA voltage?


Thanks a bunch.


----------



## blodflekk

Timings could possibly be too tight, use memtest to verify memory is stable, 1000% is preffered. As for SA it doesn't need to be high, stock settings are usually safe unless you are being really aggressive with memory OC, but adding offset of +100 should be fine. VCCIN should be higher, everything I have seen suggests 1.92-1.95. I am still fine tuning mine but I have mine currently on 1.95 for my 6850k @ 4.3GHz




AndiWandi said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> hope you can give me some more input here. So I've bought a 32GB kit of G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL14, since that is plenty for future platforms and 3200 is what you would expect BW-E to be capable to handle.
> So far I'm still fiddling around with the right System Agent Voltage, but I've found that an offset of 270mv works quite well. Together with a 4.2 GHz core and 3.4Ghz cache overclock I did get ATTEMPTED EXECUTE OF NOEXECUTE MEMORY BSOD quite often however, even on idle, and I was unable to find out the cause after increasing core, cache, system agent voltages. I did manually enter subtimings, so maybe those timings were too tight?
> It was fine on 4.1 GHz and 34 Cache, however.
> 
> Anybody running a 32 GB kit at 3200, what is your SA voltage? Is +270mV too much?
> Should I maybe aim to increase Input Voltage a bit (had it fixed to 1.8V) or should I give even more SA voltage?
> 
> 
> Thanks a bunch.


----------



## Nastya

blodflekk said:


> use memtest to verify memory is stable
> As for SA it doesn't need to be high, stock settings are usually safe unless you are being really aggressive with memory OC, but adding offset of +100 should be fine.
> VCCIN should be higher, everything I have seen suggests 1.92-1.95. I am still fine tuning mine but I have mine currently on 1.95 for my 6850k @ 4.3GHz


Are you talking about HCI Memtest or Memtest86?
It won't boot on stock SA, I have to add at least 200mV for all channels to even show up (at 1.8V Input)
I've had a look at various OC tutorials, all of which say 1.8V for VCCIN is fine, hence I'm a bit hesitant when it comes to setting this over 1.9V. A couple tutorials mentioned that Input voltage should at least be 0.45v higher than vCore? Which would make 1.8 fine still since I don't plan to go over 1.3V vCore anyway.

I did notice that at 1.85v Input it required way less SA voltage to detect all channels, which is confusing to me.
I did also check out the memory stability thread where people were rocking 32GB kits with very little added SA voltage and 1.82v Input so maybe I'm just doing something entirely wrong. I know IMCs vary in quality but that just seems ridiculous to me.


----------



## mrkambo

AndiWandi said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> hope you can give me some more input here. So I've bought a 32GB kit of G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL14, since that is plenty for future platforms and 3200 is what you would expect BW-E to be capable to handle.
> So far I'm still fiddling around with the right System Agent Voltage, but I've found that an offset of 270mv works quite well. Together with a 4.2 GHz core and 3.4Ghz cache overclock I did get ATTEMPTED EXECUTE OF NOEXECUTE MEMORY BSOD quite often however, even on idle, and I was unable to find out the cause after increasing core, cache, system agent voltages. I did manually enter subtimings, so maybe those timings were too tight?
> It was fine on 4.1 GHz and 34 Cache, however.
> 
> Anybody running a 32 GB kit at 3200, what is your SA voltage? Is +270mV too much?
> Should I maybe aim to increase Input Voltage a bit (had it fixed to 1.8V) or should I give even more SA voltage?
> 
> 
> Thanks a bunch.


I've got the same kit and i cant run mine at 3200 C14 unless im +415mv on the SA, but man thats too high for my liking, so im running 3000 @ C14 SA on 0.980v


----------



## blodflekk

I mean HCI memtest, one window per thread. Its definitely going to be safer long term for you to have your VCCIN higher and keeping the SA lower. 




AndiWandi said:


> Are you talking about HCI Memtest or Memtest86?
> It won't boot on stock SA, I have to add at least 200mV for all channels to even show up (at 1.8V Input)
> I've had a look at various OC tutorials, all of which say 1.8V for VCCIN is fine, hence I'm a bit hesitant when it comes to setting this over 1.9V. A couple tutorials mentioned that Input voltage should at least be 0.45v higher than vCore? Which would make 1.8 fine still since I don't plan to go over 1.3V vCore anyway.
> 
> I did notice that at 1.85v Input it required way less SA voltage to detect all channels, which is confusing to me.
> I did also check out the memory stability thread where people were rocking 32GB kits with very little added SA voltage and 1.82v Input so maybe I'm just doing something entirely wrong. I know IMCs vary in quality but that just seems ridiculous to me.


----------



## JMTH

blodflekk said:


> I mean HCI memtest, one window per thread. Its definitely going to be safer long term for you to have your VCCIN higher and keeping the SA lower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AndiWandi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about HCI Memtest or Memtest86?
> It won't boot on stock SA, I have to add at least 200mV for all channels to even show up (at 1.8V Input)
> I've had a look at various OC tutorials, all of which say 1.8V for VCCIN is fine, hence I'm a bit hesitant when it comes to setting this over 1.9V. A couple tutorials mentioned that Input voltage should at least be 0.45v higher than vCore? Which would make 1.8 fine still since I don't plan to go over 1.3V vCore anyway.
> 
> I did notice that at 1.85v Input it required way less SA voltage to detect all channels, which is confusing to me.
> I did also check out the memory stability thread where people were rocking 32GB kits with very little added SA voltage and 1.82v Input so maybe I'm just doing something entirely wrong. I know IMCs vary in quality but that just seems ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

Use X256 benchmark to find your VCCIN. Have your memory at default so you don't get any false issues. 

Set it at

64 bit
4k
Overkill mode x4
High, very high priority

You want it to finish with >= 0.998+

If your computer crashes add VCORE or maybe cache voltage. 
If you crash the test or don't finish or are under the target add VCCIN.

For my 6850k 4.5/3.5 the VCCIN is 1.93. So at 1.8 your way under.

Jmpboy posted this info in this thread, at least I think it was this thread. Definitely in this forum.


----------



## Nastya

Thanks for the advice guys, I want to run the x264 benchmark, but since Microsoft changed the timer to 10 Mhz and broke some programs, the benchmark won't run, telling me it needs HPET enabled. Are there any alternatives to x265 benchmark?


----------



## scare19

Hi guys i have an intel i7 6850k at stock clock with 1.1 v in manual, i'm looking for a good value (or stock instead of Auto) for max and min cache moltiplier at lowest vcache, can u help me plz ?  

Inviato dal mio ONEPLUS A6003 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## blodflekk

How did you come about this theory for finding VCCIN ? I have been playing with it myself and with my 6850k @4.3GHz, 1.335vcore I am stable on this x265 benchmark with default cache and VCCIN at 1.92, adding ANY cache OC means I crash or finish with less than 0.998 and I have tried stepping VCCIN all the way to 1.97 and still no successful run with a score of .998. I should also note that even 3.3 GHz cache and 1.2vcache I still wasn't passing this benchmark. Is there something I'm missing or is my chip just a turd? I passed 20passses of IBT linpack and 6hours of p95 large ffts with 3.5GHz cache and 1.2vcache





JMTH said:


> Use X256 benchmark to find your VCCIN. Have your memory at default so you don't get any false issues.
> 
> Set it at
> 
> 64 bit
> 4k
> Overkill mode x4
> High, very high priority
> 
> You want it to finish with >= 0.998+
> 
> If your computer crashes add VCORE or maybe cache voltage.
> If you crash the test or don't finish or are under the target add VCCIN.
> 
> For my 6850k 4.5/3.5 the VCCIN is 1.93. So at 1.8 your way under.


----------



## JMTH

blodflekk said:


> How did you come about this theory for finding VCCIN ? I have been playing with it myself and with my 6850k @4.3GHz, 1.335vcore I am stable on this x265 benchmark with default cache and VCCIN at 1.92, adding ANY cache OC means I crash or finish with less than 0.998 and I have tried stepping VCCIN all the way to 1.97 and still no successful run with a score of .998. I should also note that even 3.3 GHz cache and 1.2vcache I still wasn't passing this benchmark. Is there something I'm missing or is my chip just a turd? I passed 20passses of IBT linpack and 6hours of p95 large ffts with 3.5GHz cache and 1.2vcache
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JMTH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use X256 benchmark to find your VCCIN. Have your memory at default so you don't get any false issues.
> 
> Set it at
> 
> 64 bit
> 4k
> Overkill mode x4
> High, very high priority
> 
> You want it to finish with >= 0.998+
> 
> If your computer crashes add VCORE or maybe cache voltage.
> If you crash the test or don't finish or are under the target add VCCIN.
> 
> For my 6850k 4.5/3.5 the VCCIN is 1.93. So at 1.8 your way under.
Click to expand...

Oh its not my theory, it looks like the last line I typed didn't get posted. Jpmboy posted this method in this thread I think.

Not sure why it's not working for you. Have you tried 3.4 or 3.5 cache? All the settings I use are in my signature, I think they are up to date. I'll have to check it tomorrow as I'm on my phone and can't see the sig atm.


----------



## blodflekk

I had a look at all your settings and noticed you had pushed your VCCIO up a bit higher than me. I copied that and it worked. So I guess it was user error after all =)


----------



## blodflekk

This question may be better suited to the DDR4 thread but I wanted to ask here first since we all have the same hardware. I just finished tweaking my memory, which took a LONG time. No frenquency increase but tightened all the timings, primary, secondary and tertiary. My question is, now that I have it all dialed in, is it recommended to disable DRAM training and some of the memory features like memtest and such? Or best to leave them all on auto?


----------



## MiHi76

Hello, i've currently switched from a 5960x to a 6950x, both in combination with RVE5 ED10. Done my first OC steps and got 4.2 GHz at 1.2v for core. So far so good. I left VCCIO on Auto and It's only 1,024v! It should be 1,05v or not? Should i bump it manually to 1,05v?


----------



## Tlow

Hi, 1,05v is normal on some motherboards. Intel on the other hand specifies VCCIO to 0,95v for BW. I have my 6850Ks VCCIO on 0,95v for some months now, no issues. So you should not be worried about 1,024v.


----------



## ThrashZone

MiHi76 said:


> Hello, i've currently switched from a 5960x to a 6950x, both in combination with RVE5 ED10. Done my first OC steps and got 4.2 GHz at 1.2v for core. So far so good. I left VCCIO on Auto and It's only 1,024v! It should be 1,05v or not? Should i bump it manually to 1,05v?


Hi,
I've seen vccio cpu 1.05 voltage hit 1.250v on auto simply by increasing dram via manually or using a xmp profile on it 

Most have said 1.150v is max for hasweel-e and broadwell-e so yeah peg it to 1.05v or 1.15v max
Only vccio pch 1.05 voltage seems unaffected by dram increase but can still be pegged to 1.05v as well.


----------



## MiHi76

Another question about AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset. Currently i have no Offset adjusted. Should i do this when running Realbench? 
4.2GHz on all cores runs fine @1.2V without an avx offset.


----------



## ThrashZone

MiHi76 said:


> Another question about AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset. Currently i have no Offset adjusted. Should i do this when running Realbench?
> 4.2GHz on all cores runs fine @1.2V without an avx offset.


Hi,
At 4.2 no avx offset should be needed 
Doubt anyone would need any until they were going for 4.4 or above but it all depends on instability.

On another note you might want to make sure your cache and system agent voltages are also tamed to well under 1.2v
1.15v should be a good max for both.


----------



## Desolutional

MiHi76 said:


> Another question about AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset. Currently i have no Offset adjusted. Should i do this when running Realbench?


AVX Offset is useless for mixed AVX/normal workloads like encoding, the CPU doesn't respond to changes in instruction sets long enough to prevent instability. It is, however, very useful in pure AVX workloads.

E.g. CPU at 4.4GHz x265 encode, fails with BSoD halfway through encode with AVX offset -5, because CPU will use an overclocked bin for AVX code for a split second... before realising that it is actually AVX code, and then downclocking to AVX -5 offset. x265 cycles through AVX and other instructions too fast for whatever watchdog timer Intel is using to act quick enough. I don't know if this has changed with the latest BIOS and Windows Update as I use two different profiles for encoding and standard usage.


----------



## MiHi76

Desolutional said:


> AVX Offset is useless for mixed AVX/normal workloads like encoding, the CPU doesn't respond to changes in instruction sets long enough to prevent instability. It is, however, very useful in pure AVX workloads.
> 
> E.g. CPU at 4.4GHz x265 encode, fails with BSoD halfway through encode with AVX offset -5, because CPU will use an overclocked bin for AVX code for a split second... before realising that it is actually AVX code, and then downclocking to AVX -5 offset. x265 cycles through AVX and other instructions too fast for whatever watchdog timer Intel is using to act quick enough. I don't know if this has changed with the latest BIOS and Windows Update as I use two different profiles for encoding and standard usage.


Thanks for the explanation. That's what I wanted to know


----------



## xenkw0n

So I just noticed randomly that my overclock isn't applied anymore on my X99-A II + 6800k. Updated my BIOS to 1902, it forgot all of my settings (great), set them all back up... Still not going past 3.6ghz and 3.8ghz on my best core... What's the deal?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

xenkw0n said:


> So I just noticed randomly that my overclock isn't applied anymore on my X99-A II + 6800k. Updated my BIOS to 1902, it forgot all of my settings (great), set them all back up... Still not going past 3.6ghz and 3.8ghz on my best core... What's the deal?



Pull the cmos battery, unplug the machine for a good 10 minutes+ 

Press the power button and couple times to drain all electricity from the system.


----------



## MiHi76

xenkw0n said:


> So I just noticed randomly that my overclock isn't applied anymore on my X99-A II + 6800k. Updated my BIOS to 1902, it forgot all of my settings (great), set them all back up... Still not going past 3.6ghz and 3.8ghz on my best core... What's the deal?


Hello,

the reason can be a windows update with meltdown and spectre mikrocode fix. 

Check this out https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?104978


----------



## djgar

xenkw0n said:


> So I just noticed randomly that my overclock isn't applied anymore on my X99-A II + 6800k. Updated my BIOS to 1902, it forgot all of my settings (great), set them all back up... Still not going past 3.6ghz and 3.8ghz on my best core... What's the deal?





MiHi76 said:


> Hello,
> 
> the reason can be a windows update with meltdown and spectre mikrocode fix.
> 
> Check this out https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?104978


This worked for me: removing mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll in the System32 folder. I saved a copy but haven't needed it so far. Reboot after removing and see the OC back :thumb:


----------



## xenkw0n

MiHi76 said:


> Hello,
> 
> the reason can be a windows update with meltdown and spectre mikrocode fix.
> 
> Check this out https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?104978


What the??? Uhhh, ok, thanks Intel and Asus? I uninstalled that patch and the overclock came back... Interesting.


----------



## MiHi76

Yes, rename or backup/delete mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll helps. Also written in Link to Asus which i postet.
That was my first problem after switching from 5960x to 6950x. What a bad thing!


----------



## Nikos4Life

Hi there, 

Could someone point the right voltage to increase after the following BSOD:

driver_irql_not_less_or_equal "d1"

I have been reading it is related to IMC so VCCIN & VCSA are the ones responsibles of this error? 

I have never had this BSOD ever before system is fully stable till now. 

I was playing while this error arose.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Nikos


----------



## Desolutional

That error can occur for any reason, continue using your PC as normal and see if it pops up again. It can occur simply due to a driver issue, I had the same issue with the Intel RST drivers, whole system was stable and the drivers were bad. If it was something more specific like 0x...124, then that would be Vcore or VCCIN.


----------



## Synik

djgar said:


> This worked for me: removing mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll in the System32 folder. I saved a copy but haven't needed it so far. Reboot after removing and see the OC back :thumb:


Weird. I tried trashing the mcupdate intel.dll and i also uninstalled the kb update and went into run services.msc to disable windows update and i still getting 3.4 ghz max on my 6800k on asus deluxe ii

never buying asus again


----------



## djgar

Synik said:


> Weird. I tried trashing the mcupdate intel.dll and i also uninstalled the kb update and went into run services.msc to disable windows update and i still getting 3.4 ghz max on my 6800k on asus deluxe ii
> 
> never buying asus again


I previously tried uninstalling the kb update but it re-installed. If you remove the mcupdate_intel.dll do not uninstall the update. Make sure it didn't re-install again because that would restore the mcupdate_intel.dll.


----------



## JMTH

djgar said:


> Synik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird. I tried trashing the mcupdate intel.dll and i also uninstalled the kb update and went into run services.msc to disable windows update and i still getting 3.4 ghz max on my 6800k on asus deluxe ii
> 
> never buying asus again /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
> 
> 
> 
> I previously tried uninstalling the kb update but it re-installed. If you remove the mcupdate_intel.dll do not uninstall the update. Make sure it didn't re-install again because that would restore the mcupdate_intel.dll.
Click to expand...

Once you uninstall the update you have to hide it so it doesn't get reinstalled. This site has a great overview https://www.digitalcitizen.life/how-block-unwanted-windows-driver-updates-installing-windows-10


----------



## xkm1948

1809 update is out again. Any brave souls wanna try it out and see if BWE overclocking is still borked?


----------



## djgar

JMTH said:


> Once you uninstall the update you have to hide it so it doesn't get reinstalled. This site has a great overview https://www.digitalcitizen.life/how-block-unwanted-windows-driver-updates-installing-windows-10


I found that just removing the mcupdate file without removing the actual Windows update got my OC back. And the latest Windows 1809 update from today did not restore the mcupdate file so I still have my OC.


----------



## HiLuckyB

Ok im lost why can't I remove mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll in the System32 folder. I'm the admin but I can't move or delete it.


----------



## MiHi76

HiLuckyB said:


> Ok im lost why can't I remove mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll in the System32 folder. I'm the admin but I can't move or delete it.


You are the admin but not the file owner. You must edit the file ownership to get access to this file.


----------



## HiLuckyB

MiHi76 said:


> You are the admin but not the file owner. You must edit the file ownership to get access to this file.


Got it thanks!


----------



## MiHi76

*Cache Test*

Hello,
yesterday while playing BFV for 2 h my system freezed.
I tested the cache settings 2 h with Aida64 cache only stability checked -finished without errors.
It's x34 @ 1,09V. 200% HCI is also finished with 0 errors.
And the complete OC was 2 h Realbench stable.

Is HCI and Aida64 not hard enough to test the cache stability?


----------



## Desolutional

MiHi76 said:


> Is HCI and Aida64 not hard enough to test the cache stability?


Took me 5 hours to get a cache error on AIDA64 last time, run it for 12 hours just to be sure, BW-E seems to be a lot less obvious when it comes to cache issues. For reference, mine does cache 3.2GHz at 1.06V, used mainly for computing and encoding, I also have 1.90V of VCCIN with Medium (Level 5 / 9) LLC, that could cause errors as well.


----------



## ThrashZone

MiHi76 said:


> Hello,
> yesterday while playing BFV for 2 h my system freezed.
> I tested the cache settings 2 h with Aida64 cache only stability checked -finished without errors.
> It's x34 @ 1,09V. 200% HCI is also finished with 0 errors.
> And the complete OC was 2 h Realbench stable.
> 
> Is HCI and Aida64 not hard enough to test the cache stability?


Hi,
Have you tried max cache 38 offset mode with +0.175 ?
Cache voltage should max out at 1.122v which I've used for years.

I'm on max cache 40 now with offset mode of +0.230 which max cache voltage hits at 1.184v


----------



## MiHi76

Desolutional said:


> Took me 5 hours to get a cache error on AIDA64 last time, run it for 12 hours just to be sure, BW-E seems to be a lot less obvious when it comes to cache issues. For reference, mine does cache 3.2GHz at 1.06V, used mainly for computing and encoding, I also have 1.90V of VCCIN with Medium (Level 5 / 9) LLC, that could cause errors as well.


Ok, that seems to be correct. Never had this kind of errors with my 5960x. 2h Aida cache only and never get an issue with the cache. Cache was [email protected] 1.1V = 4GHz.
I'am trying your setting. 32x should be enough.



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Have you tried max cache 38 offset mode with +0.175 ?
> Cache voltage should max out at 1.122v which I've used for years.
> 
> I'm on max cache 40 now with offset mode of +0.230 which max cache voltage hits at 1.184v


I'm shure you are meaning for the old 5960x. 40 should be a little bit to high for Broadwell.


----------



## ThrashZone

MiHi76 said:


> Ok, that seems to be correct. Never had this kind of errors with my 5960x. 2h Aida cache only and never get an issue with the cache. Cache was [email protected] 1.1V = 4GHz.
> I'am trying your setting. 32x should be enough.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm shure you are meaning for the old 5960x. 40 should be a little bit to high for Broadwell.


Hi,
Well yeah that is the only rig you show on your signature


----------



## MiHi76

Desolutional said:


> Took me 5 hours to get a cache error on AIDA64 last time, run it for 12 hours just to be sure, BW-E seems to be a lot less obvious when it comes to cache issues. For reference, mine does cache 3.2GHz at 1.06V, used mainly for computing and encoding, I also have 1.90V of VCCIN with Medium (Level 5 / 9) LLC, that could cause errors as well.


Hello,
so I am now using your cache settings.
I ran aida cache test 3 h and HCI 480% and many hours BFV.
No further problems so far.
Thanks again.


----------



## xkm1948

Do you folks lock your cache? say max and min at same multiplier, or do you let the cache idle down to the whatever idle clock?


----------



## djgar

xkm1948 said:


> Do you folks lock your cache? say max and min at same multiplier, or do you let the cache idle down to the whatever idle clock?


I use Offset mode which lets it idle. Others might use fixed.


----------



## ThrashZone

HI,
Yes offset mode is best 

Make a run with auto cache min and max and set that max as minimum 
Set you max to what even is said to be safe for broadwell-e.


----------



## MiHi76

Offset on Cache works great. In my experience there ist no reason to use fixed Cache voltage.


----------



## xkm1948

MiHi76 said:


> Offset on Cache works great. In my experience there ist no reason to use fixed Cache voltage.


I meant frequency, NOT voltage.

Either way it is good to know I am not the only one idling down caches. Been kinda paranoid after my 1st 6950X died.


----------



## MiHi76

xkm1948 said:


> I meant frequency, NOT voltage.
> 
> Either way it is good to know I am not the only one idling down caches. Been kinda paranoid after my 1st 6950X died.


Sorry my fault.
I neverd heard that a fixed cache multiplier would more safe as a non fixed multiplier.


----------



## MiHi76

Double Post


----------



## alienalvan

Hi guys,

Need your advise to identify whether I'm doing the overclocking wrongly or what, recently I've bought an Asrock x99e-itx/ac with an i7 6800K.
I've tried with the bios 4.0GHz profile but it didn't work & the speed will just stuck at 3.8GHz on core 5 & the rest will be at 3.6GHz, can anyone advise what's the problem I'm having? Thanks


----------



## Nastya

Uninstall KB4100347 if you're on Windows 10 1803, take ownership of mcupdate_genuineintel.dll and rename/remove it on Windows 10 1809.
Broken Microcode shipped by Microsoft will prohibit overclocking on Broadwell-E.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah you cam use this

https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10


----------



## djgar

AndiWandi said:


> Uninstall KB4100347 if you're on Windows 10 1803, take ownership of mcupdate_genuineintel.dll and rename/remove it on Windows 10 1809.
> Broken Microcode shipped by Microsoft will prohibit overclocking on Broadwell-E.


Don't uninstall the update, just remove the dll. If you uninstall the update it will just get re-installed and the dll with it. That's what happened to me and had to remove the dll again.


----------



## 6950X

Hey everyone I’ve been out of the PC hobby for a while now, Ive got a God like X99 motherboard laying around that I have never even used. 

I’m considering grabbing a intel 6950X off of eBay, or CL if I can find a good deal on either sites

I’m guessing $600 for 10 cores, with pretty fast IPC too. Seems like a good deal to me.

I do want to overclock, I have a lot of water cooling stuff laying around, D5 pump, several new 360mm radiators too. Things Inever used in previous builds

Any information on the best batch of a 6950X? 

My last PC was a gaming laptop, after moving away from desktops. I sold it 6 months ago, it had a 7820HK with a mild 4.3-4.4ghz all core overclock. So, this 6950X should easily be just as fast or similar in ipc, only much more powerful in multithreaded games, and using adobe premiere and things like that.

So, I want a 6950X long story short.

I’d like to hit 4.4-4.5Ghz on a 6950X with a good monoblock. I just need to grab a CPU, and some DDR4, and of course a few odd and end items to get this build together.


----------



## Baasha

djgar said:


> Don't uninstall the update, just remove the dll. If you uninstall the update it will just get re-installed and the dll with it. That's what happened to me and had to remove the dll again.


I'm having this exact issue - my OC on the 6950X has been borked by the 1809 update and I'm nervous about 'removing' a DLL file, especially one that's in the /System32/ folder.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah I thought the objective was to replace the dll with a prior one that did work.
Repeat if MS updates it again.

Taking or really adding your user with permissions to edit... gets a little freaky make a system image first


----------



## djgar

Baasha said:


> I'm having this exact issue - my OC on the 6950X has been borked by the 1809 update and I'm nervous about 'removing' a DLL file, especially one that's in the /System32/ folder.





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah I thought the objective was to replace the dll with a prior one that did work.
> Repeat if MS updates it again.
> 
> Taking or really adding your user with permissions to edit... gets a little freaky make a system image first


Been running like that with my OC intact since before 1809 first came out, no problems and at least with my board all the current speculation controls are intact. Of course other boards may vary.


----------



## ThrashZone

djgar said:


> Been running like that with my OC intact since before 1809 first came out, no problems and at least with my board all the current speculation controls are intact. Of course other boards may vary.


Hi,
On 1902 bios that's what your signature says ?


----------



## djgar

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> On 1902 bios that's what your signature says ?


Correct.


----------



## ThrashZone

djgar said:


> Correct.


Hi,
Thanks
My latest bios shows 3902 and asus removed the beta tag interesting 
Nope they just changed the beta font color from red to regular 
https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_X99/HelpDesk_BIOS/


----------



## djgar

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Thanks
> My latest bios shows 3902 and asus removed the beta tag interesting
> Nope they just changed the beta font color from red to regular
> https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_X99/HelpDesk_BIOS/


It still says Beta Bios in the light gray description , like mine


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah what's up with that passed the red time table lol 
Either way I bailed and back on 2101 for haswell-e which I still have


----------



## xkm1948

EVGA is truly better in support. They actually provided a BIOS that fixed the BWE overclocking issue. Unlike the lazy ass ASUS.


----------



## ThrashZone

xkm1948 said:


> EVGA is truly better in support. They actually provided a BIOS that fixed the BWE overclocking issue. Unlike the lazy ass ASUS.


Hi,
Yeah I believe asrock did too 
Telling for what my next board manufacture will be and which one won't


----------



## alienalvan

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah you cam use this
> 
> https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10


Use this & do what?


----------



## alienalvan

djgar said:


> Don't uninstall the update, just remove the dll. If you uninstall the update it will just get re-installed and the dll with it. That's what happened to me and had to remove the dll again.


Thanks man! It's working like a charm now, at 1st i thought i get a problematic mobo. LOL


----------



## davidm71

*6850K Safe Voltages*

Been reading a lot of reports of 6850ks dying from too many volts. Is this true? Was wondering would 1.365 be too many volts?

Thanks


----------



## Kalm_Traveler

davidm71 said:


> Been reading a lot of reports of 6850ks dying from too many volts. Is this true? Was wondering would 1.365 be too many volts?
> 
> Thanks


I ran my 6900k on 1.4v (by usage - C states enabled etc so it was only pulling what it needed based on utilization) all year and it never had any issues.


----------



## davidm71

Kalm_Traveler said:


> davidm71 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been reading a lot of reports of 6850ks dying from too many volts. Is this true? Was wondering would 1.365 be too many volts?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> I ran my 6900k on 1.4v (by usage - C states enabled etc so it was only pulling what it needed based on utilization) all year and it never had any issues.
Click to expand...


By usage? You mean adaptive vcore by offset?

If so then your volts never stay 100% at max vcore setting and safer?


----------



## Kalm_Traveler

davidm71 said:


> By usage? You mean adaptive vcore by offset?
> 
> If so then your volts never stay 100% at max vcore setting and safer?


yes - I prefer to do adaptive for daily use since I'm not running benchmarks nonstop every time I use my rigs. Usually I'll find the ceiling with a flat OC, and then dial things back a little bit for daily use with all the adaptive stuff enabled.


----------



## davidm71

Kalm_Traveler said:


> davidm71 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By usage? You mean adaptive vcore by offset?
> 
> If so then your volts never stay 100% at max vcore setting and safer?
> 
> 
> 
> yes - I prefer to do adaptive for daily use since I'm not running benchmarks nonstop every time I use my rigs. Usually I'll find the ceiling with a flat OC, and then dial things back a little bit for daily use with all the adaptive stuff enabled.
Click to expand...


With adaptive i assume the peak voltages are higher though. I mean your load volts will be higher than a flat vcore?


----------



## Desolutional

davidm71 said:


> With adaptive i assume the peak voltages are higher though. I mean your load volts will be higher than a flat vcore?


No they won't be, Broadwell-E Vcore isn't affected by Vdroop.


----------



## 6950X

In your guys opinion, what was the best Broadwell-e refresh motherboard?


----------



## davidm71

Desolutional said:


> No they won't be, Broadwell-E Vcore isn't affected by Vdroop.


Then why does my motherboard have something called 'CPU Vdroop Control' in its bios? 

I have it set to 75% for my 6850K. 

Thanks


----------



## 6950X

I think my 6950X is decent.. can everyone on here provide there batch numbers, and overclocks? 

I’m at 4.3Ghz with 1.35v, I can get it to around 4.4Ghz but requires a lot of voltage 1.450v.

Even 4.2Ghz at 1.2v is easy, but after that a lot of voltage is required when frequencies start scaling past 4,200mhz.

I’ve read of some guys hitting 4.5Ghz with 1.31-1.38v! I’ve even seen a few unicorns running [email protected]

Batch info would be great. 

Mine is = J623A975

I’m hoping to find a chip that’ll do 4.5Ghz with around 1.3v. I’m gonna pick up another 6950X, and re-sell this one. 

I sent Silicon lottery a email to see if he had any batch information on the best samples. Fingers crossed.


----------



## 6950X

The intel 5960X had so much great information available on google, I wish the 6950x had half of the awesome articles the ole 5960X did. You could literally google batch numbers, go on eBay and find a used one “confirm exact item pictured” get it in the mail, set your voltage, multiplier @ X47 or x48 and boom! 4.8Ghz haha. Trust me, I did it! @Jpmboy provided a lot of good info over the years, so when we buy there left overs we know which ones to pick! 

With the 6950X, there is very little info on good batch numbers. People who are overclocking to 4.5Ghz just hesitate to share.


----------



## Desolutional

davidm71 said:


> Then why does my motherboard have something called 'CPU Vdroop Control' in its bios?
> 
> I have it set to 75% for my 6850K.
> 
> Thanks


Vdroop on X99 affects the Input Voltage (VCCIN). Keep it at or below 50%, Vdroop is a safety feature.



6950X said:


> I’m at 4.3Ghz with 1.35v, I can get it to around 4.4Ghz but requires a lot of voltage 1.450v.
> 
> Even 4.2Ghz at 1.2v is easy, but after that a lot of voltage is required when frequencies start scaling past 4,200mhz.


Mine is x265 / AVX2 stable at 1.24V @ 4.1GHz. It all depends on the test you use to check stability, it will work fine for gaming at 1.32V @ 4.3GHz. Broadwell-E is temperature sensitive as well, have a look here: https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/

I plan on keeping mine under load for a long time, so will stay below 1.25V and 70'C. Ryzen 2 is amazing with PB2 and XFR2, high Vcore for low loads like gaming for max fps, lower, safer Vcore for high loads like folding and encoding for longevity, let's hope AMD keep doing what they're doing, Intel has been slacking.


----------



## ThrashZone

davidm71 said:


> Then why does my motherboard have something called 'CPU Vdroop Control' in its bios?
> 
> I have it set to 75% for my 6850K.
> 
> Thanks


Hi,
Sounds like asus's llc = load line calibration.
Restricts input voltage drop/ raising from a manual entry.
LLC 8 being no vdroop.


----------



## 6950X

Desolutional said:


> davidm71 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does my motherboard have something called 'CPU Vdroop Control' in its bios?
> 
> I have it set to 75% for my 6850K.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Vdroop on X99 affects the Input Voltage (VCCIN). Keep it at or below 50%, Vdroop is a safety feature.
> 
> 
> 
> 6950X said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m at 4.3Ghz with 1.35v, I can get it to around 4.4Ghz but requires a lot of voltage 1.450v.
> 
> Even 4.2Ghz at 1.2v is easy, but after that a lot of voltage is required when frequencies start scaling past 4,200mhz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mine is x265 / AVX2 stable at 1.24V @ 4.1GHz. It all depends on the test you use to check stability, it will work fine for gaming at 1.32V @ 4.3GHz. Broadwell-E is temperature sensitive as well, have a look here: https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
> 
> I plan on keeping mine under load for a long time, so will stay below 1.25V and 70'C. Ryzen 2 is amazing with PB2 and XFR2, high Vcore for low loads like gaming for max fps, lower, safer Vcore for high loads like folding and encoding for longevity, let's hope AMD keep doing what they're doing, Intel has been slacking.
Click to expand...


The 6950X has a clear advantage in gaming vs even a much higher clocked X299 setup, that was one of the biggest advantages for me, and wanting (10) cores too.

I have not assembled a custom loop yet. But, I’ve got most of the components. But I still need to get a waterblock.

Maybe if I can keep it cool enough with a big 480mm radiator, 4.5Ghz will be easy.

I also think AMD is doing an amazing job. I’m pretty sure they’ve got a Ryzen 2800X in there back pocket just waiting. Maybe 10 cores, 4.5Ghz for $399.


----------



## panosxidis

mine 6950X play 4.5ghz 1.38v with 1.88 input voltage and 3.7ghz cache 1.24


----------



## Desolutional

6950X said:


> The 6950X has a clear advantage in gaming vs even a much higher clocked X299 setup, that was one of the biggest advantages for me, and wanting (10) cores too.


Wait really? Do you have a link to the reviews as I always thought IPC on X299 CPUs was higher than Broadwell-E?


----------



## ThrashZone

panosxidis said:


> mine 6950X play 4.5ghz 1.38v with 1.88 input voltage and 3.7ghz cache 1.24


Hi,
Clearly you're not using a asus board those have been frying on cache oc'ing 1.2v+ just read the broardwell-e thread a little back there are quite a few reports 



Desolutional said:


> Wait really? Do you have a link to the reviews as I always thought IPC on X299 CPUs was higher than Broadwell-E?


Hi,
Yeah haswell-e was my understanding being better at gaming with it's cache being a lot higher than x299 can even think of doing 
Broadwell-e is pretty much in the same boat as x299 poor cache oc abilities.


----------



## Desolutional

Yeah, as far as I know the only reason X99 might be better is because of the VRM issue on some of the X299 boards limiting the overclock, also users who refuse to overclock the 9900X will be beat slightly by an overclocked 6950X, but in most cases they're pretty similar (apart from having to invest in a new mobo due to socket change). My main reason with going for 6950X was to remain on X99 (no mobo upgrade cost) and also the newer node process 14nm.


----------



## spooklexity

Hi everyone,

I am currently having some very minor issues getting my OC 100% stable. I have recently acquired a second RAM Kit (yeah, I know, you don't do that, but well.) and now have 32 GiB installed in my system, so that now I have gone to latency tuning.

I don't know why exactly, but when I set RAM frequencies > 2800, without extreme System Agent/CPU-IO-Voltages, 1-2 sticks will not be recognized. This problem seems to be not unheard of after a google session, but without further ado, I settled for 2800, more moderate voltages for the System Agent, and went straight to latency tuning. This I have done extensively, including secondary and tertiary timings. I have checked the stability using Memetest86 for 4 full runs + subsequently a total of 5h gSAT, which yielded no errors at all. However, this seemed to have made my Core OC unstable, since I was failing larger FFT sizes with prime95 (Small FFTs have always been stable for 4h+!), and after reading this article: https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1630388-comprehensive-memory-overclocking-guide.html
the reason simply appears that optimizing the memory also enhances the AVX throughput, which would be an explanation for these failures. So I reduced my CPU clock from 4.2 to 4.1 GHz while increasing VCore from 1.257 to 1.263V. This enabled me to do the following for 3h+ in p95 without errors:
Custom run, FFT-Size_min = 512K, FFT-Size_max = 4096K, not running in-place, using 24576 MiB of memory.

However, in-place large FFTs (the usual preset) will usually throw the first error after running roughly an hour or so. Hence my follow-up question: before I start guessing around wildly, can you give some advice on how to proceed? More VCore? Something else?

My current settings are as follows:
VInput = 1.86V, reading unter maximum load (in-place large FFTs in p95) as low as 1.837V.
LLC Level = Low
VCore = 1.263V adaptive
BCLK = 100, strap = 1.0x, core-multi = 41x
VRing = Normal (1.05V), Offset = +0.017, VccU Offset = +0.007
Uncore Multi = 33x
VCCIO = 0.98V, real 0.984V
System Agent Voltage Offset = +0.165V

Temps are, with these new settings, in the low 70s with small FFTs and the high 60s with in-place large FFTs. This is about 5-7 degrees higher than my previous setting (with XMP RAM timings alongside the 42x multiplier and the aforementioned setting of 1.257V).

I am happy for any advice! If anything important is missing, please feel free to point that out. On a small side-note, I am happy for any advice on longevity since I plan to keep the platform for quite long as a secondary platform (leeching a Xeon E5 v4 at some point), but want additional performance as long as I'm stuck with the 6800K.

Thanks to all the experts in advance!


----------



## spooklexity

In lack of better ideas, I have done some more experiments and likely have isolated the issue.

The following happened: a bit dumbness on my side has lead me to consider the VID in lieu of the actual core voltage, which was of course very close to the aforementioned values, while however the actual VCore was much lower; approximately proportional to the input voltage drop under load the core voltage dropped as well, ending up at around a value of 1.228V, which however under the most power-demanding FFTs dropped further to as little as 1.225V according to the readings of other software tools.

Consequently, I decided to increase LLC, and thus changed the above settings only in 2 parameters, namely increasing LLC to LLC = Medium and decreasing V_CCIN to 1.85V. This has allowed me to achieve stable runs with that setting for 3+h, with VCore no longer dropping below 1.231V. Preliminarily, I will therefore consider it fully stable in that sense.

I would still love any input with regards to the risk assessment. Do you believe the mentioned settings are 24/7 permissive?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Might be best to post an image of hwinfo voltage read outs of min/ max and also all the core vids being used.


----------



## wonderin17

hey pro overlockers, noob needs some advices here.

Recently I've decided to push my 6850k a bit further (within the common sense).
At the moment it's running @4000 mhz via XMP profile for my 3000mhz ram (with 3125 cache). xmp changes the blck to 125 and vcore to 1.222. I've tryed to push it a bit to 4.250 setting 1.282 value to vcore manually, seems stable. mobo is strix x99
temperatures are <60c after 30 mins realbench stress test (with nzxt kraken x62).

I'm wondering, should I also change other setting like vcore offset agent etc., should I overlock cache?
and, in general, should I push frequency further regarding I'm mostly playing competetive games and working with Adobe software (AE, PS, IL)?


----------



## ThrashZone

wonderin17 said:


> hey pro overlockers, noob needs some advices here.
> 
> Recently I've decided to push my 6850k a bit further (within the common sense).
> At the moment it's running @4000 mhz via XMP profile for my 3000mhz ram (with 3125 cache). xmp changes the blck to 125 and vcore to 1.222. I've tryed to push it a bit to 4.250 setting 1.282 value to vcore manually, seems stable. mobo is strix x99
> temperatures are <60c after 30 mins realbench stress test (with nzxt kraken x62).
> 
> I'm wondering, should I also change other setting like vcore offset agent etc., should I overlock cache?
> and, in general, should I push frequency further regarding I'm mostly playing competetive games and working with Adobe software (AE, PS, IL)?





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Might be best to post an image of hwinfo voltage read outs of min/ max and also all the core vids being used.


Hi,
Here's a link to hwinfo show everyone where you are after doing some benchmarks for advise 
Use Go Advanced to see the paper clip for uploading images
https://www.hwinfo.com/download.php


----------



## spooklexity

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Might be best to post an image of hwinfo voltage read outs of min/ max and also all the core vids being used.


Done, you can find hwinfo64 CPU properties, hwinfo64 sensor readings as well as aida64 sensor panel during idle and load. The load here was running up p95 with 1344K in-place FFTs for some time. I should also possibly mention that I am currently running multi=42 with AVX-offset -1, hence the lower indicated VID.


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
I got a i7-6950X today.
I unmounted my i7-5930k to test this beast but I have a major issue : impossible to overclock it.

I mean whatever the setting on Bios (For example 42 as coef to get 4.2GHz, all core synchronised, Vcore=1.3V), when I boot into windows, CPUZ and all tools show the CPU at 3.5GHz.

*** ?

Mobo : ASUS X99-Deluxe II with Bios 1902
Windows 10 Pro 64bits 1809.

I tried former bios 1802, but same issue.

Any idea what coudl happen ?


----------



## Gunslinger.

Do you have power set to maximum performance and speedstep disabled?


----------



## ThrashZone

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> I got a i7-6950X today.
> I unmounted my i7-5930k to test this beast but I have a major issue : impossible to overclock it.
> 
> I mean whatever the setting on Bios (For example 42 as coef to get 4.2GHz, all core synchronised, Vcore=1.3V), when I boot into windows, CPUZ and all tools show the CPU at 3.5GHz.
> 
> *** ?
> 
> Mobo : ASUS X99-Deluxe II with Bios 1902
> Windows 10 Pro 64bits 1809.
> 
> I tried former bios 1802, but same issue.
> 
> Any idea what coudl happen ?


Hi,
Looks like the windows update that kills broadwell-e oc'ing is installed 
Look back 1-2-3.. pages for solutions.


----------



## GRABibus

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Looks like the windows update that kills broadwell-e oc'ing is installed
> Look back 1-2-3.. pages for solutions.


Hi,
solutions 3 pages before are for 1803 windows owners. I have 1809


----------



## djgar

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> solutions 3 pages before are for 1803 windows owners. I have 1809


Same thing - get rid of mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll.


----------



## GRABibus

djgar said:


> Same thing - get rid of mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll.


Thanks for the advise, now it works.

I have a thermaltake floe riing prémium 280 (AIO with 2 fans on the rad).
I have made some tests and I am realbech stable au 4.2ghz with vcore set to 1.25v
Cache is at 3.6 GHz with vcache set to 1,2v.
Vccin at 1,8v, vccsa at 0,8v and vccio at 1,05v
For ram, see in sig for configuration.

Please note that vid is far différent for each core at 4.2ghz : the lowest vid is 1.25v and the highest is 1,31v.

My question cas about temps : at 23 degrees celsius ambiant, I reach 80 degrees on hottest core and 80 to 85 on package in realbench 

According to my Cooling and my OC settings, are these temps usual ?

Thank you


----------



## spooklexity

Sure, the CPU easily consumes around 200 Wats in that config. 
I personally would be a little more careful with the core voltage. I don't know if you really need 3.6 GHz bus clock, albeit that might have a larger effect with as many cores as you have. And congrats for winning the IMC lottery… that RAM config with 0.8V VCCIO is crazy.

Slightly upping VCCIN (ONLY THAT!) might drop temps slightly, but YMMV.


----------



## GRABibus

spooklexity said:


> Sure, the CPU easily consumes around 200 Wats in that config.
> I personally would be a little more careful with the core voltage. I don't know if you really need 3.6 GHz bus clock, albeit that might have a larger effect with as many cores as you have. And congrats for winning the IMC lottery… that RAM config with 0.8V VCCIO is crazy.
> 
> Slightly upping VCCIN (ONLY THAT!) might drop temps slightly, but YMMV.


3,6ghz is my cache overclock.
You mean I Should reduce cache frequency ?

My vcore is set at 1,25v on bios.
But, vid values go from 1,25v to 1,31v depending on the core.


----------



## ThrashZone

GRABibus said:


> 3,6ghz is my cache overclock.
> You mean I Should reduce cache frequency ?
> 
> My vcore is set at 1,25v on bios.
> But, vid values go from 1,25v to 1,31v depending on the core.


Hi,
You must be using adaptive or offset core voltage it tends to do the varied vid thing and thus core temps wildly different 
Not sure if broadwell-e is a soldered chip or not but sounds like it isn't.

Glad you got the beast oc'ing again :thumb:


----------



## GRABibus

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> You must be using adaptive or offset core voltage it tends to do the varied vid thing and thus core temps wildly different
> Not sure if broadwell-e is a soldered chip or not but sounds like it isn't.
> 
> Glad you got the beast oc'ing again :thumb:


Hi
I use adaptative mode for vcore and and offset mode for cache


----------



## ThrashZone

GRABibus said:


> Hi
> I use adaptative mode for vcore and and offset mode for cache


Hi,
Yep that explains the vid thing
Just have to find a happy medium and adjust the adaptive a little

You are on the edge cache voltage wise at 1.2
Lots of fried chips from using 1.2+ on cache 
I believe a hair under is best 
Offset of +0.195 is about 1.180v+- or so on haswell-e what offset are you using ?


----------



## GRABibus

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep that explains the vid thing
> Just have to find a happy medium and adjust the adaptive a little
> 
> You are on the edge cache voltage wise at 1.2
> Lots of fried chips from using 1.2+ on cache
> I believe a hair under is best
> Offset of +0.195 is about 1.180v+- or so on haswell-e what offset are you using ?


PC under test , so can’t say right now.
But as far as I remember, it is 0.185v offset for cache I think


----------



## ThrashZone

GRABibus said:


> PC under test , so can’t say right now.
> But as far as I remember, it is 0.185v offset for cache I think


Hi,
+0.185 should be well under 1.2v then


----------



## spooklexity

GRABibus said:


> 3,6ghz is my cache overclock.
> You mean I Should reduce cache frequency ?
> 
> My vcore is set at 1,25v on bios.
> But, vid values go from 1,25v to 1,31v depending on the core.


I meant that I would reduce cache frequency to go down on cache voltage. 1.2V and more seems to be danger zone. Diminishing returns on cash OC are tremendous, I suppose you could go to 3500 with around 1.13V or so.



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> +0.185 should be well under 1.2v then


Uhhm, I wouldn't be too certain about that; for me, +0.185V on cache would be 1.235V which seems to be pretty brutal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think VCache = 1.05V by default.


----------



## GRABibus

spooklexity said:


> I meant that I would reduce cache frequency to go down on cache voltage. 1.2V and more seems to be danger zone. Diminishing returns on cash OC are tremendous, I suppose you could go to 3500 with around 1.13V or so.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhm, I wouldn't be too certain about that; for me, +0.185V on cache would be 1.235V which seems to be pretty brutal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think VCache = 1.05V by default.


Offset =+0,185v leads to Vcache1,2V under load for me.

Realbench crashed alter 7h30 test.

I am now testing 4,1GHz core with Vcore1,25V. If I put Vcore=1,2V, this is not taken into account by my CPU as all vid’s are between 1,25V and 1,31v for 4,1GHz.
I mean if I set Vcore at 1,2V, it is exactly the same as if I set Vcore to 1,25V.

So, new 8 hours Realbench test with :
Cores @4,1GHz
Vcore=1,25V adaptative 
Vccin=1,8V
[email protected],6GHz
Vcache=1,2V with offset = +0,185V
Vccio =1,05V
Vccsa=0,8V (offset= - 0,146V)


----------



## wonderin17

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Here's a link to hwinfo show everyone where you are after doing some benchmarks for advise
> Use Go Advanced to see the paper clip for uploading images
> https://www.hwinfo.com/download.php


Done


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi, @wonderin17
All the red X'ed are not needed 
Hwinfo shows a lot of unneeded stuff 
Click the item then hold down the shift key and click the last and all between will be selected 
Right click and select Hide.

Along with that you didn't post any Voltages which is way more important than some of the other stuff you posted.

But out of what is posted looks like the CPU Strap is set at 125 instead of 100 preferred 
Set all core to 42-43 
CPU Strap to 100.
Repost the voltages it reports


----------



## wonderin17

> But out of what is posted looks like the CPU Strap is set at 125 instead of 100 preferred
> Set all core to 42-43
> CPU Strap to 100.
> Repost the voltages it reports /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


as far as I know the bclk changes to 125 (and the cpu strap with it) for high frequency RAM stability in case of BW-E systems. Are you aware of it? should I change the CPU strap anyway?


----------



## ThrashZone

wonderin17 said:


> as far as I know the bclk changes to 125 (and the cpu strap with it) for high frequency RAM stability in case of BW-E systems. Are you aware of it? should I change the CPU strap anyway?


Hi,
Yes take the bclk off to 100 neither should be on 125 causes all kinds of weird stuff to happen at 125 and limits oc ability.


----------



## spooklexity

How does this look? Passes Linpack extreme. 4.4GHz @1.4V, AVX-Offset -2. Changed LLC to high (Level 3/5 available) and input voltage to 1.87V. Temps are borderline with LinpackXtreme AVX load (as you can see), but a joke without AVX (50°C max).


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
You lack showing any voltages beside a whopping 1.4v core vid for 44


----------



## wonderin17

ThrashZone said:


> wonderin17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I know the bclk changes to 125 (and the cpu strap with it) for high frequency RAM stability in case of BW-E systems. Are you aware of it? should I change the CPU strap anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Yes take the bclk off to 100 neither should be on 125 causes all kinds of weird stuff to happen at 125 and limits oc ability.
Click to expand...

I guess you are not aware of it, ok, according to my research (and Asus and Intel speedsheets), bclk should be 125 for high frequency ram (>2666 mhz) FOR overall more stability, that's why XMP does change the bclk to 125 for my 3000 mhz RAM. It's the case only for those 4 broadwell-e cpus. 
The Integrated Memory Controller on Broadwell-E cannot reach such high speeds without getting a boost from the BCLK, otherwise XMP won't be stable.
I was asking if I should change the cpu strap to 100. I know that bclk should be 125 in my case anyway.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Just because easy oc uses 125 doesn't mean a whole lot 
I use 100 on x99/3200 and x299/3600 it is best
Good luck with it


----------



## wonderin17

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Just because easy oc uses 125 doesn't mean a whole lot
> I use 100 on x99/3200 and x299/3600 it is best
> Good luck with it /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


now I'm just more confused 🙂 it's the issue with only those 4 cpu's mem controller, not with the easy oc. i don't know what cpu you have, please note that it's the case with only 4 last x99 cpus (6800-6950), not all the x99. if you have an older broadwell chip than yes, it's not a problem for you 🙂 there are lots of reports about instability with high freq RAM and bw-e chips being overclocked with 100 bclk size, I'm just trying to understand my cpu the best way possible


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I'm on haswell-e and skylake-x 

I started out just attempting to get some info of clocks/ temps and voltages used by both you and the other poster asking for advice so someone could help 
The only info useful is this stuff here not tj max..... nonsense so refer to my prior post detailing how to remove unnecessary entries in hwinfo


----------



## spooklexity

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> You lack showing any voltages beside a whopping 1.4v core vid for 44


Yep, my 6800K is probably among the worst 20% examples. I need around 1.27V to get 4.1 GHz AVX LinpackExtreme stable, and 1.34V to get 4.2 GHz stable for the same. I have attached the vcore reading for AVX and non-AVX modes, respectively, too. It is pretty much the VID without AVX load, and roughly 1.34V under AVX. My CPU is just a bad sample. Without at least +0.06 System Agent voltage offset, I will not be able to boot my system with 4 sticks of RAM. To run it with XMP timings, I need more, to run it at decent timings, I need +0.17V offset. I am just proposing this because I can afford it temp-wise in Winter... Yeah, scratching the 80s is not great under AVX, but on the other hand I don't run that much pure MKL code on my CPU. The rest I can afford temp-wise, non-AVX load does not even manage to scratch 50°C, it usually stays around 45°C, even with 1.4V. Gaming even less.

Going on with my poor quality CPU, regarding this...


wonderin17 said:


> now I'm just more confused 🙂 it's the issue with only those 4 cpu's mem controller, not with the easy oc. i don't know what cpu you have, please note that it's the case with only 4 last x99 cpus (6800-6950), not all the x99. if you have an older broadwell chip than yes, it's not a problem for you 🙂 there are lots of reports about instability with high freq RAM and bw-e chips being overclocked with 100 bclk size, I'm just trying to understand my cpu the best way possible


Yes, you are right. Without 1.25er strap, I will never detect all RAM sticks when setting them to 3000. Furthermore, to successfully POST and boot I will need at least +0.2V VCCSA offset - too much for me to be acceptable, since I don't know relative to what baseline the same is set. So you are right, without that strap, you will probably have a harder time getting the RAM stable, although you can try it without.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah mother boards tend to vary on what actually works 
I've only used asus mobo's so all that I've read leans to 100 blk and cpu strap works very well and is recommended to use.


----------



## spooklexity

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah mother boards tend to vary on what actually works
> I've only used asus mobo's so all that I've read leans to 100 blk and cpu strap works very well and is recommended to use.


Not arguing against this in general, but 1.25er strap seems to help the IMC big time nevertheless. Naturally, this depends on all relevant parameters, and if you have a good Mainboard+CPU, you will not rely on such crutches. Hell, people run around here getting 3000er RAM work with 0.85 VCCSA, and I will can't even boot 2 sticks at 2800 with that voltage. On the other hand, my Mobo only officially supports up to 2800, which additionally speaks against it (poor choice of mine to go for a non-refresh board, could just as well have gone for an awesome board like the X99 Taichi).

Ultimately, sometimes you just have to deal with, getting handed the bad end. And CPU-quality wise, that is definitely the case for me.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah system agent might need some tweaking 
x99 sabertooth max atm is 1.024 for 3200C14
x299 prime max atm is 0.912 for 3600C16

This really is mother board dependent and of course probably cpu none are the same otherwise there would be lottery involved


----------



## wonderin17

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I'm on haswell-e and skylake-x
> 
> I started out just attempting to get some info of clocks/ temps and voltages used by both you and the other poster asking for advice so someone could help
> The only info useful is this stuff here not tj max..... nonsense so refer to my prior post detailing how to remove unnecessary entries in hwinfo


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
@wonderin17

All these are too high and should be well under 1.2v
Especially vccio cpu and vccsa=system agent.


----------



## Tyemcho

hi everyone my name is Gio. recently i purchased 1660 V4 ES unlocked version Which is basically 6900K. i managed to overclock it upto 3.9 on my Rampage V extreme motherboard. Core Voltage is 1.19 Adaptive, also when i stess test it CPUZ shows different voltage which is 1.275. i'm uning OCCT at this point cpu is stable, temps are ok cuz i have Custom Water cooling setup. I want to push limits and overclock it upto 4.2. should i exceed 1.35 volts? I've read that its not recommended to go over 1.35 on Brodwell cpus. i have not touched CPU cache ratio or cache voltage or PPL stuff i dont know this much can someone help me?


----------



## djgar

Tyemcho said:


> hi everyone my name is Gio. recently i purchased 1660 V4 ES unlocked version Which is basically 6900K. i managed to overclock it upto 3.9 on my Rampage V extreme motherboard. Core Voltage is 1.19 Adaptive, also when i stess test it CPUZ shows different voltage which is 1.275. i'm uning OCCT at this point cpu is stable, temps are ok cuz i have Custom Water cooling setup. I want to push limits and overclock it upto 4.2. should i exceed 1.35 volts? I've read that its not recommended to go over 1.35 on Brodwell cpus. i have not touched CPU cache ratio or cache voltage or PPL stuff i dont know this much can someone help me?


I have a 6900K on a Strix Gaming I've been running for over a year - you can see my settings in my sig, but your CPU is bound to be somewhat different.


----------



## Tyemcho

yes it in between XEON 1660V4 and 6900K i actually like it because it can be overclocked and run ECC memory  and i bought i for 280$  lets see what this can do. i'm sure that 4.6 is impossible on this chip its ES Engineering Sample.

so you presets are 

46 multiplier 
vcore 1.395
vcache [email protected] offset, 
vccsa [email protected] offset, 
vccin 1.8, 
vccio 1.05, 
LLC +6


----------



## djgar

Tyemcho said:


> yes it in between XEON 1660V4 and 6900K i actually like it because it can be overclocked and run ECC memory  and i bought i for 280$  lets see what this can do. i'm sure that 4.6 is impossible on this chip its ES Engineering Sample.
> 
> so you presets are
> 
> 46 multiplier
> vcore 1.395
> vcache [email protected] offset,
> vccsa [email protected] offset,
> vccin 1.8,
> vccio 1.05,
> LLC +6


That's right. Vcore is adaptive.

You also have a different board, the cache offset might be different so I would start the offset low and see what actual vcache it gives. Being a more industrialized chip hopefully it's sturdier, though at $280 who could complain?


----------



## Tyemcho

i wont complain even if it dies  how much cache ration should i choose? also what about AVX negative offset ? Vcore "1.395" is kinda scary if you ask me  is it okay on WATER COOLING? my cpu stepping is "M0" people say "it's just before production" stepping https://valid.x86.fr/ra2upp


----------



## blodflekk

How much damage can voltage alone do? For example say you use 1.45 vcore on adaptive but temps are at an acceptable level in game. Will the voltage alone degrade or destroy the chip, or does it high temps as well, or a combination of voltage and temps over prolonged use?


----------



## spooklexity

blodflekk said:


> How much damage can voltage alone do? For example say you use 1.45 vcore on adaptive but temps are at an acceptable level in game. Will the voltage alone degrade or destroy the chip, or does it high temps as well, or a combination of voltage and temps over prolonged use?


Difficult to make any speculations because YMMV. Adaptive of course leads to much less average voltage being applied because usually you're not loading your CPU even close to 24/7. In general, voltage and temperature increase in conjunction are a risk due to electromigration, which increases with voltage, current density, and temperature. Therefore, most likely, a configuration which leads to high clocks with higher voltage, but lower power consumption and heat (for instance while gaming) has lower risks than the same configuration with more heat. Temperatures are a contribution in that sense.

In general, the 14nm process seems to be actually more robust than the 22nm one (Source: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7112692 ). 

I personally am going with a real ~1.415V under max clock, which hardly raises the temperatures over 50°C at all, and feel comfortable with the same (Naturally, I use an AVX offset AND have some VDroop, so that under AVX my core voltage is more like 1.315-1.325V, depending on the core - this still leads to an immense 80°C maximum core temp using LinpackXtreme). Personally, I would be more cautious with giving high uncore-type voltages (System Agent, Ring, IO) with aggressive LLC settings, because these parts seem to be more sensitive to overvoltage as compared to permanently "medium-high" voltage.


----------



## blodflekk

spooklexity said:


> Difficult to make any speculations because YMMV. Adaptive of course leads to much less average voltage being applied because usually you're not loading your CPU even close to 24/7. In general, voltage and temperature increase in conjunction are a risk due to electromigration, which increases with voltage, current density, and temperature. Therefore, most likely, a configuration which leads to high clocks with higher voltage, but lower power consumption and heat (for instance while gaming) has lower risks than the same configuration with more heat. Temperatures are a contribution in that sense.
> 
> 
> 
> In general, the 14nm process seems to be actually more robust than the 22nm one (Source: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7112692 ).
> 
> 
> 
> I personally am going with a real ~1.415V under max clock, which hardly raises the temperatures over 50°C at all, and feel comfortable with the same (Naturally, I use an AVX offset AND have some VDroop, so that under AVX my core voltage is more like 1.315-1.325V, depending on the core - this still leads to an immense 80°C maximum core temp using LinpackXtreme). Personally, I would be more cautious with giving high uncore-type voltages (System Agent, Ring, IO) with aggressive LLC settings, because these parts seem to be more sensitive to overvoltage as compared to permanently "medium-high" voltage.


That's actually interesting information. I'm going to push my chip a bit harder and see where I can get. I do use adaptive voltage. I've kept cache voltage at 1.18 and vccio at 1.125. My rig is only used for gaming, never any rendering, nothing with avx instructions so temps have always been good. I'll post back here my findings. 

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## spooklexity

blodflekk said:


> That's actually interesting information. I'm going to push my chip a bit harder and see where I can get. I do use adaptive voltage. I've kept cache voltage at 1.18 and vccio at 1.125. My rig is only used for gaming, never any rendering, nothing with avx instructions so temps have always been good. I'll post back here my findings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


Sure, sounds like a plan. Compensate for AVX by setting an offset. You will run into a thermal limit that pulls down your max non-AVX clock, unless you're generally afraid of voltage. 

Personally, I would also reduce VCCIO a bit. More than 1.1 seems risky according to Intel specs. Cache Voltage 1.18 is okay to me, but I would not go higher. Which LLC setting are you using right now?


----------



## blodflekk

spooklexity said:


> Sure, sounds like a plan. Compensate for AVX by setting an offset. You will run into a thermal limit that pulls down your max non-AVX clock, unless you're generally afraid of voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I would also reduce VCCIO a bit. More than 1.1 seems risky according to Intel specs. Cache Voltage 1.18 is okay to me, but I would not go higher. Which LLC setting are you using right now?


I have used the avx offset in the past but just leave it on 1 now as since I'm not using any avx workloads I'm only stressing with prime 26.6. LLC is currently level 7. Note, on my mobo, LLC goes to level 9

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## spooklexity

Is 7/9 the third highest or the third lowest? In the first case, I would maybe try to decrease cache voltage a bit, and see that VCCIO doesn't go unnecessarily high. If it's the second lowest, then you don't have to worry too much anyway, as Voltage would drop significantly under high loads.


----------



## blodflekk

spooklexity said:


> Is 7/9 the second highest or the second lowest? In the first case, I would maybe try to decrease cache voltage a bit, and see that VCCIO doesn't go unnecessarily high. If it's the second lowest, then you don't have to worry too much anyway, as Voltage would drop significantly under high loads.


Level 7 is the second highest, its worth noting that on this platform LLC only affects vccin. As for cache voltage, that's the lowest I can do to be stable at 3.4 which is barely above default turbo boost. It's just a real turd of a chip on my hands [emoji852]

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## spooklexity

Sure, but that's because VCCIN is the only voltage supplied by the motherboard, the FIVR derives all other voltages accordingly. These "internal" voltages in that sense are not exactly, but by (a strong) tendency proportional to the former by that derivation; thus VCCIN overshoots will have a respective effect on *all* internal voltages. I can understand your reasoning though. I would try to see if you can go with LLC 6 still if you want to push further.


----------



## blodflekk

spooklexity said:


> Sure, but that's because VCCIN is the only voltage supplied by the motherboard, the FIVR derives all other voltages accordingly. These "internal" voltages in that sense are not exactly, but by (a strong) tendency proportional to the former by that derivation; thus VCCIN overshoots will have a respective effect on *all* internal voltages. I can understand your reasoning though. I would try to see if you can go with LLC 6 still if you want to push further.


I never looked at it that way, still I will try and lower it for my next round of testing. Previous stable oc was 4.3 @1.325 it's looking like 4.4 might be stable at 1.425 but not done stressing yet

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tyemcho

at 3.9ghz with 1.19 Core Voltage (adaptive) this cpu is stable, i tested in Intel Burn Test. OCCT, Cinebench, LINX
right now i set at 4.0ghz 1.34 Core Voltage (adaptive) and cant get is stable in OCCT,LINX,Intel Burn Test

can someone tell me what settings should i tweak?


----------



## blodflekk

Tyemcho said:


> at 3.9ghz with 1.19 Core Voltage (adaptive) this cpu is stable, i tested in Intel Burn Test. OCCT, Cinebench, LINX
> 
> right now i set at 4.0ghz 1.34 Core Voltage (adaptive) and cant get is stable in OCCT,LINX,Intel Burn Test
> 
> 
> 
> can someone tell me what settings should i tweak?


What are your other voltages ? Particularly vccin 

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tyemcho

i dont know which one is VCCIN.


----------



## Tyemcho

blodflekk said:


> What are your other voltages ? Particularly vccin
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


my ram is 2400 and i overclocked it up to 2660mhz should i lower clocks and timings and try to overclock CPU?


----------



## blodflekk

I see you've left everything on auto. As a starting point you want to manually enter all the voltages and start overlocking from there. You can enable xmp and that will take care of the RAM. What is the CPU?


----------



## Tyemcho

xeon 1660 V4 ES M0 stepping AKA 6900K. please suggest what values to enter.


----------



## blodflekk

I don't have any experience with xeons, but would suggest entering everything in at stock and then slowly increasing until you can't find stability, same as you would on any other platform


----------



## Hydroplane

Keeping my eyes open for a nice pre-owned 6950x. Ebay prices are ridiculous, like $900+


----------



## Tyemcho

blodflekk said:


> I don't have any experience with xeons, but would suggest entering everything in at stock and then slowly increasing until you can't find stability, same as you would on any other platform


its between XEON and i7 . it can support ECC and be overclocked. Silicon is identical i bought it for 285$ ) i don't know which values to change. what are limits an etc. so i need 6900K owner to suggest overclocking settings


----------



## blodflekk

Tyemcho said:


> its between XEON and i7 . it can support ECC and be overclocked. Silicon is identical i bought it for 285$ ) i don't know which values to change. what are limits an etc. so i need 6900K owner to suggest overclocking settings


With it all being identical, the safe limits are 1.33v core, 1.2v cache, 1.92-1.95 CPU input(vccin)

There is no copy and paste settings

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## djgar

Tyemcho said:


> its between XEON and i7 . it can support ECC and be overclocked. Silicon is identical i bought it for 285$ ) i don't know which values to change. what are limits an etc. so i need 6900K owner to suggest overclocking settings


My sig has my settings for a Strix X99 Gaming MB. Good luck.


----------



## spooklexity

Hydroplane said:


> Keeping my eyes open for a nice pre-owned 6950x. Ebay prices are ridiculous, like $900+


I would love that, too, but let's be honest, it's wishful thinking. There's not a lot of reason to give away your 6950X, given that per core it still smashes any Threadripper, and even if you do, there are plenty of guys like you and me sitting on a 68X0K and potentially interested in that upgrade


----------



## Hydroplane

spooklexity said:


> I would love that, too, but let's be honest, it's wishful thinking. There's not a lot of reason to give away your 6950X, given that per core it still smashes any Threadripper, and even if you do, there are plenty of guys like you and me sitting on a 68X0K and potentially interested in that upgrade


They were $600 a year ago lol. A new 1950X can be had for like $580. A 9700K outperforms both per core and is much cheaper  Probably just pricey because it's an extreme edition chip that cost $1700 originally plus the oddity of ebay pricing.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hydroplane said:


> Keeping my eyes open for a nice pre-owned 6950x. Ebay *prices are ridiculous*, like $900+


Hi,
Good description
Amazon too but they do once in a while plop one down for 700.us I passed on one a few months ago it's still too much for an eol platform.
If asus hadn't bailed on bios support especially after all of the Intel security mess I might of done it.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Looks like there is some chatter of a 1903 bios for broadwell-e 

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...er-1809)-KILLS-BW-E-Overclock!!!!!!!!!/page16


----------



## blodflekk

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 
> Looks like there is some chatter of a 1903 bios for broadwell-e
> 
> 
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...er-1809)-KILLS-BW-E-Overclock!!!!!!!!!/page16


Anyone know anything about it ? I noticed using 1902 I lost performance so I rolled it back

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## djgar

blodflekk said:


> Anyone know anything about it ? I noticed using 1902 I lost performance so I rolled it back
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


Did you try getting rid of mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll? Worked for me.


----------



## blodflekk

djgar said:


> Did you try getting rid of mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll? Worked for me.


No I didnt, but I didnt lose my overclock like others did. I just lost performance, same as I did with all the windows patches, so I rolled back to win 7 sp1 no updates


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## spooklexity

Hydroplane said:


> They were $600 a year ago lol. A new 1950X can be had for like $580. A 9700K outperforms both per core and is much cheaper  Probably just pricey because it's an extreme edition chip that cost $1700 originally plus the oddity of ebay pricing.


What the frick. You guys across the pond are lucky. The 6950X was, short of a single day, US-$ 1,400 here until December 2018, and more than 100-200$ above that most of the time. Now it's around US-$ 1,200.

PS: Sure the 9700K is faster per core, but it still is slower in multi-threaded applications even with the higher OC, and my statement was only that Zen+ isn't. And even with custom loop it's rare that you get a TR beyond 4.3 GHz, let alone more than 4.4.


----------



## blodflekk

So I think I have reached the absolute limit of my system. Maybe someone can point out something else I could tweak to squeeze out some more performance ? 6850k @ 4.3 @ 1.325, cache 3.6 @1.185, ram 3200 - 15,16,17,25,1T @ 1.45v (secondary and tertiary timings tightened as well) sa offset +0.160 vccio 1.1. Can anything else be done here ? I was thinking ram but it wont boot higher than 3200, which its rated at so I went with tighter timings. Blck 100, wasnt stable at 101.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Looks like 1903 is final and not beta 
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?108606-RAMPAGE-V-EDITION-10-BIOS-1903-is-final!

Also ran into Raja and asked about vccio cpu 1.05 voltage shooting to 1.24v which is more like what I use for all core 42 lol 
Voltage all chips like they are weak chips :/


----------



## Blameless

Never found more than 1.08 vccio useful on any of my BW-E samples, but I never really pushed for extreme memory clock rates either.


----------



## ThrashZone

Blameless said:


> Never found more than 1.08 vccio useful on any of my BW-E samples, but I never really pushed for extreme memory clock rates either.


Hi,
All I can gather is anything over 2133MHz is considered extreme on broadwell-e bios and warrants 1.24v to asus


----------



## spooklexity

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> All I can gather is anything over 2133MHz is considered extreme on broadwell-e bios and warrants 1.24v to asus


Should be *2400 for BW-E according to official specs, but don't know how ASUS handles this. But yeah, I have such a meme chip and for me, at least +0.22V VCCSA offset are required to be able to run 4 sticks DDR4-3000, and even that only works on a 1.25er strap :|


----------



## wonderin17

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> All I can gather is anything over 2133MHz is considered extreme on broadwell-e bios and warrants 1.24v to asus /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


hi again,

so with avx offset on, i can see my cpu almost always sits at the offset state while realbenching. i guess i should turn avx offset off for stress testing purposes?


----------



## ThrashZone

wonderin17 said:


> hi again,
> 
> so with avx offset on, i can see my cpu almost always sits at the offset state while realbenching. i guess i should turn avx offset off for stress testing purposes?


Hi,
Not sure about off but avx set to auto should be fine for up to 4.4-4.3 all core even with core voltage at auto too.


----------



## Desolutional

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Not sure about off but avx set to auto should be fine for up to 4.4-4.3 all core even with core voltage at auto too.


AVX offset only works on pure AVX workloads. x265 for example, uses mixed workloads so it would fail stability for that. Best advice is to only set AVX offset if you're planning on running pure AVX code, the threshold and response time to detect AVX code on BW-E is insufficient for x265.


----------



## spooklexity

Desolutional said:


> AVX offset only works on pure AVX workloads. x265 for example, uses mixed workloads so it would fail stability for that. Best advice is to only set AVX offset if you're planning on running pure AVX code, the threshold and response time to detect AVX code on BW-E is insufficient for x265.


Cannot confirm, using AVX offset -2 for mixed loads without an issue.


----------



## blodflekk

blodflekk said:


> So I think I have reached the absolute limit of my system. Maybe someone can point out something else I could tweak to squeeze out some more performance ? 6850k @ 4.3 @ 1.325, cache 3.6 @1.185, ram 3200 - 15,16,17,25,1T @ 1.45v (secondary and tertiary timings tightened as well) sa offset +0.160 vccio 1.1. Can anything else be done here ? I was thinking ram but it wont boot higher than 3200, which its rated at so I went with tighter timings. Blck 100, wasnt stable at 101.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


If I was to take another run at BLCK overclocking, would core voltage be the only voltage needing adjustment or would input and dram need increasing as well ?


----------



## Desolutional

spooklexity said:


> Cannot confirm, using AVX offset -2 for mixed loads without an issue.


Try doing an x265 encode and monitor clock rate.


----------



## ThrashZone

spooklexity said:


> Cannot confirm, using AVX offset -2 for mixed loads without an issue.


Hi,
Use Blender and classroom or BMW demo rendering file 
It will throw a little avx at you bmw being the short test about 3 minutes and classroom about 9 minutes 
https://www.blender.org/

https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/

Use hwinfo to see if you clocks drop the amount of avx you're set at.

https://www.hwinfo.com/download.php


----------



## spooklexity

Oh, I was only talking about stability here, sorry for that misunderstanding - I understood it so that you meant that fluctuation between AVX and non-AVX clocks hampers stability. 

Sure, intermittent AVX load leads to corresponding frequency fluctuations.


----------



## MiHi76

Hi guys,
i've pushed my 6950x a little bit further.
Reached 4.3GHz with 1.26V on the Core. Don't want to go near or beyond 1.3V core voltage.
While i was testing i got two times BSOD 0x101 and i cranked up the vrin to 1.92V @ LLC5.
The issue is gone.
Do you think 1.92V is save or is it a little bit too high?


----------



## xkm1948

MiHi76 said:


> Hi guys,
> i've pushed my 6950x a little bit further.
> Reached 4.3GHz with 1.26V on the Core. Don't want to go near or beyond 1.3V core voltage.
> While i was testing i got two times BSOD 0x101 and i cranked up the vrin to 1.92V @ LLC5.
> The issue is gone.
> Do you think 1.92V is save or is it a little bit too high?


Too high. 100MHz aint worth it. If you REALLY want the sweet single core performance I suggest you start looking to per core OC and leverage the Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 application. Set your best core to 4.3GHz and all other cores to 4.2GHz.


----------



## MiHi76

xkm1948 said:


> Too high. 100MHz aint worth it. If you REALLY want the sweet single core performance I suggest you start looking to per core OC and leverage the Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 application. Set your best core to 4.3GHz and all other cores to 4.2GHz.


You mean that vcore @ 1.26V is to high, right? Realy? My question was if vinput=vrin @ 1.92V LLC5 is to high.


----------



## 8051

Is it worth it to upgrade a Haswell-E to a Broadwell-E? What's the diff in IPC? Do Broadwell-E's overclock better as to core or IMC?


----------



## MiHi76

8051 said:


> Is it worth it to upgrade a Haswell-E to a Broadwell-E? What's the diff in IPC? Do Broadwell-E's overclock better as to core or IMC?


I think it was 6% better IPC. But they don't reach the overclock level like Haswell-e. 4.5 Ghz on the cores is mostly impossible. The IMC is better as Haswell-e


----------



## blodflekk

8051 said:


> Is it worth it to upgrade a Haswell-E to a Broadwell-E? What's the diff in IPC? Do Broadwell-E's overclock better as to core or IMC?


Probably not unless you want some extra cores and would rather buy the newer chip, but they definitely dont clock as high and the cache doesn't get anywhere near the core clock like it did on Haswell-e 

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## pantsaregood

How well does AVX offset work on X99? I have a friend who's trying to get his i7-6800K to run at 4.4 GHz, but it can't handle more than 4.2 GHz AVX. If the offset is going to cause instability, then I'll just tell him to run with 4.2 GHz.

My experience with a 7820X (which may work differently) is that AVX offsets are very useful, but Broadwell-E was the first implementation of the feature.


----------



## Desolutional

pantsaregood said:


> How well does AVX offset work on X99? I have a friend who's trying to get his i7-6800K to run at 4.4 GHz, but it can't handle more than 4.2 GHz AVX. If the offset is going to cause instability, then I'll just tell him to run with 4.2 GHz.
> 
> My experience with a 7820X (which may work differently) is that AVX offsets are very useful, but Broadwell-E was the first implementation of the feature.


The best way to do this (it is annoying though), is to set two different overclock profiles in BIOS. Normal overclock and "AVX overclock", when your friend wants to do AVX stuff, switch to that profile, vice versa. AVX draws a lot of power, so you won't be able to run as quick with AVX workloads as normal.


----------



## spooklexity

pantsaregood said:


> How well does AVX offset work on X99? I have a friend who's trying to get his i7-6800K to run at 4.4 GHz, but it can't handle more than 4.2 GHz AVX. If the offset is going to cause instability, then I'll just tell him to run with 4.2 GHz.
> 
> My experience with a 7820X (which may work differently) is that AVX offsets are very useful, but Broadwell-E was the first implementation of the feature.


This is what I have done and I recommend it. Your thermal headroom with AVX runs out far before the same happens without it.


----------



## mattliston

For the VCCIN question, 1.92 is plenty fine.


As far as I know, having a higher than needed VCCIN simply introduces more heat into the chip.


Keep it a minimum of 0.4 volts higher than the highest vcore that you see.




I personally keep mine around 0.6 volts higher, it has helped just a tad in my 5930K during high cache and memory overclocks.


----------



## spooklexity

I'm feeling that considerable necessity for input voltage can usually be attributed to keeping the LLC on a rather low setting for a given performance target. Nevertheless, it should not really pose a problem until you go to mad voltages (mad probably also depends on your cooling solution). I cannot precisely say if increasing input voltage really raises temps, or if it is just a residue of the lower VDroop on all derived voltages.


----------



## Desolutional

I wouldn't drop it below stock voltage either way, other rails run off it.


----------



## spooklexity

Agreed, but usually there's no reason to really exceed 1.9ish Volts either, unless you plan to do your OC with ~1.47+ Volts, which I would deem unrealistic and dangerous for everything except chilled water and above.


----------



## MiHi76

pantsaregood said:


> How well does AVX offset work on X99? I have a friend who's trying to get his i7-6800K to run at 4.4 GHz, but it can't handle more than 4.2 GHz AVX. If the offset is going to cause instability, then I'll just tell him to run with 4.2 GHz.
> 
> My experience with a 7820X (which may work differently) is that AVX offsets are very useful, but Broadwell-E was the first implementation of the feature.


Then the Vore must be increased or the AVX Offset. So it runs with 4.1 Ghz when AVX commands are executed.


----------



## ThrashZone

spooklexity said:


> Agreed, but usually there's no reason to really exceed 1.9ish Volts either, unless you plan to do your OC with ~1.47+ Volts, which I would deem unrealistic and dangerous for everything except chilled water and above.


Hi,
If you haven't yet see what auto vccin produces


----------



## blodflekk

I think I already know the answer to my question, but I'll ask it here in case someone can give me a glimmer of hope lol

So I bought myself a 2080Ti because my 1080 died and I wanted to start preparing my rig for 4k gaming. I currently have a 6850 @4.3 and it seems to be bottlenecking my 2080Ti, I'm not getting the bump in frames I was expecting, even with a decent OC on it. My question is, would getting my hands on a 6900 or 6950 get rid of my bottleneck and give me more frames or do I need something that will push closer to 5Ghz? I'm not really wanting to start a new build yet, none of the newest hardware is very exciting.With that being said I don't want to get a 6900/6950 if thats not going improve performance either.


----------



## Hydroplane

blodflekk said:


> I think I already know the answer to my question, but I'll ask it here in case someone can give me a glimmer of hope lol
> 
> So I bought myself a 2080Ti because my 1080 died and I wanted to start preparing my rig for 4k gaming. I currently have a 6850 @4.3 and it seems to be bottlenecking my 2080Ti, I'm not getting the bump in frames I was expecting, even with a decent OC on it. My question is, would getting my hands on a 6900 or 6950 get rid of my bottleneck and give me more frames or do I need something that will push closer to 5Ghz? I'm not really wanting to start a new build yet, none of the newest hardware is very exciting.With that being said I don't want to get a 6900/6950 if thats not going improve performance either.


You have plenty of cores, it's really more of a clock speed / single thread performance thing for games. My 7980XE at 4.3 limits my FPS more often than my 1080 Ti SLI do.

At the prices I find used 6950X going for, I can buy an entire new 9900K setup (CPU, mobo, waterblock) for less $$, lol


----------



## ThrashZone

Hydroplane said:


> You have plenty of cores, it's really more of a clock speed / single thread performance thing for games. My 7980XE at 4.3 limits my FPS more often than my 1080 Ti SLI do.
> 
> At the prices I find used 6950X going for, I can buy an entire new 9900K setup (CPU, mobo, waterblock) for less $$, lol


Hi,
Yes 6950x is way overpriced still and for the most part used too lol


----------



## davidm71

Hydroplane said:


> blodflekk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I already know the answer to my question, but I'll ask it here in case someone can give me a glimmer of hope lol
> 
> So I bought myself a 2080Ti because my 1080 died and I wanted to start preparing my rig for 4k gaming. I currently have a 6850 @4.3 and it seems to be bottlenecking my 2080Ti, I'm not getting the bump in frames I was expecting, even with a decent OC on it. My question is, would getting my hands on a 6900 or 6950 get rid of my bottleneck and give me more frames or do I need something that will push closer to 5Ghz? I'm not really wanting to start a new build yet, none of the newest hardware is very exciting.With that being said I don't want to get a 6900/6950 if thats not going improve performance either.
> 
> 
> 
> You have plenty of cores, it's really more of a clock speed / single thread performance thing for games. My 7980XE at 4.3 limits my FPS more often than my 1080 Ti SLI do.
> 
> At the prices I find used 6950X going for, I can buy an entire new 9900K setup (CPU, mobo, waterblock) for less $$, lol
Click to expand...

I would go for the 9900k setup. I have both 9900k and a 6850k overclocked at 4.2ghz and with similar graphic cards the 9900k 3dmark scores smoke the 6850k by about 30 percent thanks to higher physics and combined scores. The 2080ti is begging for 9900k power.


----------



## blodflekk

davidm71 said:


> I would go for the 9900k setup. I have both 9900k and a 6850k overclocked at 4.2ghz and with similar graphic cards the 9900k 3dmark scores smoke the 6850k by about 30 percent thanks to higher physics and combined scores. The 2080ti is begging for 9900k power.


This is what I thought 

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I believe a 6950x would be a lot better compared to 9900k but still price wise it's a sad joke of a purchase 

Used dud probably for 5-600.us though.


----------



## blodflekk

I also checked out the new 1903 bios last night and saw all my benchmarks increase. Cinebench went up about 10 points and real bench went up about 4000 points.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hydroplane

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yes 6950x is way overpriced still and for the most part used too lol


Yup, I have been keeping an eye on the market. Need a 6950X for my ASMR computer lol


----------



## ThrashZone

Hydroplane said:


> Yup, I have been keeping an eye on the market. Need a 6950X for my ASMR computer lol


 Hi,
I saw a 6-700.us "accidentally opened" 6950x a while back now guess that was good but eol so I passed
It's like 12-1300.us lol it's just wild I hope they all eat them silly sucker bait gougers


----------



## Hydroplane

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I saw a 6-700.us "accidentally opened" 6950x a while back now guess that was good but eol so I passed
> It's like 12-1300.us lol it's just wild I hope they all eat them silly sucker bait gougers


It sucks, a year ago they were all $600 used lol


----------



## Desolutional

Hydroplane said:


> It sucks, a year ago they were all $600 used lol


They've gone up because X99 was one of the best platforms all round that Intel ever released. The amount of PCIe lanes and SATA ports at the time was great for a home server or content creation PC. Even though Ryzen and the newer Intel chipsets may have nearly as many cores, they don't have as much features. Also the fact that everyone on X99 knows the 6950X is the final upgrade to it.


----------



## mattliston

Desolutional said:


> They've gone up because X99 was one of the best platforms all round that Intel ever released. The amount of PCIe lanes and SATA ports at the time was great for a home server or content creation PC. Even though Ryzen and the newer Intel chipsets may have nearly as many cores, they don't have as much features. Also the fact that everyone on X99 knows the 6950X is the final upgrade to it.



Dont forget to mention, since X99 is quad channel memory capable, even 4 sticks of basic 2133mhz CL14 ram can provide a butt-ton of bandwidth.


I love the capability of my 5930K, I HATE its overclocking ability though. Needs nearly 1.3 volts vcore to fully stabilize 4.25GHz, though I do run it through the ringer to verify that. Could probably game at 1.2 volts, seeing as I accidentally booted it at 1.15v at that speed, but of course, crashed soon after.


Also, depending on which X99 motherboard, you do have access to all those huge core count Xeons!! Some of them are even unlocked, though very rare to come across online for sale for a reasonable price


----------



## KCDC

I'm still holding onto my 6900k and strix x99 board for a render node. The cpu doesn't get above 4.4 without going past 1.4v, so I may take advantage of my tuning plan warranty and send it in, maybe get a better chip. Or might be a worse chip... 

Or sell it and get a 9900k, but then I wouldn't be able to add two GPUs at x16. That said, I don't think GPU rendering really saturates GPU lanes, so x8 might be fine. Decisions


----------



## djgar

KCDC said:


> I'm still holding onto my 6900k and strix x99 board for a render node. The cpu doesn't get above 4.4 without going past 1.4v, so I may take advantage of my tuning plan warranty and send it in, maybe get a better chip. Or might be a worse chip...
> 
> Or sell it and get a 9900k, but then I wouldn't be able to add two GPUs at x16. That said, I don't think GPU rendering really saturates GPU lanes, so x8 might be fine. Decisions


Same CPU and MB here. I'm OC'd to 4600 but I don't stress it much nowadays .


----------



## wonderin17

Need help in understanding adaptive voltage.

I have my cpu oc'ed, and now I guess i should (?) adjust adaptive voltage.

When I change voltage to adaptive in bios, the VCCSA field disappears and there's only SA Offset left. 
How should I adjust it so I'll get the value I want?

And should I overall use adaptive voltage as a must?


----------



## Nastya

Adaptive voltage is neat if you want additional power-savings in idle, but it's in no way a must.

For VCCSA you will have to see where its default value ranges at, then add the offset on top of that. You could read out the default value with HWiNFO and monitor accordingly.
Usually default is ~0.9V.


----------



## ThrashZone

AndiWandi said:


> Adaptive voltage is neat if you want additional power-savings in idle, but it's in no way a must.
> 
> For VCCSA you will have to see where its default value ranges at, then add the offset on top of that. You could read out the default value with HWiNFO and monitor accordingly.
> Usually default is ~0.9V.


Hi,
Yeah you'd have to go back several pages to see voltages used mostly on auto
https://www.overclock.net/forum/27830206-post7756.html


----------



## wonderin17

AndiWandi said:


> Adaptive voltage is neat if you want additional power-savings in idle, but it's in no way a must.
> 
> For VCCSA you will have to see where its default value ranges at, then add the offset on top of that. You could read out the default value with HWiNFO and monitor accordingly.
> Usually default is ~0.9V.


Well, if manual vcore does no harm to cpu, I guess I'll stick with it


----------



## davidm71

Blameless said:


> I haven't seen much regarding Broadwell-E longevity at various voltage levels, not anything more reliable than one off anecdotes anyway.
> 
> I did deliberately try to kill one of my worst clocking 6800Ks with excessive cache and VCCU (I mined XMR on it for two months with 1.45v cache and +500mV VCCU), but it proved amazingly durable. It was a very low leakage sample though (high stock VID and stayed relatively cool even at high volts).
> 
> Conservatively, I'd think 1.2v cache and +100mV VCCU would probably safe 24/7, even under protracted heavy use. For the more adventurous 1.3v cache and as much as +250mV VCCU might be acceptable. Again though, I haven't had enough samples nor done enough testing over a long enough period of time for any of that to be taken as gospel.



When you say +100mv for Vccu what is that in real absolute terms or values? Reason I ask is I can’t tell if my board is over volting it or not..


Thanks


----------



## Blameless

davidm71 said:


> When you say +100mv for Vccu what is that in real absolute terms or values? Reason I ask is I can’t tell if my board is over volting it or not..


I've only seen VccU listed as an offset. The default is zero. If you think your board might be overvolting it on auto, manually set a very low offset (+ or - a single millivolt, for example) and see if any instability is introduced. If so, gradually increase the offset until issues abate.


----------



## davidm71

Blameless said:


> I've only seen VccU listed as an offset. The default is zero. If you think your board might be overvolting it on auto, manually set a very low offset (+ or - a single millivolt, for example) and see if any instability is introduced. If so, gradually increase the offset until issues abate.


On my MSI X99A board it doesn't display what the current values are but on the info sidebar to the right it says the default is 1.0v. Anyhow it lets you dial it in either with an offset or directly though setting offset mode also makes SA voltage control an offset which its a direct 1.2 volts as of now. I suppose I'll have to change that to 0.200 to get 1.2 volts for SA. Not sure if I'll mess with Vccu as it feels stable right now. Running 3200mhz Corsair Dominators with XMP on without a hiccup. Thanks.


----------



## blodflekk

Wondering if someone could help me understand whats happening. I have a RVE10, I've had it since very shortly after launch, a month ago one of my USB3 ports died on the board and now just 2 days ago one of my sata ports died. I have booted with bios defaults just incase it was something I messed up in bios and it didn't fix the issue so it seems clear my board is slowly dying. My question is, is this just hardware failing? Or is there one of the voltages that could have fried it ?

Lastly if it does completely die, is it worth trying to get my hands on another x99 board to salvage the system or just moving to z390 and a 9900k ?


----------



## davidm71

blodflekk said:


> Wondering if someone could help me understand whats happening. I have a RVE10, I've had it since very shortly after launch, a month ago one of my USB3 ports died on the board and now just 2 days ago one of my sata ports died. I have booted with bios defaults just incase it was something I messed up in bios and it didn't fix the issue so it seems clear my board is slowly dying. My question is, is this just hardware failing? Or is there one of the voltages that could have fried it ?
> 
> Lastly if it does completely die, is it worth trying to get my hands on another x99 board to salvage the system or just moving to z390 and a 9900k ?


Just move on to a Z390 but I wouldn't trust the PSU.


----------



## blodflekk

davidm71 said:


> Just move on to a Z390 but I wouldn't trust the PSU.


PSU is new. The USB port died before putting in the new PSU


----------



## davidm71

blodflekk said:


> PSU is new. The USB port died before putting in the new PSU


Then ok then. Maybe you had a bad motherboard.


----------



## mattliston

I have had motherboards crap out USB and I/O ports, that came back alive after a good cleaning.


Dust can sometimes get conductive and mess with things.


I was fairly lazy, and just dumped a bunch of 70% rubbing alcohol over the board (dont use 90+%), very lightly scrubbed some with a SOFT brush, rinsed it with distilled water, and used a heat gun on LOW to air dry it rather slowly. Probably took me 20 minutes of shaking the board, and flipping it over a few times here and there.



CMOS battery was not installed of course. 



The board I did it on was from a spare computer that was absolutely disgusting (good ol cheap craigslist finds), but it did completely refresh the board. Was an old AM2 AMD board. Overclocking improved on it. I think it was an old phenom cpu that before topped out around 2.8ghz, and after cleaning was able to hit just under 3ghz (I think it was a 1.8ghz or 2ghz chip originally)





Perhaps a good cleaning is in your future?


----------



## blodflekk

Cleaning is a consideration I can make, but to be fair the board is only 2 years old (or is it 3?) and its been in a clean case with dust filters its entire life, I can understand that being an issue on old systems or in dirty cases. The only voltage I can think of with the potential to fry it would be the pch which has been at stock its whole life. I wouldn't have expected an $800 board to just start failing at 2 years old when it hasn't been abused.


----------



## mattliston

I have dust filters in my case and positive air pressure, still gets dusty. I assume its because the case sits over carpet.


Could try HWinfo64 and see if any temp readings are goofy or higher than normal.


a hot PCH can do weird crap, as can hot VRM's. The VRM's also heat soak the circuit board itself near the I/O


----------



## blodflekk

Everything here looks ok, maybe you see something I have overlooked ? This was loaded up immediately after exiting a game too


----------



## ThrashZone

blodflekk said:


> Everything here looks ok, maybe you see something I have overlooked ? This was loaded up immediately after exiting a game too


Hi,
Only item I believe is way over what should be needed is core voltage for your clock of 4.3
You show it's pulling a max voltage of 1.34v+- that's whack :/

All other voltages look okay although for 3200MHz memory the dram voltage is max 1.4v+- not sure that's needed either but I haven't looked at what your ram is you could be oc'ing it to get 3200 and needed more dimm voltage ?


----------



## blodflekk

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Only item I believe is way over what should be needed is core voltage for your clock of 4.3
> You show it's pulling a max voltage of 1.34v+- that's whack :/
> 
> All other voltages look okay although for 3200MHz memory the dram voltage is max 1.4v+- not sure that's needed either but I haven't looked at what your ram is you could be oc'ing it to get 3200 and needed more dimm voltage ?


Its just a turd of an overclocker unfortunately. 1.34 is what it takes to pass 20 runs of linpack. DRAM is a 3200 kit but I have tightened the timings quite a lot so thats why its at 1.4


----------



## ThrashZone

blodflekk said:


> Its just a turd of an overclocker unfortunately. 1.34 is what it takes to pass 20 runs of linpack. DRAM is a 3200 kit but I have tightened the timings quite a lot so thats why its at 1.4


Hi,
Are you using any digi settings like llc or current cpu capability options pasted default ?


----------



## blodflekk

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Are you using any digi settings like llc or current cpu capability options pasted default ?


Yes I am at LLC6 (It can go all the way up to LLC9) and I have maxed out the current capability across the board


----------



## ThrashZone

blodflekk said:


> Yes I am at LLC6 (It can go all the way up to LLC9) and I have maxed out the current capability across the board


Hi,
What percentage does that board go to 200%-240% ?

I've never seen anything good past llc 4 or 5 max personally 
I usually use llc-4


----------



## blodflekk

Current capability is at 240% which I understand is safe and these should always but maxed out to prevent any throttling. After a long gaming session 4.5 hours VRM is at 50c PCH 61c which sounds acceptable to me.


----------



## ThrashZone

MiHi76 said:


> Hello,
> 
> the reason can be a windows update with meltdown and spectre mikrocode fix.
> 
> Check this out https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?104978





djgar said:


> This worked for me: removing mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll in the System32 folder. I saved a copy but haven't needed it so far. Reboot after removing and see the OC back :thumb:


Hi,
OC fix/ workaround got too far back bumping it up


----------



## PimpSkyline

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> OC fix/ workaround got too far back bumping it up


Thank you sir.


----------



## 8051

Does this windows 10 update 'meltdown and spectre microcode fix' cause problems for Broadwell-C's as well? Or just Broadwell-E's?


----------



## Melodist

Is there a workaround for 1903? The OC stopped working again 😭

I think I'm gonna call Intel and insist on getting a different CPU for my 6900k which has still warranty because I've been dealing with that **** forever and it is a bit functioning product.


----------



## ThrashZone

Melodist said:


> Is there a workaround for 1903? The OC stopped working again 😭
> 
> I think I'm gonna call Intel and insist on getting a different CPU for my 6900k which has still warranty because I've been dealing with that **** forever and it is a bit functioning product.


Hi,
Same work around applies to all micro code updates that do the same thing to broadwell-e oc'ing :doh:


----------



## Melodist

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Same work around applies to all micro code updates that do the same thing to broadwell-e oc'ing :doh:


It didn't work before but after the reboot it worked, thanks a lot


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yep a restart is needed


----------



## Bal3Wolf

funny enough after deleting mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll on the newest build of windows 10 i was able to get my 6800k stable on alot less vcore at 4.2ghz befor it was taking over 1.4 now its stable at 1.36.


----------



## AussieGiant

Hi All,



Rookie here. I have read most of this thread though so I'm up to date on my problem. 



3 year old system. i7 6850K OC'd to 4.3Ghz. MSI X99A XPOWER GAMING TITANIUM 



Lost the OC with Win 10 / 1803, solved it with the KB4100347 update removal.


Just skipped 1809, you all know why. Disaster. Moved to 1903 / 18362.175. Lost the OC again. I've been hunting around found the mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll solution.


Took ownership replaced the June 2019 version with an old version from April 2018. Rebooted. Got and error in the boot up and had to repair and received a new 1903 installation. So I've still got no OC.


I'm not a pro, so firmwear updates on the MB are not the direction I want to go. I'm not even sure MSI have released anything to solve the issue on the MB Bios level.


So specific question. I replaced the mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll with an old one. Some of you guys seem to have simply deleted it and not replaced it. Is that accurate? As this seems to be the last specific action to take. Also not sure if the MB manufacturer and Bios might be having an effect as I believe I'm the only person with an MSI Board.



Thanks in advance for everyone's hel. 


Cheers
AG


----------



## 8051

Broadwell-E seems to be a right mess, does Broadwell-C at least come out better in terms of the Windows 10 debacle?


----------



## AussieGiant

Broadwell-E seems to have definitely drawn the short straw with all the microcode work being done. Even Broadwell-C seems to have avoided the brunt of the issues from all my research. When the user base is pretty quiet you know there are not too many issues.


----------



## xkm1948

AussieGiant said:


> Hi All,
> 
> 
> 
> Rookie here. I have read most of this thread though so I'm up to date on my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 3 year old system. i7 6850K OC'd to 4.3Ghz. MSI X99A XPOWER GAMING TITANIUM
> 
> 
> 
> Lost the OC with Win 10 / 1803, solved it with the KB4100347 update removal.
> 
> 
> Just skipped 1809, you all know why. Disaster. Moved to 1903 / 18362.175. Lost the OC again. I've been hunting around found the mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll solution.
> 
> 
> Took ownership replaced the June 2019 version with an old version from April 2018. Rebooted. Got and error in the boot up and had to repair and received a new 1903 installation. So I've still got no OC.
> 
> 
> I'm not a pro, so firmwear updates on the MB are not the direction I want to go. I'm not even sure MSI have released anything to solve the issue on the MB Bios level.
> 
> 
> So specific question. I replaced the mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll with an old one. Some of you guys seem to have simply deleted it and not replaced it. Is that accurate? As this seems to be the last specific action to take. Also not sure if the MB manufacturer and Bios might be having an effect as I believe I'm the only person with an MSI Board.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for everyone's hel.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> AG




http://download.msi.com/bos_exe/mb/7A21v162.zip



Version
7A21v162(Beta version)
Release Date
2019-06-25
File Size
6.63 MB
Description
- Fixed that CPU can not overclock when system update to Widows10 (1903) with old micro code.


You are lucky that MSI actually still updates X99 BIOS, ASUS has given up a year ago although my TUF X99 has 5yrs warranty.


----------



## Satanello

I confirm that the updated bios can solve any problem with the last windows 10 update.
( I have a similar config: 6850k on msi X99 Xpower AC).

Inviato dal mio MI 8 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## AussieGiant

Great thanks xkm1948 & [URL="https://www.overclock.net/forum/members/149527-satanello.html"]Satanello[/URL]


----------



## Desolutional

xkm1948 said:


> http://download.msi.com/bos_exe/mb/7A21v162.zipYou are lucky that MSI actually still updates X99 BIOS, ASUS has given up a year ago although my TUF X99 has 5yrs warranty.


This really bugs me with ASUS products, and makes me absolutely livid. There is no reason why they can't update the BIOS with such a simple fix, the user shouldn't have to remove an essential microcode update to enable overclocking.


----------



## AussieGiant

So I have been drilling into the process in more detail as I have never done this before.



Here is my overall summary;



1) Download and save the new MSI Bios to a USB drive (1).


2) Access the bios and save the current OC profile from the MB onto a different USB drive (2).



3) Using the new MSI Bios on the USB drive (1) follow the instructions to update the MB Bios. 



4) Using the saved OC profile on USB Drive (2) install this on the newly update MB. 


Correct?


I've found one video to outline each step. Specifically step 3. 





Can anyone link me to or describe in detail these steps?


Cheers
AG


----------



## blodflekk

AussieGiant said:


> So I have been drilling into the process in more detail as I have never done this before.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my overall summary;
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Download and save the new MSI Bios to a USB drive (1).
> 
> 
> 2) Access the bios and save the current OC profile from the MB onto a different USB drive (2).
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Using the new MSI Bios on the USB drive (1) follow the instructions to update the MB Bios.
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Using the saved OC profile on USB Drive (2) install this on the newly update MB.
> 
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> I've found one video to outline each step. Specifically step 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRyFMf0D9Lc
> 
> 
> Can anyone link me to or describe in detail these steps?
> 
> 
> Cheers
> AG


It would be interesting if this was the case. On asus boards once you have updated bios, you can't load an oc profile that was saved from a different bios version. 

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

Desolutional said:


> This really bugs me with ASUS products, and makes me absolutely livid. There is no reason why they can't update the BIOS with such a simple fix, the user shouldn't have to remove an essential microcode update to enable overclocking.


Hi,
Yep asus sure shows it's ass when they dump support like they do 
Has anyone actually contacted asus about new bios past last beta ?

I'm just glad haswell-e isn't affected yet :doh:


----------



## Nastya

ThrashZone said:


> Has anyone actually contacted asus about new bios past last beta ?


I did for my Deluxe II, but they basically told me they don't know if there's anything planned in Taiwan.
That was the EU support however, maybe you'll be luckier writing to NA support, perhaps citing their competition releasing updated BIOSes as well.


----------



## ThrashZone

AndiWandi said:


> I did for my Deluxe II, but they basically told me they don't know if there's anything planned in Taiwan.
> That was the EU support however, maybe you'll be luckier writing to NA support, perhaps citing their competition releasing updated BIOSes as well.


Hi,
I've never been able to get through all the silly questions to contact asus


----------



## AussieGiant

blodflekk said:


> It would be interesting if this was the case. On asus boards once you have updated bios, you can't load an oc profile that was saved from a different bios version.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk



Interesting. I did not know that. Can someone confirm what the case is on an MSI x99 board perhaps?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Best to reenter clocks 
You can get a text file while running the profile with some keyboard combo keys forget which ones ctrl+f12 with a fat32 usb connected ?


----------



## AussieGiant

Thanks @ThrashZone 



I've taken a photo of all the settings on the board. Now I just need enough courage to flash the bios, then save the OC setting back onto the board.


----------



## ThrashZone

AussieGiant said:


> Thanks @ThrashZone
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken a photo of all the settings on the board. Now I just need enough courage to flash the bios, then save the OC setting back onto the board.


Hi,
Fat32 usb connected all you have to do is hit the F12 key for print screen function it will be a .bmp file is all but a lot easier than camera/ flash..


----------



## AussieGiant

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Fat32 usb connected all you have to do is hit the F12 key for print screen function it will be a .bmp file is all but a lot easier than camera/ flash..



Thanks for the tip mate. Appreciate the assist. That makes things a lot easier.


----------



## SauronTheGreat

Dear broadwell owners, my 6950x died a while back. i recently bought a 9900k. i will be unsubscribing from here. i wish you all the best of luck and thanks for helping me


----------



## djgar

SauronTheGreat said:


> Dear broadwell owners, my 6950x died a while back. i recently bought a 9900k. i will be unsubscribing from here. i wish you all the best of luck and thanks for helping me


Have fun with your new rig! :thumb:


----------



## Desolutional

Should've gone with the new Ryzen 3rd gen series IMHO, best bang for your buck CPU that is not HEDT at the moment (especially in 4K gaming).


----------



## zoson

I recently picked up 6950x from Frys for $500(woohoo). Swapped my 5960x out and updated my R5E to the latest BIOS 4101 modded to contain the latest microcode(from the bios-mods site). 

I'm wondering if this behavior is expected - or if I messed something up:
I'm using Adaptive Voltage for vcore - setting a 0.060v offset. Then I applied 1.19v on the core for 1.25v total. Bios shows 1.25v total voltage.

However, when I boot into windows, I'm seeing VID vary pretty dramatically between AISuite3 DIP5, CPUz, and Core Temp. At full load, AISuite3 is showing 1.392v, Core Temp is showing 1.3145v, and CPUz is showing 1.293v. The chip does run stable at 4.3GHz with this voltage(Win 10 1803).

I tried increasing and decreasing the additional voltage on the core, and it doesn't ever seem to change how much voltage is being shown in all 3 applications. However, if I change the offset voltage, it does change the amount of voltage being applied.

TL;DR: Does Adaptive voltage simply not work at all on BW-E CPUs? It was working fine for vcore on my 5960x...


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
No you should not use adaptive voltage 
Offset is okay but really manual and just activate c states will do better.

Also be darn sure you peg vccio cpu 1,05 voltage to it's default at 1.05v
Do not exceed 1.15v 
Broadwell-e bios over shoots it quite a bit from what haswell-e bios ever did.


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> No you should not use adaptive voltage
> Offset is okay but really manual and just activate c states will do better.
> 
> Also be darn sure you peg vccio cpu 1,05 voltage to it's default at 1.05v
> Do not exceed 1.15v
> Broadwell-e bios over shoots it quite a bit from what haswell-e bios ever did.


That doesn't answer the question - is adaptive voltage broken?

All my C-states are enabled along with the adaptive voltage. So I should be getting way better power savings than anyone using full manual with just active C-states.

As far as VCCIO CPU I have the literal exact opposite experience right now. My 5960x with VCCIO set to Auto would set about 1.04v, while my 6950x with VCCIO set to Auto was way down at 1.02v. I had to increase it to 1.1v to get it to actually read out at between 1.06v and 1.05v, and under load it still drops down to the 1.04v range.


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> That doesn't answer the question - is adaptive voltage broken?
> 
> All my C-states are enabled along with the adaptive voltage. So I should be getting way better power savings than anyone using full manual with just active C-states.
> 
> As far as VCCIO CPU I have the literal exact opposite experience right now. My 5960x with VCCIO set to Auto would set about 1.04v, while my 6950x with VCCIO set to Auto was way down at 1.02v. I had to increase it to 1.1v to get it to actually read out at between 1.06v and 1.05v, and under load it still drops down to the 1.04v range.


Hi,
Then you are lucky or not using an asus board 
vccio cpu 1.05v on auto and increasing dimm frequency above 2133 I've seen it personally shooting vccio cpu to a little over 1.25v on 5930k 

I now have a 5960x 
Nice score at fry's you got dang I got my 5960x for 450. new off ebay 

6950x and 6900x are stupid expensive 
800.us for 6900x and 1200.us+ for the 6950x


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Then you are lucky or not using an asus board
> vccio cpu 1.05v on auto and increasing dimm frequency above 2133 I've seen it personally shooting vccio cpu to a little over 1.25v on 5930k
> 
> I now have a 5960x
> Nice score at fry's you got dang I got my 5960x for 450. new off ebay
> 
> 6950x and 6900x are stupid expensive
> 800.us for 6900x and 1200.us+ for the 6950x


It's an ASUS Rampage 5 Extreme on BIOS 4101.
Frys still has the 6950x on clearance sale: https://www.frys.com/product/8815102

Again though, the question is - does adaptive voltage simply not work at all on BW-E? I had great results with my 5960x using adaptive voltage + c-states for the lowest possible power consumption, while also being overclocked to 4.5GHz stable at 1.375v total with 4GHz cache on 0.280v offset(since adaptive IS broken on HW-E for cache voltage).


----------



## zoson

After some searching I found this thread:
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...tand-RV-Ed-10-BW-E-with-Adaptive-Core-Voltage
It describes the behavior I'm seeing. So yeah turns out adaptive voltage is broken on BW-E. Or, at least, doesn't function like it did on HW-E.


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> It's an ASUS Rampage 5 Extreme on BIOS 4101.
> Frys still has the 6950x on clearance sale: https://www.frys.com/product/8815102
> 
> Again though, the question is - does adaptive voltage simply not work at all on BW-E? I had great results with my 5960x using adaptive voltage + c-states for the lowest possible power consumption, while also being overclocked to 4.5GHz stable at 1.375v total with 4GHz cache on 0.280v offset(since adaptive IS broken on HW-E for cache voltage).


Hi,
Dang that is too good to pass up should be around here Tuesday 
ebay 5960x sent back an hour ago still in the 30 day return window :thumb:


----------



## djgar

zoson said:


> After some searching I found this thread:
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...tand-RV-Ed-10-BW-E-with-Adaptive-Core-Voltage
> It describes the behavior I'm seeing. So yeah turns out adaptive voltage is broken on BW-E. Or, at least, doesn't function like it did on HW-E.


Working fine on my Asus Strix Gaming.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
If I read that right issue was - negative offset 
Even on skylake-x it's wonky long term so I would expect the same results on x99 

Suggestion that works on skylake-x too is to leave offset on + and auto and use additional turbo for the amount you want 1.2v...
@Jpmboy was indeed correctamundo on that one


----------



## djgar

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> If I read that right issue was - negative offset
> Even on skylake-x it's wonky long term so I would expect the same results on x99
> 
> Suggestion that works on skylake-x too is to leave offset on + and auto and use additional turbo for the amount you want 1.2v...
> @Jpmboy was indeed correctamundo on that one


He certainly was


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> If I read that right issue was - negative offset
> Even on skylake-x it's wonky long term so I would expect the same results on x99
> 
> Suggestion that works on skylake-x too is to leave offset on + and auto and use additional turbo for the amount you want 1.2v...
> @Jpmboy was indeed correctamundo on that one


positive or negative offset sign doesn't matter. It's the fact that "additional turbo" doesn't actually do anything if your chip can go below the intel programmed VID.

Attached is a screenshot to demonstrate. 
1. Note shown TPU settings for vcore is 0.060 offset and 1.140 additional turbo.
2. Note 1.36v core is shown in AI Suite 3.
3. Note CoreTemp shows 1.3145v
4. Note CPUz shows 1.294v

This is on bios 4101. I haven't tried any other bios with my 6950x but I had been running 3801 with my 5960x, so this could be a 4101 BIOS issue. I heard that 4101 with the latest MC was necessary to overclock at all on BW-E since the latest microcode patches.

This is running LLC7, not LLC8 - heat is definitely my issue as can be seen by the 93C full load temp of my hottest two cores(4 hours of RealBench).

Again, the entire issue is literally that it doesn't respect the additional turbo voltage. Offset definitely changes the amount of voltage, but it completely ignores the maximum voltage of 1.2v total since it's below the hard set VID as described in the thread I linked.

Adaptive voltage doesn't work as it used to with HW-E. There's some voltage wall that BW-E cpu's won't drop below for specific clockspeeds, regardless of if the cpu could likely run fine under the hardcoded VID.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Last I saw Jpmboy was using for 4.4 was offset +0.010 and additional turbo at 1.275v this info is well over 1 year old
Kind of out of the ordinary since on x299 he uses offset on auto so seems a little difference exists between the two.

Ai suite well user beware


----------



## xkm1948

zoson said:


> I recently picked up 6950x from Frys for $500(woohoo). Swapped my 5960x out and updated my R5E to the latest BIOS 4101 modded to contain the latest microcode(from the bios-mods site).
> 
> I'm wondering if this behavior is expected - or if I messed something up:
> I'm using Adaptive Voltage for vcore - setting a 0.060v offset. Then I applied 1.19v on the core for 1.25v total. Bios shows 1.25v total voltage.
> 
> However, when I boot into windows, I'm seeing VID vary pretty dramatically between AISuite3 DIP5, CPUz, and Core Temp. At full load, AISuite3 is showing 1.392v, Core Temp is showing 1.3145v, and CPUz is showing 1.293v. The chip does run stable at 4.3GHz with this voltage(Win 10 1803).
> 
> I tried increasing and decreasing the additional voltage on the core, and it doesn't ever seem to change how much voltage is being shown in all 3 applications. However, if I change the offset voltage, it does change the amount of voltage being applied.
> 
> TL;DR: Does Adaptive voltage simply not work at all on BW-E CPUs? It was working fine for vcore on my 5960x...



Hey man, what microcode does 4101 have for broadwell-e? Also what is the latest micocode? I thought 4101 already has latest 36 microcode


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Looks to be Rev. 0x43 spectre patched cve-2017-5715 on 4101 but still with 5930k atm Monday night will have 6950x installed doubt it changes though.


----------



## zoson

xkm1948 said:


> Hey man, what microcode does 4101 have for broadwell-e? Also what is the latest micocode? I thought 4101 already has latest 36 microcode





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Looks to be Rev. 0x43 spectre patched cve-2017-5715 on 4101 but still with 5930k atm Monday night will have 6950x installed doubt it changes though.


MC 37h.
See screenshots from both AIDA64 and from Regedit attached. You can tell it's the latest because in regedit the "Previous Update Revision" and "Update Revision" match.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
My bad thought cpu-z showed the info on validate page


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> My bad thought cpu-z showed the info on validate page


It does: https://valid.x86.fr/jt5w47


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> It does: https://valid.x86.fr/jt5w47


Hi,
Well that is what I posted but very different than yours 
I believe could be wrong there too xkm1948 is on a x99 sabertooth like I'm on if memory serves me or unless he bailed and bought another one.
I haven't install aida64 yet maybe later.


----------



## xkm1948

zoson said:


> MC 37h.
> See screenshots from both AIDA64 and from Regedit attached. You can tell it's the latest because in regedit the "Previous Update Revision" and "Update Revision" match.


So 4101 BIOS has 37h MC for Broadwell-E? Somehow I thought 36 is the latest. NVM then!


----------



## zoson

Sorry guys, just remembered - I flashed Sylar's modded 4101 from this thread: https://www.win-raid.com/t1893f44-OFFER-ASUS-Rampage-V-Extreme-modded-BIOSes-26.html#msg83681
4101 may come with a lower MC.


----------



## xkm1948

zoson said:


> Sorry guys, just remembered - I flashed Sylar's modded 4101 from this thread: https://www.win-raid.com/t1893f44-OFFER-ASUS-Rampage-V-Extreme-modded-BIOSes-26.html#msg83681
> 4101 may come with a lower MC.



4101 has microcode 36. I just flashed my Sabertooth with 6950X


----------



## zoson

xkm1948 said:


> 4101 has microcode 36. I just flashed my Sabertooth with 6950X


Can you check if your adaptive voltage actually works - or if it does something like i show in my screenshots?
I wonder if this is an issue caused by MC 37h.


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> Can you check if your adaptive voltage actually works - or if it does something like i show in my screenshots?
> I wonder if this is an issue caused by MC 37h.


Hi,
Very much doubt he'd use adaptive on any voltage since he's preached agaist it may times 

Your issue is pretty clear 
19c difference in core temps 74-93c
Thermal paste spread is terrible or chip is crap.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
One of you guys run cinebench R20 please 
Not sure I'm going to pick up my 6950x 4.3-4.4 is just not all that trilling even for a new one at 500.us.


----------



## xkm1948

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> One of you guys run cinebench R20 please
> Not sure I'm going to pick up my 6950x 4.3-4.4 is just not all that trilling even for a new one at 500.us.


4.2GHz, not sure if it is worth it for you. 

Personally I am waiting for 3rd gen TR. If anyone want my 6950X I will let it go with this Sabertooth X99 board for $600 after I get TR3


----------



## ThrashZone

xkm1948 said:


> 4.2GHz, not sure if it is worth it for you.
> 
> Personally I am waiting for 3rd gen TR. If anyone want my 6950X I will let it go with this Sabertooth X99 board for $600 after I get TR3


Hi,
Spot on what I was wanting nice clock and core voltage that does beat a lot of 9900k's at 5.1-2 :thumb:

What did your cpu package temp hit on that 4.2 is the missing info 
Probably not too bad I expect you've always had a pretty good cooling system if I remember correctly 
You lack any rig in sig so hard to remember


----------



## KingCry

Is BW-E still a good buy on x99? It seems used market for BW-E is still really expensive...


----------



## ThrashZone

KingCry said:


> Is BW-E still a good buy on x99? It seems used market for BW-E is still really expensive...


Hi,
Fry's has them on sell 
New ones for 499.99 but they are gone or sell is over

https://www.frys.com/product/8815102


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

zoson said:


> After some searching I found this thread:
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...tand-RV-Ed-10-BW-E-with-Adaptive-Core-Voltage
> It describes the behavior I'm seeing. So yeah turns out adaptive voltage is broken on BW-E. Or, at least, doesn't function like it did on HW-E.


Hmm Adaptive seems to work fine on my 6950X on an Asus X99M-WS...I set to 1.38v for 4.4GHz and its dropping on idle and going to what I set under load.

But it does apply different voltages on every core, I just assumed its a thing on BW-E because its aware of each core's silicon quality and knows which needs more voltage I assume.


----------



## KingCry

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Fry's has them on sell
> New ones for 499.99 but they are gone or sell is over
> 
> https://www.frys.com/product/8815102


All gone I'm on HW-E right now and was really wanting to play with BW-E but for the tune of 800$ on ebay I'm not 100% sure about it.


----------



## ThrashZone

Awesomeguy10578 said:


> Hmm Adaptive seems to work fine on my 6950X on an Asus X99M-WS...I set to 1.38v for 4.4GHz and its dropping on idle and going to what I set under load.
> 
> But it does apply different voltages on every core, I just assumed its a thing on BW-E because its aware of each core's silicon quality and knows which needs more voltage I assume.


Hi,
Yep if that different vid differs too much it probably creates instability 
You'd have good cores I really believe they are Lazy cores that don't need a lot of voltage to hit a clock 
And others that jack the vid's way up and get hot 

Splitting the difference on skylake-x really helps bring in stability so the difference in vid's isn't more than say 0.025 apart helps it a lot.
A lot of tuning to accomplish and not sure it's all that possible on BWE per core tuning either so one is best off using manual voltage and find a happy medium core voltage for all core.

But looking at some more recent settings from Jpmboy seems he is back on offset +auto and just applies to additional turbo what he wants to use 
Again did not see anything about him using per core tuning.


----------



## xkm1948

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Spot on what I was wanting nice clock and core voltage that does beat a lot of 9900k's at 5.1-2 :thumb:
> 
> What did your cpu package temp hit on that 4.2 is the missing info
> Probably not too bad I expect you've always had a pretty good cooling system if I remember correctly
> You lack any rig in sig so hard to remember


During full load CPU package hits ~78C for 4.2GHz. That is with no cache OC and 128GB RAM at [email protected]

Hottest core is about 72C


----------



## Awesomeguy10578

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep if that different vid differs too much it probably creates instability
> You'd have good cores I really believe they are Lazy cores that don't need a lot of voltage to hit a clock
> And others that jack the vid's way up and get hot
> 
> Splitting the difference on skylake-x really helps bring in stability so the difference in vid's isn't more than say 0.025 apart helps it a lot.
> A lot of tuning to accomplish and not sure it's all that possible on BWE per core tuning either so one is best off using manual voltage and find a happy medium core voltage for all core.
> 
> But looking at some more recent settings from Jpmboy seems he is back on offset +auto and just applies to additional turbo what he wants to use
> Again did not see anything about him using per core tuning.


I see, seems to work pretty well for me though. My CPU is under an H80i V2 with a Noctua NF-F12 IPPC 3000 fan and also with thermal grizzly conductonaut and temps stay below 80C except for the highest loads where it still stays low 80s. 

I got the cores to 4.4GHz while 3 of them can go up to 4.5GHz, where the different VIDs helps because the 4.5GHz cores needs a bit more voltage. And yes this is 100% stable being stress tested overnight with x264, cinebench r20, etc. and also I do a lot of video editing in premiere pro. 

Another thing is in my observation the higher VID cores doesn't seem to run hotter at all, in fact the lower VID ones runs hotter on my CPU. I think the voltage differences doesn't affect the temps too much.


----------



## ThrashZone

KingCry said:


> All gone I'm on HW-E right now and was really wanting to play with BW-E but for the tune of 800$ on ebay I'm not 100% sure about it.


Hi,
Yep that happens 
They actually lost my order for a while
UPS finally found it yesterday and I set it to hold for pick up 

I guess I'll post it on ebay for 1050.us and see if I get any hits no returns of course :thinking:


----------



## ThrashZone

KingCry said:


> All gone I'm on HW-E right now and was really wanting to play with BW-E but for the tune of 800$ on ebay I'm not 100% sure about it.


Hi,
Monitor Fry's website 
The 6950x they sent me was open box/ used so I returned for full refund after they wouldn't discount it further.


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Very much doubt he'd use adaptive on any voltage since he's preached agaist it may times
> 
> Your issue is pretty clear
> 19c difference in core temps 74-93c
> Thermal paste spread is terrible or chip is crap.


I've remounted a couple times - the first time I thought it must have been a bad paste application - but it looked fine. After remounting things stayed the same. It seems like I have two cores that are not properly soldered or something. I've been considering trying to reflow it.



Awesomeguy10578 said:


> Hmm Adaptive seems to work fine on my 6950X on an Asus X99M-WS...I set to 1.38v for 4.4GHz and its dropping on idle and going to what I set under load.
> 
> But it does apply different voltages on every core, I just assumed its a thing on BW-E because its aware of each core's silicon quality and knows which needs more voltage I assume.


The thing I'd be interested in you trying is setting your additional turbo voltage to 1.2v and seeing if after you boot into windows - if it still sets 1.38v. That's what i'm seeing... It doesn't matter what I set for additional turbo, it just applies whatever voltage it wants based on the per-core VID.


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> I've remounted a couple times - the first time I thought it must have been a bad paste application - but it looked fine. After remounting things stayed the same. It seems like I have two cores that are not properly soldered or something. I've been considering trying to reflow it.
> 
> 
> The thing I'd be interested in you trying is setting your additional turbo voltage to 1.2v and seeing if after you boot into windows - if it still sets 1.38v. That's what i'm seeing... It doesn't matter what I set for additional turbo, it just applies whatever voltage it wants based on the per-core VID.


Hi,
The only way I know how to judge good or bad cores is with manual voltage 
Hitting them all with the same voltage and run high cpu benchmark like blender classroom rendering file or bmw a short one works too if you don;t want to hit it with a 15 minute rendering file like classroom is 
BMW is only 5 minutes... but will get all cores active without using prime... unrealistic environment test.

From what I've seen 4.1 @ 1.23 should be easy and good base
Or just set what xkm1948 did 4.2 at 1.260v he posted his cpu package temp as 78c and just run cinebench R20 



> During full load CPU package hits ~78C for 4.2GHz. That is with no cache OC and 128GB RAM at [email protected]
> 
> Hottest core is about 72C


----------



## blodflekk

I'm on RVE10 running bios 1903 and performance has been good. Probably best performance of all the revisions. I have just noticed they released v2101. Has anyone tried this? How is performance? Worth the update?


----------



## D-EJ915

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep that happens
> They actually lost my order for a while
> UPS finally found it yesterday and I set it to hold for pick up
> 
> I guess I'll post it on ebay for 1050.us and see if I get any hits no returns of course :thinking:





KingCry said:


> All gone I'm on HW-E right now and was really wanting to play with BW-E but for the tune of 800$ on ebay I'm not 100% sure about it.





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Monitor Fry's website
> The 6950x they sent me was open box/ used so I returned for full refund after they wouldn't discount it further.


They've also got the 6900K for 369 and unlike the 6950X it shows in stock for some stores, might be worth giving them a call see if they actually have any. https://www.frys.com/product/8822232?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> I've remounted a couple times - the first time I thought it must have been a bad paste application - but it looked fine. After remounting things stayed the same. It seems like I have two cores that are not properly soldered or something. I've been considering trying to reflow it.
> 
> .


Hi,
An aio I believe is what you're using for cpu cooler 
Never worked well for my 7900x both 6950x being equal 10 cores and hot buggers with it's pigeon poop verses your solder I wouldn't expect it to work very well 
aio worked okay for my 5930k till the h110i gt died after 30 months.


----------



## djgar

I can't believe my trusty 6900K is just over three years old! 

I did pay 1 grand for it! :cryingsmi


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> An aio I believe is what you're using for cpu cooler
> Never worked well for my 7900x both 6950x being equal 10 cores and hot buggers with it's pigeon poop verses your solder I wouldn't expect it to work very well
> aio worked okay for my 5930k till the h110i gt died after 30 months.


More wrong assumptions dude. I have a full custom loop, and I've been building full custom loops since 1999.


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> More wrong assumptions dude. I have a full custom loop, and I've been building full custom loops since 1999.


Hi,
Oops
Well fry's sent me a used chip so was yours used too ?
I returned mine for just the type of issues you point out likely returned because of hot cores.

Funny looked at the new add on the 6950x and it still states nothing about being used/ open box


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Oops
> Well fry's sent me a used chip so was yours used too ?
> I returned mine for just the type of issues you point out likely returned because of hot cores.
> 
> Funny looked at the new add on the 6950x and it still states nothing about being used/ open box


Mine was BNIB.


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> Mine was BNIB.


Hi,
Lucky you got a new chip and unlucky seems with two hot cores.


----------



## xkm1948

ThrashZone said:


> zoson said:
> 
> 
> 
> More wrong assumptions dude. I have a full custom loop, and I've been building full custom loops since 1999.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Oops
> Well fry's sent me a used chip so was yours used too ?
> I returned mine for just the type of issues you point out likely returned because of hot cores.
> 
> Funny looked at the new add on the 6950x and it still states nothing about being used/ open box /forum/images/smilies/whistle.gif
Click to expand...


You can easily get it and then register for Intel’s tuning plan and have them send you a brand new one. Intel is great for its RMA


----------



## ThrashZone

xkm1948 said:


> You can easily get it and then register for Intel’s tuning plan and have them send you a brand new one. Intel is great for its RMA


Hi,
Not according to this fellow 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/1728628-intel-tuning-protection-plan-joke.html


----------



## zoson

xkm1948 said:


> You can easily get it and then register for Intel’s tuning plan and have them send you a brand new one. Intel is great for its RMA


You can't get it for the 6950x any more since it's EOL.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Only cpu I saw for tuning protection simply advertised on Intel site was for 9900k nothing else 
But frankly I've never registered a cpu 

Intel so far is great on rma'ing a dead cpu 
From the link I posted earlier tuning protection well it wasn't great dude has to kill his chip to get maybe a new one


----------



## KCDC

djgar said:


> I can't believe my trusty 6900K is just over three years old!
> 
> I did pay 1 grand for it! :cryingsmi



Mine went into a fellow designer's build I did for them, or I'd still have mine in another node. He's quite pleased with it since he was a die-hard mac guy. Always fun showing them the light when it comes to 3D stuff.


----------



## MiHi76

Hello guys, does anyone already use Windows 1903?
Does the OC still work?


----------



## djgar

MiHi76 said:


> Hello guys, does anyone already use Windows 1903?
> Does the OC still work?


I've been keeping Windows up-to-date, the latest being 1903 295, but I've been removing mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll from Windows/System32, the last one I removed was from May and apparently hasn't been updated since. Out of curiosity I just replaced it and rebooted, and I'll be damned, I'm still getting my 4600GHz OC!


----------



## MiHi76

djgar said:


> I've been keeping Windows up-to-date, the latest being 1903 295, but I've been removing mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll from Windows/System32, the last one I removed was from May and apparently hasn't been updated since. Out of curiosity I just replaced it and rebooted, and I'll be damned, I'm still getting my 4600GHz OC!


Thanks! I think it's only because you are using the latest beta bios 2101. I've have read a thread at techpowerup where some guys lost their OC after upgrading to 1903. Conclusion Upgrading to Windows 1903 and OC requires the new BIOS.
I'll will wait with 1903 until the bios is no more a beta bios.


----------



## djgar

MiHi76 said:


> Thanks! I think it's only because you are using the latest beta bios 2101. I've have read a thread at techpowerup where some guys lost their OC after upgrading to 1903. Conclusion Upgrading to Windows 1903 and OC requires the new BIOS.
> I'll will wait with 1903 until the bios is no more a beta bios.


It may remain beta forever. The previous 1903 bios was never non-beta before 2101 came out.


----------



## blodflekk

I'm getting some strange results. I recently updated bios to 2101 and instead of just copying over OC settings from previous OC I decided to start from scratch to see if there were any variances between bios'. There weren't, I hit the same clocks on the same voltages. I passed all my usual stress tests and everything seemed fine, but I was getting some crashes in games, various different games. Just to be sure I verified game files to rule that out and reset gpu OC to stock but as suspected that changed nothing. I decided to run hwinfo64 in the background while I gamed to see what was going on and I'm seeing numbers that shouldn't be there. To be clear I set all values manually and also using fixed voltage and all power saving features disabled. 

So I guess my question would be, is this an issue within bios 2101 ? Or could there be something else causing this? Running win 7 No updates since 2014


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Which version of hwinfo ?
6.08.3830 seems fine to me newest is kind of quirky.


----------



## blodflekk

Its version 6.10-03880


----------



## blodflekk

I mean 6.10-3880


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I'd try an older version like the one I posted.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I use the portable ones
https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO-old.html


----------



## blodflekk

Ok thanks, I'll give that a try tomorrow on my next session and see what's up.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Newer ones like I said are quirky meaning black is all over the place and that causes the wild max frequency readings.


----------



## blodflekk

Something good to keep in mind

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

blodflekk said:


> Something good to keep in mind
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


Hi,
Also I'd set cpu strap at 100 and memory blk also at 100 see what that does.


----------



## blodflekk

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 
> Also I'd set cpu strap at 100 and memory blk also at 100 see what that does.


They were set to 100

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## blodflekk

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Also I'd set cpu strap at 100 and memory blk also at 100 see what that does.


Still seeing some drops in HWiNFO64 6.08 but not as drastic. BCLK is dropping to 96.3 when its locked to 100. Still think this is a monitoring issue? I don't recall seeing this on previous bios versions


----------



## ThrashZone

blodflekk said:


> I'm getting some strange results. I recently updated bios to 2101 and instead of just copying over OC settings from previous OC I decided to start from scratch to see if there were any variances between bios'. There weren't, I hit the same clocks on the same voltages. I passed all my usual stress tests and everything seemed fine, but I was getting some crashes in games, various different games. Just to be sure I verified game files to rule that out and reset gpu OC to stock but as suspected that changed nothing. I decided to run hwinfo64 in the background while I gamed to see what was going on and I'm seeing numbers that shouldn't be there. To be clear I set all values manually and also using fixed voltage and all power saving features disabled.
> 
> So I guess my question would be, is this an issue within bios 2101 ? Or could there be something else causing this? Running win 7 No updates since 2014


Hi,
Yeah weird maybe someone else can replicate the issue :/
My bus and pci-e readings pretty much stick to 100 as set in bios but this is sabertooth 2101 bios for haswell-e.

One thing you might try though 
Right click the hwinfo icon on the action center and select settings 
Safety section 
Lower left uncheck Periodic polling and save and exit.
hwinfo developer suggested that some time ago for weird blk readings like this don't think it actually worked and older version is what I ended up doing as well.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/21-...ion/1235672-official-hwinfo-32-64-thread.html


----------



## D-EJ915

blodflekk said:


> Still seeing some drops in HWiNFO64 6.08 but not as drastic. BCLK is dropping to 96.3 when its locked to 100. Still think this is a monitoring issue? I don't recall seeing this on previous bios versions


Do you have hyperv installed or virtualization enabled ? I ran into bclk being really low before on my 5820k and it went back to normal when I disabled those. It was really strange.


----------



## blodflekk

No I don't, those are disabled by default too. Going to put some load through it again and see if there are changes

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## blodflekk

I disabled periodic polling like suggested, also set BLCK recovery to disabled and everything looks good now, ran one hour of real bench and no fluctuations at all. Thanks for the help


----------



## zoson

There was something wrong with that first 6950x I got from Microcenter from the get-go. I ended up sending it in for warranty to Intel and got another one. At the exact same settings - the new chip runs a full 20C cooler on the hottest core. So now I'm at 73C max at 4.3GHz Core with 1.3v and 3.5GHz Cache with 1.25v.


----------



## MiHi76

zoson said:


> There was something wrong with that first 6950x I got from Microcenter from the get-go. I ended up sending it in for warranty to Intel and got another one. At the exact same settings - the new chip runs a full 20C cooler on the hottest core. So now I'm at 73C max at 4.3GHz Core with 1.3v and 3.5GHz Cache with 1.25v.


20C Delta is pretty much. I suspect the old one was not soldered well. Your cache voltage is pretty high for 24/7. I let mine run with 3400 @ 1.09V.


----------



## zoson

MiHi76 said:


> 20C Delta is pretty much. I suspect the old one was not soldered well. Your cache voltage is pretty high for 24/7. I let mine run with 3400 @ 1.09V.


The ASUS BW-E overclocking guide suggests 1.3v is the 'max' for cache. Have there been other guides suggesting a different? I do need 1.25v to be stable at 3.5GHz... I'll test next weekend to see if I can run 3.4GHz with much lower voltage...


----------



## Desolutional

zoson said:


> The ASUS BW-E overclocking guide suggests 1.3v is the 'max' for cache. Have there been other guides suggesting a different? I do need 1.25v to be stable at 3.5GHz... I'll test next weekend to see if I can run 3.4GHz with much lower voltage...


There have been reports of chips degrading before at those 1.3V, the gains in overclocking the cache on BW-E without an O.C. socket are weak, so it's not generally recommended.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Cache well under 1.2v.


----------



## Desolutional

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Cache well under 1.2v.


For reference, my cache is set to 3.2GHz at 1.06V, offset +0.070V on a 6950X, 3.3GHz and 3.4GHz all took increasingly larger amounts of Vring to stabilise, so not worth the trade off for me.


----------



## zoson

Desolutional said:


> There have been reports of chips degrading before at those 1.3V, the gains in overclocking the cache on BW-E without an O.C. socket are weak, so it's not generally recommended.


I have an OC socket... lol... check the signature. RVE.


----------



## MiHi76

zoson said:


> I have an OC socket... lol... check the signature. RVE.


Yes you have a OC-Socket but Broadwell-e CPU do not have any Contacts to use the extended Socket-Contacts!
Oc Socket works only with Haswell-e.

So, you're not able to push the Broadwell-e-Cach-Freq as far as Haswell-e-Cache-Freq.


----------



## zoson

MiHi76 said:


> Yes you have a OC-Socket but Broadwell-e CPU do not have any Contacts to use the extended Socket-Contacts!
> Oc Socket works only with Haswell-e.
> 
> So, you're not able to push the Broadwell-e-Cach-Freq as far as Haswell-e-Cache-Freq.


Ahhhh! I see. I didn't realize BW-E was missing the contacts. Well that sucks...
Anyway, so 1.25v is too high... 1.2v was mentioned earlier... Is this the recommended 'safe' max voltage? Basically I should set 1.2v and then see how high I can push my cache? I'm not short on cooling...


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> Ahhhh! I see. I didn't realize BW-E was missing the contacts. Well that sucks...
> Anyway, so 1.25v is too high... 1.2v was mentioned earlier... Is this the recommended 'safe' max voltage? Basically I should set 1.2v and then see how high I can push my cache? I'm not short on cooling...


Hi,
Don't think it matters the over volt jumper has to be activated regardless on the board it's off by default.


----------



## MiHi76

zoson said:


> Ahhhh! I see. I didn't realize BW-E was missing the contacts. Well that sucks...
> Anyway, so 1.25v is too high... 1.2v was mentioned earlier... Is this the recommended 'safe' max voltage? Basically I should set 1.2v and then see how high I can push my cache? I'm not short on cooling...


If you're comfortable with 1.2V I would do it that way. But 1.15V should also be enough for 3400Mhz cache and the most CPU's.
Source:


----------



## Desolutional

Also worth bearing in mind, 1.15V is relatively a large amount of voltage for such a small gain on cache, compare that to your CPU cores and Vcore trend, and you'll start to realise the gains on cache aren't as great as you may imagine.


----------



## GRABibus

Got a new 6900K today.
Started to check it’s limits in OC.
To what I could test during last 4 hours, this chip will do 4,3GHz-4,4GHz with Vcore 1,3V-1,35V.
I will not go higher than 1,35V ( Realbench used as stress test). Cooler is EVGA CLC 280 with Noctua NT-H1 thermal paste.
For Cache, it will do 3,5GHz or 3,6GHz at 1,2V ( it will be definitely confirmed with hours of HCI MemTest and cache stress test from Aida64)


----------



## zoson

Spent a bunch of time yesterday working on my cache OC. I switched off Adaptive to Offset. I had been running 0.060v offset and 1.19v turbo for the 1.25v - now just running 0.230 offset, which gives me a peak voltage of 1.163v at 3.4GHz Cache. Passed 4 hours of realbench and 20 instances of 2048MB HCI memtest up to 400%! Seems Adaptive Cache just requires more voltage to be properly stable.

End result is:
4.3GHz Core using Adaptive -0.020 Offset and 1.28v Turbo for 1.26v full load
3.4GHz Cache using Offset 0.230 for 1.163v full load
3.2GHz Memory 14-14-14-34 with 1.385v VDDR, 0.060v VCCSA Offset for 0.888v full load and 1.093v VCCIO CPU, which results in about 1.053v VCCIO.
1.84v CPU Input and LLC7 (droops to 1.79v)

End result is that I'm running lower voltage and this also ended up reducing my max core temp from 73C to 70C!


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Wouldn't it of been easier to just go manual cache voltage instead of playing with either adaptive or offset modes.
Think Jp already posted 1.18v for 34 cache.

Also you really shouldn't be using -0.00 on any offset or adaptive voltage it's very unpredictable on restart or cold start.


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Wouldn't it of been easier to just go manual cache voltage instead of playing with either adaptive or offset modes.
> Think Jp already posted 1.18v for 34 cache.
> 
> Also you really shouldn't be using -0.00 on any offset or adaptive voltage it's very unpredictable on restart or cold start.


I've run adaptive since I got my 5960x years ago. And before that with my 990x. And before that with my q9650... etc etc.
If you did your research, you'd see that -offset on core is the only way to overclock BW-E properly using adaptive. Also I have had 0 restart of cold start problems. So yeah, not really.

It has nothing to do with easy and everything to do with 'the best overclock' - maintain the best possible power saving while also achieving the highest possible overclock. I'm an advanced overclocker, not a novice that needs the crutch of manual.


----------



## ThrashZone

zoson said:


> I've run adaptive since I got my 5960x years ago. And before that with my 990x. And before that with my q9650... etc etc.
> If you did your research, you'd see that -offset on core is the only way to overclock BW-E properly using adaptive. Also I have had 0 restart of cold start problems. So yeah, not really.
> 
> It has nothing to do with easy and everything to do with 'the best overclock' - maintain the best possible power saving while also achieving the highest possible overclock. I'm an advanced overclocker, not a novice that needs the crutch of manual.


Hi,
Well I too used -offset so it is what it is 

But adaptive was not the issue at all it's really just the negative symbol 
Adaptive with +offset at auto and additional turbo with what ever voltage you want to end up using is more reliable bottom line.
Carry on


----------



## zoson

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Well I too used -offset so it is what it is
> 
> But adaptive was not the issue at all it's really just the negative symbol
> Adaptive with +offset at auto and additional turbo with what ever voltage you want to end up using is more reliable bottom line.
> Carry on


Except my chip can do -20mv from what it auto selects, so I get lower voltages on the lower bins, saving power. To put it another way, I'm undervolting for normal bins, but overvolting when running faster than stock.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yep like I said before I've used it too so been there


----------



## 8051

zoson said:


> Except my chip can do -20mv from what it auto selects, so I get lower voltages on the lower bins, saving power. To put it another way, I'm undervolting for normal bins, but overvolting when running faster than stock.


So this is what adaptive voltage does. Does the voltage change quickly enough to keep up w/load spikes?


----------



## MiHi76

8051 said:


> So this is what adaptive voltage does. Does the voltage change quickly enough to keep up w/load spikes?


Yes, it works perfectly!


----------



## MiHi76

zoson said:


> Spent a bunch of time yesterday working on my cache OC. I switched off Adaptive to Offset. I had been running 0.060v offset and 1.19v turbo for the 1.25v - now just running 0.230 offset, which gives me a peak voltage of 1.163v at 3.4GHz Cache. Passed 4 hours of realbench and 20 instances of 2048MB HCI memtest up to 400%! Seems Adaptive Cache just requires more voltage to be properly stable.
> 
> End result is:
> 4.3GHz Core using Adaptive -0.020 Offset and 1.28v Turbo for 1.26v full load
> 3.4GHz Cache using Offset 0.230 for 1.163v full load
> 3.2GHz Memory 14-14-14-34 with 1.385v VDDR, 0.060v VCCSA Offset for 0.888v full load and 1.093v VCCIO CPU, which results in about 1.053v VCCIO.
> 1.84v CPU Input and LLC7 (droops to 1.79v)


I thought too that i'm Rb 2.56 stable but BFV is harder and i need 12mV more to be stable in BFV.
No AVX Offset BFV 4.3 GHz @ 1.272V <-> No AVX Offset RB 2.56 4.3GHz @ 1.26V 
BFV uses AVX more than RB.
PS. Adaptive voltage on Cache don't work! Don't use it- Use manual or offset.


----------



## zoson

MiHi76 said:


> zoson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spent a bunch of time yesterday working on my cache OC. I switched off Adaptive to Offset. I had been running 0.060v offset and 1.19v turbo for the 1.25v - now just running 0.230 offset, which gives me a peak voltage of 1.163v at 3.4GHz Cache. Passed 4 hours of realbench and 20 instances of 2048MB HCI memtest up to 400%! Seems Adaptive Cache just requires more voltage to be properly stable.
> 
> End result is:
> 4.3GHz Core using Adaptive -0.020 Offset and 1.28v Turbo for 1.26v full load
> 3.4GHz Cache using Offset 0.230 for 1.163v full load
> 3.2GHz Memory 14-14-14-34 with 1.385v VDDR, 0.060v VCCSA Offset for 0.888v full load and 1.093v VCCIO CPU, which results in about 1.053v VCCIO.
> 1.84v CPU Input and LLC7 (droops to 1.79v)
> 
> 
> 
> I thought too that i'm Rb 2.56 stable but BFV is harder and i need 12mV more to be stable in BFV.
> No AVX Offset BFV 4.3 GHz @ 1.272V <-> No AVX Offset RB 2.56 4.3GHz @ 1.26V
> BFV uses AVX2 more than RB.
> PS. Adaptive voltage on Cache don't work! Don't use it- Use manual or offset.
Click to expand...

Adaptive voltage on cache doesn't work on HW-E, it does work on BW-E - but seems to require more voltage than offset for stability.


----------



## Ragsters

Hey guys. I have had a 6800k since release and its been great. Is it worth upgrading to the 6850k? I will not be taking advantage of the extra pci-e lanes so im purely talking about processor power.


----------



## ThrashZone

Ragsters said:


> Hey guys. I have had a 6800k since release and its been great. Is it worth upgrading to the 6850k? I will not be taking advantage of the extra pci-e lanes so im purely talking about processor power.


Hi,
Both 6 core 
Only difference is turbo & base clock 6850x is 0.020 more.


----------



## Ragsters

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Both 6 core
> Only difference is turbo & base clock 6850x is 0.020 more.


I think you are off by 10x. Looks like the difference in clock speed is actually 0.2.

3.6 GHz vs 3.4 GHz


----------



## ThrashZone

Ragsters said:


> I think you are off by 10x. Looks like the difference in clock speed is actually 0.2.
> 
> 3.6 GHz vs 3.4 GHz


Hi,
Oops yep still hardly an upgrade 
6900 or 6950x are upgrades 

Worth it or not depends on budget.
Some 500.us ++ used ones on ebay


----------



## GRABibus

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Oops yep still hardly an upgrade
> 6900 or 6950x are upgrades
> 
> Worth it or not depends on budget.
> Some 500.us ++ used ones on ebay


Got a 6900k at 330$ on EBay this week.
It does 4,[email protected],38V (adaptative mode) and cache 3,[email protected],27V (offset mode +0,294V).
Vccsa=0,8V (offset = -0,145V)
Vccin=1,81V (LLC7)
Stable Realbench stress test « 8hours/32GB RAM», HCI MemTest 1000% and aida64 « Cache stress test » 4 hours.
Cooled with EVGA CLC 280.


----------



## ThrashZone

GRABibus said:


> Got a 6900k at 330$ on EBay this week.
> It does 4,[email protected],38V (adaptative mode) and cache 3,[email protected],27V (offset mode +0,294V).
> Vccsa=0,8V (offset = -0,145V)
> Vccin=1,81V (LLC7)
> Stable Realbench stress test « 8hours/32GB RAM», HCI MemTest 1000% and aida64 « Cache stress test » 4 hours.
> Cooled with EVGA CLC 280.


Hi,
Local fry's says they have a new 6900x for 400.us 
Doubt it's new though they seem not to know the difference between open box/ used and new


----------



## GRABibus

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Local fry's says they have a new 6900x for 400.us
> Doubt it's new though they seem not to know the difference between open box/ used and new


This must be checked


----------



## ThrashZone

GRABibus said:


> This must be checked


Hi,
Good luck if it shows up open box just tell them to discount it further 20% for false advertisement


----------



## D-EJ915

Ragsters said:


> Hey guys. I have had a 6800k since release and its been great. Is it worth upgrading to the 6850k? I will not be taking advantage of the extra pci-e lanes so im purely talking about processor power.


No not really, it could overclock worse than your current CPU. Even back in X79 days people had lower end chips oc higher than 3960s lol.


----------



## MiHi76

zoson said:


> Adaptive voltage on cache doesn't work on HW-E, it does work on BW-E - but seems to require more voltage than offset for stability.


Really?This is the first time I hear about it.

The Broadwell-e overclokcing guide says:
CPU Cache Voltage: This sets the voltage for the Uncore and has the same voltage modes available as CPU Core Voltage. However, if you wish to make adjustments to the CPU Cache Voltage, we recommend using Manual or Offset Modes, as the Adaptive Voltage for Uncore does not work correctly for overclocking. This issue exists within the Intel microcode.

Has Intel it fixed? It does not seem to work properly if you need more voltage.


----------



## GRABibus

MiHi76 said:


> Really?This is the first time I hear about it.
> 
> The Broadwell-e overclokcing guide says:
> CPU Cache Voltage: This sets the voltage for the Uncore and has the same voltage modes available as CPU Core Voltage. However, if you wish to make adjustments to the CPU Cache Voltage, we recommend using Manual or Offset Modes, as the Adaptive Voltage for Uncore does not work correctly for overclocking. This issue exists within the Intel microcode.
> 
> Has Intel it fixed? It does not seem to work properly if you need more voltage.


Adaptative doesn’t work well for Cache.
Offset is perfect.


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
Are there some statistics about expected frequencies for 6900K and what can be considered as golden chip, good chip, bad chip ?
In overclocking guide from Asus, it is written that most of the chips (75%) are stable at 4,[email protected],35 V for handbrake encoding (Realbench) and that a few can be stable at 4,4Ghz with a little bit more Vcore.
It is written 20% of the hundred of tested chips can handle 4,[email protected],38Vcore, which is my case. According to this guide, my chip is really good so ?
What’s your opinion ?


----------



## zoson

MiHi76 said:


> Really?This is the first time I hear about it.
> 
> The Broadwell-e overclokcing guide says:
> CPU Cache Voltage: This sets the voltage for the Uncore and has the same voltage modes available as CPU Core Voltage. However, if you wish to make adjustments to the CPU Cache Voltage, we recommend using Manual or Offset Modes, as the Adaptive Voltage for Uncore does not work correctly for overclocking. This issue exists within the Intel microcode.
> 
> Has Intel it fixed? It does not seem to work properly if you need more voltage.


Peak voltage when using adaptive did match the offset + additional turbo voltage I specified. But yes 3.4GHz stable needs 1.163v max using offset, while it took 1.25v using adaptive. 
This is different than the behavior I saw with HW-E, where it seemed to ignore the additional turbo voltage value entirely.


----------



## MiHi76

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> Are there some statistics about expected frequencies for 6900K and what can be considered as golden chip, good chip, bad chip ?
> In overclocking guide from Asus, it is written that most of the chips (75%) are stable at 4,[email protected],35 V for handbrake encoding (Realbench) and that a few can be stable at 4,4Ghz with a little bit more Vcore.
> It is written 20% of the hundred of tested chips can handle 4,[email protected],38Vcore, which is my case. According to this guide, my chip is really good so ?
> What’s your opinion ?


Not all BWE do the 4.4 GHz, your's can do it. But 1.38V is much. I'm not sure if it's good, but above average is it for sure.

The 6900 sample from djgar makes 4.6 at ~1.395V for Example. That is definitely golden!


----------



## djgar

MiHi76 said:


> Not all BWE do the 4.4 GHz, your's can do it. But 1.38V is much. I'm not sure if it's good, but above average is it for sure.
> 
> The 6900 sample from djgar makes 4.6 at ~1.395V for Example. That is definitely golden!


Still going after more than 2 years! Though I don't do heavy stuff often.


----------



## GRABibus

MiHi76 said:


> Not all BWE do the 4.4 GHz, your's can do it. But 1.38V is much. I'm not sure if it's good, but above average is it for sure.
> 
> The 6900 sample from djgar makes 4.6 at ~1.395V for Example. That is definitely golden!


According to ASUS overclocking guide and the hundred samples they tested, 20% can do 4.4GHz at 1.38V, so yes, above average, so good chip .

https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/

I will check how I need for 4.3GHz (For sure below 1.35V).

Of course Djar's one is golden...

I was speaking about a good chip", not a golden as this one from Djar


----------



## xkm1948

Question guys. Without increasing overclocking. Would tighten up timing put more pressure on the IMC? Or it would just need more voltage on DDR4 RAM themselves?


----------



## Nastya

I asked an overclocking discord the same question a couple months ago. There wasn't really a definitive answer, but something along the lines of "it may very well be you will also have to increase System Agent voltage".


----------



## GRABibus

I could set up my best OC for my 6900K :

[email protected]@Vcore=1.37V adaptative => 4.5GHz is a NO-GO (More than 1.42V required).
[email protected]@Vcache=1.27V (Offset mode, offset=+0.294V) => 3.8GHz is a NO-GO (More than 1.3V required)
Vccin=1.81V (LLC7)
Vccsa = 0.8V (Offset = -0.145V !!! )
Vccio=1.05V
RAM 32GB(4x8GB) [email protected]@[email protected]=1.4V

I use always the same stress tests :
Realbench 8Hours 32GB Stress test
HCI MemTest 1000% minimum on all threads.
Aida64 cache stress test 4 hours.

I cool the CPU with EVGA CLC280 with Push Pull configuration fans.

I am very happy with the temperatures : 
=> 80°C maximum on CPU package at 24°C ambiant in P95 v26.6 Small FFT's.
=> 79°C maximum on CPU package at 25°C ambiant in Realbench.

i have another 6900K. I will test it in a few weeks or will resale it.
The only aim to test it would be that it can do 4.5GHz at less than 1.40V...
But with Silicon lottery...Not sure... as 4.5GHz seems to be golden on those Broadwell-E's...
The best should be to stick at the moment with this [email protected] which is pretty good.

A delidding could help, maybe 5°C to 10°C improvments..But not sure to be able to reach 4.5GHz with reasonable temps as it will require more than 1.42V...


----------



## blodflekk

GRABibus said:


> I could set up my best OC for my 6900K :
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected]@Vcore=1.37V adaptative => 4.5GHz is a NO-GO (More than 1.42V required).
> 
> [email protected]@Vcache=1.27V (Offset mode, offset=+0.294V) => 3.8GHz is a NO-GO (More than 1.3V required)
> 
> Vccin=1.81V (LLC7)
> 
> Vccsa = 0.8V (Offset = -0.145V !!! )
> 
> Vccio=1.05V
> 
> RAM 32GB(4x8GB) [email protected]@[email protected]=1.4V
> 
> 
> 
> I use always the same stress tests :
> 
> Realbench 8Hours 32GB Stress test
> 
> HCI MemTest 1000% minimum on all threads.
> 
> Aida64 cache stress test 4 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> I cool the CPU with EVGA CLC280 with Push Pull configuration fans.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very happy with the temperatures :
> 
> => 80°C maximum on CPU package at 24°C ambiant in P95 v26.6 Small FFT's.
> 
> => 79°C maximum on CPU package at 25°C ambiant in Realbench.


Not sure of the value of aida cache test but hci memtest will fail on bad cache oc. It's all I use to stress it

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

blodflekk said:


> Not sure of the value of aida cache test but hci memtest will fail on bad cache oc. It's all I use to stress it
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


Aida64 cache stress test helps in finding a cache OC issue.
HCI errors can be due to Memory and Cache..


----------



## blodflekk

I do my oc in stages, once core is dialled in I'll work the cache until its stable with 1000% hci memtest and I've never had any issues moving on to memory. Out of curiosity, how long do you run aidas cache stress ?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

blodflekk said:


> I do my oc in stages, once core is dialled in I'll work the cache until its stable with 1000% hci memtest and I've never had any issues moving on to memory. Out of curiosity, how long do you run aidas cache stress ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


4 hours for validation.


----------



## Ragsters

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Local fry's says they have a new 6900x for 400.us
> Doubt it's new though they seem not to know the difference between open box/ used and new


Just noticed that the i7-6950x is on sale at Frys too. Looks like its $398.00 plus tax.


----------



## ThrashZone

Ragsters said:


> Just noticed that the i7-6950x is on sale at Frys too. Looks like its $398.00 plus tax.


Hi,
You'll never get out of checkout lol 
They just don't update their website basically click bait they won't say it's unavailable until after payment info is already entered.
Then boom no purchase.

It's also used not new but that's another story false advertising


----------



## Ragsters

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> You'll never get out of checkout lol
> They just don't update their website basically click bait they won't say it's unavailable until after payment info is already entered.
> Then boom no purchase.
> 
> It's also used not new but that's another story false advertising


Not sure what the risk is though. Charge it via credit card, if no purchase is made then credit card just never gets officially charged.


----------



## ThrashZone

Ragsters said:


> Not sure what the risk is though. Charge it via credit card, if no purchase is made then credit card just never gets officially charged.


Hi,
Fry's with cc info but regardless not in stock.
Cascade lake 10 core likely about the same price or around 500.us
I already have a extra x299 board.

Broadwell-e not as viable as it was say last week....


----------



## xkm1948

Now I am super tempted to go the 10980XE with 18core. $979 baby and AVX512!


----------



## zoson

i got my chip from frys. was no problem, bnib.


----------



## D-EJ915

zoson said:


> i got my chip from frys. was no problem, bnib.


Mine was open box but no big deal, $150+ less than buying used on ebay anyway lol. Listed as clearance anyway, clearance is always returns or missing bits and pieces at most retail stores.


----------



## spooklexity

xkm1948 said:


> Question guys. Without increasing overclocking. Would tighten up timing put more pressure on the IMC? Or it would just need more voltage on DDR4 RAM themselves?


Just to give my 2 cents here, too: I had to tighten VCCSA after tightening the timings, yep. At a constant VDIMM that causes no issues (1.41V effectively), I gradually needed more SA voltage to bring latencies down when the system ought to be stable.


----------



## Remington00

Hello,

I have a 6950X and am looking to overclock it. I am not really an expert at it and am looking to get some help. I have an Asus Deluxe ii motherboard and I have heard of them killing CPUs before as a result of using XMP and auto voltages. 

I want to overclock my 6950X core frequency and the cache, along with my RAM (2400mhz default currently. Looking to get it to 2800/3000). I want to do it all manual with low and safe voltages to not kill my CPU or my motherboard. 

If anyone can please help me by providing me with step instructions on what to set in my bios (screenshots would also be really easy) I would be greatly appreciative. 

Thank you


----------



## gh0stp1rate

Remington00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a 6950X and am looking to overclock it. I am not really an expert at it and am looking to get some help. I have an Asus Deluxe ii motherboard and I have heard of them killing CPUs before as a result of using XMP and auto voltages.
> 
> I want to overclock my 6950X core frequency and the cache, along with my RAM (2400mhz default currently. Looking to get it to 2800/3000). I want to do it all manual with low and safe voltages to not kill my CPU or my motherboard.
> 
> If anyone can please help me by providing me with step instructions on what to set in my bios (screenshots would also be really easy) I would be greatly appreciative.
> 
> Thank you


I really hope you're not expecting anyone on here to provide you with step by step instructions on how to overclock your processor as there are already many tutorials available on the internet just by doing some quick and simple searches. There isn't some "Magical" settings you can simply put in when overclocking and everything will still be 100% stable, you have to figure that out yourself for your specific setup.


----------



## blodflekk

Yep. This.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

Remington00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a 6950X and am looking to overclock it. I am not really an expert at it and am looking to get some help. I have an Asus Deluxe ii motherboard and I have heard of them killing CPUs before as a result of using XMP and auto voltages.
> 
> I want to overclock my 6950X core frequency and the cache, along with my RAM (2400mhz default currently. Looking to get it to 2800/3000). I want to do it all manual with low and safe voltages to not kill my CPU or my motherboard.
> 
> If anyone can please help me by providing me with step instructions on what to set in my bios (screenshots would also be really easy) I would be greatly appreciative.
> 
> Thank you


Overclocking Broadwell E is the same procedure as all CPU's..
=> Get a decent cooling in order to be able to rise the Vcore at 1.4V maximum (For 24/7 usage) without going beyond 80°C on CPU Package during stress tests.
=> Trying to find first your max stable Core clock. 4.5GHz with Vcore below 1.4V is golden for your information. Most of the Broadwells Oc's are between 4.2GHz and 4.4Ghz with Vcore between 1.25V and 1.4V.
=> Trying to find max stable cache : 3.8GHz seems to be a "wall". BWE's caches don't overclock well and they don't get benefit of OC socket Motherboards. Don' go beyond 1.3V for Vcache.
=> Trying to find best Memory OC...The most difficult according to me as you have to manage a lot of parameters which interact : DRAM frequency, timings, Vddim, Vccsa, Vccio, etc....and cache also. DRAM frequancy at 3200MHz is already a pretty god OC for BWE's.

Here is an intersting link :
https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/


----------



## GRABibus

deleted


----------



## Baasha

Just updated my BIOS on my RVE and totally forgot my 4.30Ghz OC settings for my 6950X.

What should the LLC setting be? If I set it on Auto, the CPU goes to 80C during gaming which is really high - I have an AIO cooler.

I set it to "Level 6" and got a BSOD while gaming.

Any advice?


----------



## GRABibus

Baasha said:


> Just updated my BIOS on my RVE and totally forgot my 4.30Ghz OC settings for my 6950X.
> 
> What should the LLC setting be? If I set it on Auto, the CPU goes to 80C during gaming which is really high - I have an AIO cooler.
> 
> I set it to "Level 6" and got a BSOD while gaming.
> 
> Any advice?


What are your all settings in BIOS ?
I use LLC7 from my side.


----------



## ThrashZone

Baasha said:


> Just updated my BIOS on my RVE and totally forgot my 4.30Ghz OC settings for my 6950X.
> 
> What should the LLC setting be? If I set it on Auto, the CPU goes to 80C during gaming which is really high - I have an AIO cooler.
> 
> I set it to "Level 6" and got a BSOD while gaming.
> 
> Any advice?


Hi,
Auto voltages kill chips system agent and input voltage bios shoots way more than needed and can cause higher temperatures 
Only thing not listed below is input voltage or vccin I'd peg it to 1.93v that should at llc-5 give you near 1.95v for vccin where as bios will usually go above 1.2v

Posted on your boards thread too 
xkm1948 good advice 



> 1. Dont run auto voltage on vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA, Vcache and VDRAM
> 2. Don't use XMP. Always set everything manually
> 3. Vcore wont hurt much. It is usually cache overclocking that kills your chip.
> Keep your cache as close to 1V as possible
> 4. VCCSA is the same thing. Keep it as close to 1V as possible.
> 5. Provide adequate cooling for the VRM if you are using AIO.
> vccsa 1.1
> cache 1.0
> vccio 1.05


----------



## Baasha

GRABibus said:


> What are your all settings in BIOS ?
> I use LLC7 from my side.





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Auto voltages kill chips system agent and input voltage bios shoots way more than needed and can cause higher temperatures
> Only thing not listed below is input voltage or vccin I'd peg it to 1.93v that should at llc-5 give you near 1.95v for vccin where as bios will usually go above 1.2v
> 
> Posted on your boards thread too
> xkm1948 good advice


Thank you guys very much for the help. 

I set everything manually and so far so good - it seems to be stable and the temps are not insane - 72C under full load!

The BIOS settings are:

1.) CPU V-Core: 1.3125V
2.) CPU Cache: 1.000V
3.) CPU System Agent: 1.100V
4.) CPU Input: 1.90V
5.) DRAM Voltage: 1.350V
6.) VCCIO CPU: 1.050V
7.) VCCIO PCH: 1.050V
8.) LLC: Level 5
9.) Strap: 100
10.) Multiple: 43 (4.30Ghz)
11.) Cache Multiple: 31 (3.1Ghz)
12.) RAM: 3200Mhz

Pretty much everything else is on 'Auto.'

I ran Intel Burn Test "Very High" for 10 runs and it passed. I ran Asus RealBench and it passed.

I am going to play a bunch of games to test it further - I noticed BFV is quite finicky so that will be my 'go to' game to test CPU OC.

Do you have any other suggestions on optimizing the OC as well as testing the OC of the CPU better?


----------



## ThrashZone

Baasha said:


> Thank you guys very much for the help.
> 
> I set everything manually and so far so good - it seems to be stable and the temps are not insane - 72C under full load!
> 
> The BIOS settings are:
> 
> 1.) CPU V-Core: 1.3125V
> 2.) CPU Cache: 1.000V
> 3.) CPU System Agent: 1.100V
> 4.) CPU Input: 1.90V
> 5.) DRAM Voltage: 1.350V
> 6.) VCCIO CPU: 1.050V
> 7.) VCCIO PCH: 1.050V
> 8.) LLC: Level 5
> 9.) Strap: 100
> 10.) Multiple: 43 (4.30Ghz)
> 11.) Cache Multiple: 31 (3.1Ghz)
> 12.) RAM: 3200Mhz
> 
> Pretty much everything else is on 'Auto.'
> 
> I ran Intel Burn Test "Very High" for 10 runs and it passed. I ran Asus RealBench and it passed.
> 
> I am going to play a bunch of games to test it further - I noticed BFV is quite finicky so that will be my 'go to' game to test CPU OC.
> 
> Do you have any other suggestions on optimizing the OC as well as testing the OC of the CPU better?


Hi,
1.0v cache should be good for at least 32 max cache but try it and see if you get instability or 33 but 1.05v should be perfectly fine on a max cache voltage reading and cache does give some good boost in performance in games too
Most do about 34 max cache, voltage is what differs.

Grabibus is pretty aggressive with his cache oc'ing 

Other digi settings where llc is located to try 
cpu current capability 140% or more if it shows 200%
cpu power phase Optimized or Standard 
Dram current capability 130% 
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]


----------



## blodflekk

You'll want to set a manual avx offset too if your motherboard has that option. 

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Baasha

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 1.0v cache should be good for at least 32 max cache but try it and see if you get instability or 33 but 1.05v should be perfectly fine on a max cache voltage reading and cache does give some good boost in performance in games too
> Most do about 34 max cache, voltage is what differs.
> 
> Grabibus is pretty aggressive with his cache oc'ing
> 
> Other digi settings where llc is located to try
> cpu current capability 140% or more if it shows 200%
> cpu power phase Optimized or Standard
> Dram current capability 130%
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]


Okay, I'll try 34 cache first and then adjust for stability.

What does Spread Spectrum do? 

Also, do you think it's worth trying for 4.50Ghz? I remember I tried it when I first got the CPU but there seemed to be a wall at 4.30Ghz. Not sure my AIO can handle much more voltage. If I do try 4.50Ghz, what should the Cache setting be? 3.4 or even higher? Should I change any other setting?



blodflekk said:


> You'll want to set a manual avx offset too if your motherboard has that option.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


What setting do I put the AVX offset to? 1, 2, or 3? Doesn't that down-clock the CPU under load? I want my CPU OC to be at least 4.30Ghz especially during gaming - I don't care so much when I'm just browsing etc.

EDIT: Just tried 4.50Ghz - it wouldn't even boot. LOL

Tried 3.3Ghz Cache - that passed IBT. Now to test games etc.

Also, the CPU Current Capability setting goes up to 240% on my RVE - the next lowest setting is 140% - which is what I have it at now. Is 240% dangerous or "better" to have for the OC?


----------



## blodflekk

The avx offset will down clock when avx applications are running. Avx applications are more demanding and generate a lot of heat. If you leave it on auto it will still down clock but you dont know how far clocks will drop until you monitor it under load. I have a 6850k at 4.3 and I have my offset at 1 and it's enough to keep me stable. Trial and error. Also battlefield does use avx which is why you're having more difficulty getting stable with it

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Baasha

blodflekk said:


> The avx offset will down clock when avx applications are running. Avx applications are more demanding and generate a lot of heat. If you leave it on auto it will still down clock but you dont know how far clocks will drop until you monitor it under load. I have a 6850k at 4.3 and I have my offset at 1 and it's enough to keep me stable. Trial and error. Also battlefield does use avx which is why you're having more difficulty getting stable with it
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


Interesting - I will try with 0 offset first and then work from there. Really want to see it fully stable at 4.30Ghz.


----------



## ThrashZone

Baasha said:


> Okay, I'll try 34 cache first and then adjust for stability.
> 
> What does Spread Spectrum do?
> 
> Also, do you think it's worth trying for 4.50Ghz? I remember I tried it when I first got the CPU but there seemed to be a wall at 4.30Ghz. Not sure my AIO can handle much more voltage. If I do try 4.50Ghz, what should the Cache setting be? 3.4 or even higher? Should I change any other setting?
> 
> 
> 
> What setting do I put the AVX offset to? 1, 2, or 3? Doesn't that down-clock the CPU under load? I want my CPU OC to be at least 4.30Ghz especially during gaming - I don't care so much when I'm just browsing etc.
> 
> EDIT: Just tried 4.50Ghz - it wouldn't even boot. LOL
> 
> Tried 3.3Ghz Cache - that passed IBT. Now to test games etc.
> 
> Also, the CPU Current Capability setting goes up to 240% on my RVE - the next lowest setting is 140% - which is what I have it at now. Is 240% dangerous or "better" to have for the OC?


Hi,
Temperatures usually dictate if one can go higher core multiplier or not 
240% cpu current capability will draw more power for sure.

Not sure what spread spectrum does frankly it's just better to disable it for oc'ing 

Cache I'd ease it up from where you started and don't go over 1.1v and make sure the max cache voltage reading stays 0.020v under 1.1 would be a good idea 

These aren't really 24/ 7 things to do 
It's just oc'ing profiles really just for benchmarking.


----------



## gh0stp1rate

I have an EVGA X99 Classified motherboard and don't have any options to OC cache (or none that I can notice going through all the options in the OC section of the BIOS). I asked if this was possible on my motherboard and linked the Broadwell-E OC guide YouTube video by der8auer on the EVGA forums and basically I was told that my motherboard is not an ASUS motherboard (which is what der8auer was using) and to not compare the two LOL. Like I didn't know that already. Which I think is pretty strange that I can't because isn't it supposed be chipset feature?


----------



## Baasha

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Temperatures usually dictate if one can go higher core multiplier or not
> 240% cpu current capability will draw more power for sure.
> 
> Not sure what spread spectrum does frankly it's just better to disable it for oc'ing
> 
> Cache I'd ease it up from where you started and don't go over 1.1v and make sure the max cache voltage reading stays 0.020v under 1.1 would be a good idea
> 
> These aren't really 24/ 7 things to do
> It's just oc'ing profiles really just for benchmarking.


I see - I left the Current Capability at 140% since I want my OC to be 24/7.

The Cache setting is stable at 32 - it passed IBT at 33 but BFV crashed after 10 mins. 

I've seen some people (although not with 6950X) have Cache clock at 4.0Ghz which is insane - I wonder what kind of voltage they are pushing to achieve it? My Cache voltage at 32 is still a 1.000V - I guess I can try 1.10V and see if 33 or 34 works but I'm not sure it'll make much difference in games and/or other programs.

Thanks for the help - I am stable at 4.30Ghz and that's what I wanted.


----------



## Ragsters

I want to start overclocking my 6800k. Where and how do I start? I haven't overclocked anything since the 3700k


----------



## GRABibus

Baasha said:


> I see - I left the Current Capability at 140% since I want my OC to be 24/7.
> 
> The Cache setting is stable at 32 - it passed IBT at 33 but BFV crashed after 10 mins.
> 
> I've seen some people (although not with 6950X) have Cache clock at 4.0Ghz which is insane - I wonder what kind of voltage they are pushing to achieve it? My Cache voltage at 32 is still a 1.000V - I guess I can try 1.10V and see if 33 or 34 works but I'm not sure it'll make much difference in games and/or other programs.
> 
> Thanks for the help - I am stable at 4.30Ghz and that's what I wanted.


For Cache voltage, you can go safely to 1,25V.
I have 1,27V and cache 3,7GHz . Let’s see if I kill my chip in some months.

If you want to be sure, then put voltage cache at 1,2V and increase cache frequency until you can’t boot in windows.
Then put the cache frequency just the value which is lower.
Example you can’t boot at 3,6ghz but you could at 3,5ghz, then set your cache at 3,5ghz.
Then launch aida64 cache stress test at least 2 hours and see if it passed. You will hav also to test with HCI Memtest at least 500% coverage (1000% is considered as golden stability)


----------



## blodflekk

IBT isnt going to stress cache. You want to use HCI memtest for that. Also your crashes in bf v could be your avx offset not being high enough

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

blodflekk said:


> IBT isnt going to stress cache. You want to use HCI memtest for that. Also your crashes in bf v could be your avx offset not being high enough
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


HCI MemTest and also Aida64 Cache stress test.
I experienced passing HCI 1000% with no problems but with some "hardware failure" errors in Aida64 Cache stress test, due to cache instability.


----------



## GRABibus

Baasha said:


> I see - I left the Current Capability at 140% since I want my OC to be 24/7.
> 
> The Cache setting is stable at 32 - it passed IBT at 33 but BFV crashed after 10 mins.
> 
> I've seen some people (although not with 6950X) have Cache clock at 4.0Ghz which is insane - I wonder what kind of voltage they are pushing to achieve it? My Cache voltage at 32 is still a 1.000V - I guess I can try 1.10V and see if 33 or 34 works but I'm not sure it'll make much difference in games and/or other programs.
> 
> Thanks for the help - I am stable at 4.30Ghz and that's what I wanted.


Do you enable DX12/DXR in BFV ?
is your GPU overclocked ?

This is could be the issue also.


----------



## Baasha

GRABibus said:


> Do you enable DX12/DXR in BFV ?
> is your GPU overclocked ?
> 
> This is could be the issue also.


No I play in DX11 mostly. Yes, the GPUs are OC'd but they are rock solid so I don't think it's that.

My system is stable now at 4.30Ghz but Cache is at 3.20Ghz as I mentioned before. I guess I'll try a higher Cache Voltage (1.2V) to see if 36 or 34 cache setting works.

Thanks.


----------



## MiHi76

MiHi76 said:


> I thought too that i'm Rb 2.56 stable but BFV is harder and i need 12mV more to be stable in BFV.
> No AVX Offset BFV 4.3 GHz @ 1.272V <-> No AVX Offset RB 2.56 4.3GHz @ 1.26V
> BFV uses AVX more than RB.
> PS. Adaptive voltage on Cache don't work! Don't use it- Use manual or offset.


 @Baasha
Yes BFV is tougher as RB5.6 for example. I've increased Vcore until the random crashed no longer occured.


----------



## GRABibus

MiHi76 said:


> @Baasha
> Yes BFV is tougher as RB5.6 for example. I've increased Vcore until the random crashed no longer occured.


You can also put AVX offset in Bios at -1 or -2 and keeping same Vcore as initially.
BFV is using AVX instructions.


----------



## MiHi76

GRABibus said:


> You can also put AVX offset in Bios at -1 or -2 and keeping same Vcore as initially.
> BFV is using AVX instructions.


Yes of course i use 0. I talked about using AVX in BFV in my post.


----------



## GRABibus

Hey,
it is said that BFV is using AVX.
I set up AVX offset to "1" in bios on my 4.4GHz overclock.
In BFV, CPU remains at 4.4GHz and never goes to 4.3GHz.

In Realbench, yes, it goes to 4.3GHz. So everything is normal.

So if BFV is using AVX, why does my CPU remains at 4.4GHz ?
you all guys see the effect of your AVX negative offset in BFV ?


----------



## MiHi76

GRABibus said:


> Hey,
> it is said that BFV is using AVX.
> I set up AVX offset to "1" in bios on my 4.4GHz overclock.
> In BFV, CPU remains at 4.4GHz and never goes to 4.3GHz.
> 
> In Realbench, yes, it goes to 4.3GHz. So everything is normal.
> 
> So if BFV is using AVX, why does my CPU remains at 4.4GHz ?
> you all guys see the effect of your AVX negative offset in BFV ?


No, it does drop. you must have a look at every single core and use a graph. I've used the graphs in afterburner.
It drops not all cores at one time, only spiking at single cores.
Nevertheless i need more vcore in BFV as in Rb 2.56. Thats a fact.


----------



## GRABibus

MiHi76 said:


> No, it does drop. you must have a look at every single core and use a graph. I've used the graphs in afterburner.
> It drops not all cores at one time, only spiking at single cores.
> Nevertheless i need more vcore in BFV as in Rb 2.56. Thats a fact.


Thanks.
I put offset AVX at 4 and yes, it drops down to 4GHz, on some cores but not all. And it drop during 1 second maximum.
99.9% of the time I am at full "non AVX frequency" (4.4Ghz).

In Realbench, 100% of the time roughly, CPU drops to AVX frequency. Realbench then puts much more AVX in the CPU (At least from a time point of view) than BFV.

I have no stability issue with AVX in BFV versus Realbench from my side (I am 8 hours Realbench stable at 4.4Ghz with AVX offset on Auto (=0) ).
In BFV, I am concerned by GPU stability with D3D12 and DXR enabled.
Getting a stable GPU OC with D3D12 and DXR is a real challenge in BFV


----------



## MiHi76

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> I put offset AVX at 4 and yes, it drops down to 4GHz, on some cores but not all. And it drop during 1 second maximum.
> 99.9% of the time I am at full "non AVX frequency" (4.4Ghz).
> 
> In Realbench, 100% of the time roughly, CPU drops to AVX frequency. Realbench then puts much more AVX in the CPU (At least from a time point of view) than BFV.
> 
> I have no stability issue with AVX in BFV versus Realbench from my side (I am 8 hours Realbench stable at 4.4Ghz with AVX offset on Auto (=0) ).
> In BFV, I am concerned by GPU stability with D3D12 and DXR enabled.
> Getting a stable GPU OC with D3D12 and DXR is a real challenge in BFV



Why I need more Vcore in BFV than in RB 2.56 I do not know. I had random crashes only in BFV mostly when changing laps. One or two times in a month.
At some point I gave a little more Vcore and since then it's quiet.


----------



## GRABibus

MiHi76 said:


> Why I need more Vcore in BFV than in RB 2.56 I do not know. I had random crashes only in BFV mostly when changing laps. One or two times in a month.
> At some point I gave a little more Vcore and since then it's quiet.


Is your GPU overclocked or factory overclocked and do you play with D3D12/DXR in BFV ?
If yes, see if Playing D3D11 helps, by keeping your realbench Vcore.
Or, in D3D12/DXR, try to downclock your GPU and see if it helps (still with your realbench Vcore).


----------



## blodflekk

Is anyone in here using nvme storage? Whats's performance like on x99? I need some more fast storage and not sure whether to go with nvme or just grab another sata ssd


----------



## djgar

blodflekk said:


> Is anyone in here using nvme storage? Whats's performance like on x99? I need some more fast storage and not sure whether to go with nvme or just grab another sata ssd


I run my OS on a Samsung 970 Pro. FWIW:


----------



## blodflekk

Interesting. Not much different from my 840 pro which is on sata


----------



## djgar

blodflekk said:


> Interesting. Not much different from my 840 pro which is on sata


Mine's bigger


----------



## blodflekk

djgar said:


> Mine's bigger


This is true haha. However I expected to see bigger differences between sata and nvme. Is this normal? Or just something we're seeing because of the age of x99

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## djgar

blodflekk said:


> This is true haha. However I expected to see bigger differences between sata and nvme. Is this normal? Or just something we're seeing because of the age of x99
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


I imagine there are several factors involved, like Windows implementation, controller, etc. Mine is plugged into the MB M.2 socket.

BTW, I visited NZ many years ago and had a great time. It's a gorgeous place .


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
As ssd is garbage use crystal disk mark instead.

Also compare with hwinfo read write and they will match CDM


----------



## D-EJ915

blodflekk said:


> Interesting. Not much different from my 840 pro which is on sata


Sata 6g maxes out at theoretical 750MB/s and 600MB/s in reality so those numbers are a bit questionable.


----------



## xkm1948

Hey even my 860 EVO is faster than both


Well yeah then it is because I enabled Samsung's acceleration on it.


----------



## blodflekk

xkm1948 said:


> Hey even my 860 EVO is faster than both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yeah then it is because I enabled Samsung's acceleration on it.


I have Samsung's rapid mode enabled also

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Rapid mode uses memory too so is a tad bit misleading 
Turn it off for an eye opener


----------



## djgar

xkm1948 said:


> Hey even my 860 EVO is faster than both
> 
> 
> Well yeah then it is because I enabled Samsung's acceleration on it.





blodflekk said:


> I have Samsung's rapid mode enabled also
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


Rapid mode is not supported for me according to Samsung Magician.


----------



## ThrashZone

djgar said:


> I run my OS on a Samsung 970 Pro. FWIW:





djgar said:


> I imagine there are several factors involved, like Windows implementation, controller, etc. Mine is plugged into the MB M.2 socket.
> 
> BTW, I visited NZ many years ago and had a great time. It's a gorgeous place .





djgar said:


> Rapid mode is not supported for me according to Samsung Magician.


Hi,
Maybe it just doesn't like it as a os drive 
Have you tried the 970 as a data/ game drive and see if it can be activated ?
Throw the os on a 860 pro or something samsung.


----------



## djgar

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Maybe it just doesn't like it as a os drive
> Have you tried the 970 as a data/ game drive and see if it can be activated ?
> Throw the os on a 860 pro or something samsung.


It's a Samsung 970 PRO. Could be it doesn't support it as an OS drive. Too much work to swap, and have no problems with its performance .


----------



## ThrashZone

djgar said:


> It's a Samsung 970 PRO. Could be it doesn't support it as an OS drive. Too much work to swap, and have no problems with its performance .


Hi,
Might be mother board dependent 
Board might have to support ram disk which is basically what rapid mode is 
I've not tried it on either of mine x99 970 evo or x299 970 evo plus systems.


----------



## xkm1948

Install Samsung Nvme driver. You should see a healthy performance bump.


----------



## xkm1948

Here is my 960Pro 1TB on TUF X99


----------



## blodflekk

https://www.amazon.com/addlink-Gen3...qid=1571471489&sprefix=Addlink,aps,356&sr=8-1

I was looking at getting this, since the price is good and reviews seem positive despite being a brand I've never heard of.


----------



## xkm1948

blodflekk said:


> https://www.amazon.com/addlink-Gen3...qid=1571471489&sprefix=Addlink,aps,356&sr=8-1
> 
> I was looking at getting this, since the price is good and reviews seem positive despite being a brand I've never heard of.




Nah I would not risk it.

Look up Adata SX8200Pro 1TB. Good pricing and good performance


----------



## ThrashZone

blodflekk said:


> https://www.amazon.com/addlink-Gen3...qid=1571471489&sprefix=Addlink,aps,356&sr=8-1
> 
> I was looking at getting this, since the price is good and reviews seem positive despite being a brand I've never heard of.





xkm1948 said:


> Nah I would not risk it.
> 
> Look up Adata SX8200Pro 1TB. Good pricing and good performance


Hi,
Might as well 5 year warranty

I sent 3 adata 8200 pro 2-512gb and 1-1tb back to amazon none of them came close to their advertised read write speeds and were all over the place on tests.

Someone just reported one 8200 pro died after 6 months I'm not surprised
https://www.overclock.net/forum/355-ssd/1735328-m-2-nvme-drive-dead.html


----------



## djgar

xkm1948 said:


> Install Samsung Nvme driver. You should see a healthy performance bump.


You mean driver 3.1 I currently have?


----------



## ThrashZone

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Might be mother board dependent
> Board might have to support ram disk which is basically what rapid mode is
> I've not tried it on either of mine x99 970 evo or x299 970 evo plus systems.





xkm1948 said:


> Here is my 960Pro 1TB on TUF X99





djgar said:


> You mean driver 3.1 I currently have?


Hi,
Can't be ram disk deal x99 sabertooth does not support ram disk 

So must be something else disk configuration/... :thinking:


----------



## xkm1948

Did you overclock BCLK? Anything other than 100MHz BCLK will cause Samsung NVMe SSD to slow down.


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

I have just upgraded the SSD's in my gaming rig, both are now NVMe drives and both are super fast;

Top - Western Digital SN750 with Heatsink;

Bottom - Plextor M9Pe PCIe NVMe;


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

Hi All - 

I have just purchased a used 6900k to go with my R5E10 and have so far got a nice stable OC of 4400MHz @ 1.350V;

I am just wondering which is the best CPU Core Ratio to use?

Sync all core
By core usage
By Specific core

My PC gets probably a 60/40 usage as Gaming/General.

Which ratio do you guys use or recommend please?


----------



## GRABibus

CYBER-SNIPA said:


> Hi All -
> 
> I have just purchased a used 6900k to go with my R5E10 and have so far got a nice stable OC of 4400MHz @ 1.350V;
> 
> I am just wondering which is the best CPU Core Ratio to use?
> 
> Sync all core
> By core usage
> By Specific core
> 
> My PC gets probably a 60/40 usage as Gaming/General.
> 
> Which ratio do you guys use or recommend please?


Hello,
Sync all cores. You will get maximum performances including games and multithreaded applications.

You say stable 4,[email protected],35V which is really good for a Broadwell/E.

Which stability tests did you use ? How long ?
Did you Synch all Cores ?

Mine is also good and is Realbench stable (8 hours stress test) 4,[email protected],37V.


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

Hi -

Yes I did Sync all cores, I found this guide on-line which is extremely informative. 

https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/

BWE OCing is a bit different to the HWE OCing, so it gave me a lot of good advice. I didn't use the XMP profile tho, I just set things manually and I copied some of the settings others have posted on here as a guideline too. Using the Adaptive mode on the Vcore was a good tip I found on here. I don't really use any stress tests, I just use Cinebench, Realbench, Timespy and Heaven 3.0. I do a couple of runs on each and if the OC passes them all then I class that as stable. Then I just play my games and if they run smoothly I'm happy. This chip I've purchased is a used example, but it only has one owner you told me that they never OCd it when I asked them. I probed them a bit more and they didn't know about Vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA voltages etc So I believe them. I must have just got a good sample, so I'll hang onto it.


----------



## Desolutional

Run the 7-Zip benchmark for a few hours, that's a quick stress test, but it mixes core and cache. You can max out the threads, and aim for maximum memory usage too.


----------



## ThrashZone

CYBER-SNIPA said:


> Hi -
> 
> Yes I did Sync all cores, I found this guide on-line which is extremely informative.
> 
> https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
> 
> BWE OCing is a bit different to the HWE OCing, so it gave me a lot of good advice. I didn't use the XMP profile tho, I just set things manually and I copied some of the settings others have posted on here as a guideline too. Using the Adaptive mode on the Vcore was a good tip I found on here. I don't really use any stress tests, I just use Cinebench, Realbench, Timespy and Heaven 3.0. I do a couple of runs on each and if the OC passes them all then I class that as stable. Then I just play my games and if they run smoothly I'm happy. This chip I've purchased is a used example, but it only has one owner you told me that they never OCd it when I asked them. I probed them a bit more and they didn't know about Vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA voltages etc So I believe them. I must have just got a good sample, so I'll hang onto it.


Hi,
I'd stay off auto voltages 



> Some tips: from xkm
> 
> 1. Dont run auto voltage on vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA, Vcache and VDRAM
> 2. Don't use XMP. Always set everything manually
> 3. Vcore wont hurt much. It is usually cache overclocking that kills your chip.
> Keep your cache as close to 1V as possible
> 4. VCCSA is the same thing. Keep it as close to 1V as possible.
> 5. Provide adequate cooling for the VRM if you are using AIO.


----------



## VolatilXplosion

The sweet spot for my 6900k seems to be 4.1GHz all core at exactly 1.2v. Everything auto except the cpu voltage on adaptive+offset negative -65 which drops it to about 1.2v exactly. Ram on XMP 3000MHz. I am happy with this since i don't want any degredation over time and it is optimal to keep the voltage no higher than 1.2v to play it extremely "safe" because i plan on running this build for 5 years+


----------



## Desolutional

There is a voltage wall around 4.3 to 4.5GHz on this platform anyway, which requires much larger increases in Vcore to stabilise, best to keep it below that to ensure longevity. BW-E is also very temperature sensitive, so if you haven't got adequate cooling, you may need more Vcore than is necessary.


----------



## The EX1

You won't have degradation unless your keep your CPU running at high voltage and under intense workloads for a VERY long time. Most of the time your PC is on, you won't be loading all cores and you should be using adaptive voltage anyway. My 6950X has been at 1.35v for two years with no ill effects.


----------



## Desolutional

The EX1 said:


> You won't have degradation unless your keep your CPU running at high voltage and under intense workloads for a VERY long time. Most of the time your PC is on, you won't be loading all cores and you should be using adaptive voltage anyway. My 6950X has been at 1.35v for two years with no ill effects.


You would have to define the duty cycle your CPU goes through to compare. Using the 6950X for typical 24/7 HEDT tasks like rendering, compression and encryption may be an entirely different workload to your own, always important to mention how the CPU is being used with any quoted voltages.


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

Well sadly I just can not get any OC stable for more than about 30 minutes. I thought I had it set just right but once I have set things in the BIOS and saved changes the OC down clocks to the lowest multiplier of 12 and stays there. I have tried every setting I can find, including many found on here, but disappointingly nothing will stick. The problem persists even with default settings and nothing changed in the BIOS. I suspect it is the OS aka W10 V1909 (Build 18363.535), with something to do with the Inspectre microcode which is causing this issue. Even with all the Speedstep/Speed spectrum & C-States disabled, this down clocking is still occurring. Temps are fine at between 30-35C. So I am at a loss as to what is causing this issue and have spent countless hours trying to resolve it. Can anyone help and shed some light on this problem please?


----------



## Desolutional

CYBER-SNIPA said:


> Can anyone help and shed some light on this problem please?


Navigate to "C:\Windows\System32" and rename "mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll" to something else. Reboot and try again and see if it works; *this will disable all software Microcode attack mitigations though*, so make sure your system is secure before doing this. Any BIOS microcode updates will remain.


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

Thanks for the quick response, I found a couple of webby's with details about that 'Fix' and have tried it, I think I may have deleted that file and tried to replace it with an older version? But doing a search just now it appears that DLL file is no longer on my system. Or perhaps MS has hidden it to stop people from deleting/modifying it?


----------



## Desolutional

What are your VRM temperatures? That situation of 1.2GHz can happen if the motherboard is thermally or electrically throttling the CPU, could also happen if Windows power plan Max CPU state is set to 1% or a really low number.


----------



## ThrashZone

CYBER-SNIPA said:


> Hi -
> 
> Yes I did Sync all cores, I found this guide on-line which is extremely informative.
> 
> https://edgeup.asus.com/2016/broadwell-e-overclocking-guide/
> 
> BWE OCing is a bit different to the HWE OCing, so it gave me a lot of good advice. I didn't use the XMP profile tho, I just set things manually and I copied some of the settings others have posted on here as a guideline too. Using the Adaptive mode on the Vcore was a good tip I found on here. I don't really use any stress tests, I just use Cinebench, Realbench, Timespy and Heaven 3.0. I do a couple of runs on each and if the OC passes them all then I class that as stable. Then I just play my games and if they run smoothly I'm happy. This chip I've purchased is a used example, but it only has one owner you told me that they never OCd it when I asked them. I probed them a bit more and they didn't know about Vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA voltages etc So I believe them. I must have just got a good sample, so I'll hang onto it.


Hi,
You on newest bios ?
That was supposed to have fixed the oc issues 

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...ers-watch-out-for-Windows-10-KB4100347-update


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

Yes I was on the 2101 BIOS, but I did not feel it installed 100% correctly, so I've flashed it back to 1903 and then back again to 2101 this evening. That seems to have made a bit of a difference, with the turbo boost speeds sitting at 4000Mhz for longer. I also checked HWInfo for the VRM temps and got this surprise;

I'm guessing that those temps in the screenshot mean that the VRM's are running a tad warm? LOL What temp range should they ideally be?

I have the W10 Power plan set as shown in the pic. Are those settings fine or not?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Ouch I'd try an older version of hwinfo maybe 6.08 or so.


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

Slightly worse if anything, but ambient is a few degrees higher than the last SS. What temps should the VRM's ideally be please?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Should follow the core temps on stock vrm cooler 
Hwinfo is off on quite a few x99 temps.
Maybe try siv64 or see what hwmonitor has to show :/


----------



## Desolutional

Set "Phase Control" to Optimized, you need direct contact VRM liquid cooling for Extreme. Should be under the DIGI+ settings in the BIOS. Best way to check if it is a faulty sensor is to use an IR thermometer on the VRM heatsinks. Make sure power duty control is set to "T.Probe" as well. Check the attachments.

Messing about with VRM settings in AiSuite can cause these issues as well; uninstall AiSuite if you have it installed, before doing all this.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah my x99 sabertooth doesn't even have a vrm sensor 
I have a universal water block on it though.


----------



## Satanello

Hello, one of my friends is interested in buying my Gskill F4 2666 C15 (4x8Gb) ram which I have long kept overclocked at 2933 with timing as per the attached image. 
Which 4x8Gb ram do you suggest as an alternative? I'd like to try to ddr4 3200 with fairly tight timings; the Kingston 3200 C15 HX432C16PB3K4/32 or 3333 C16 HX433C16PB3K4/32 are a good choice?


Inviato dal mio LYA-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

Satanello said:


> Hello, one of my friends is interested in buying my Gskill F4 2666 C15 (4x8Gb) ram which I have long kept overclocked at 2933 with timing as per the attached image.
> Which 4x8Gb ram do you suggest as an alternative? I'd like to try to ddr4 3200 with fairly tight timings; the Kingston 3200 C15 HX432C16PB3K4/32 or 3333 C16 HX433C16PB3K4/32 are a good choice?
> 
> 
> Inviato dal mio LYA-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


Hi,
3200C14

https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/

You're in luck not too badly priced was 270.us though
https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232348


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

Desolutional said:


> Set "Phase Control" to Optimized, you need direct contact VRM liquid cooling for Extreme. Should be under the DIGI+ settings in the BIOS. Best way to check if it is a faulty sensor is to use an IR thermometer on the VRM heatsinks. Make sure power duty control is set to "T.Probe" as well. Check the attachments.
> 
> Messing about with VRM settings in AiSuite can cause these issues as well; uninstall AiSuite if you have it installed, before doing all this.


Many thanks for that, the Phase control was on Auto so I've set it to optimized. Not a huge difference tho;

I do not use AI suite, so that's not an issue. I'll dig out the IR Thermometer and check the VRM's with that. I do get this warning message when I open HWInfo, should I be concerned or it the Asus EC something which could cause abnormal readings?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I just use sensors only but yes I do check the box and continue.
VRM is excluded if you exclude the sensor I believe.


----------



## CYBER-SNIPA

Thanks I found some answers online;

https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/threads/asus-ec-sensors.4747/


----------



## ThrashZone

CYBER-SNIPA said:


> Thanks I found some answers online;
> 
> https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/threads/asus-ec-sensors.4747/


Hi,
Yeah I don't use or install ai suite ever.

hwinfo does misread some sensors though Temp 3 for me it always shows like 93c lol I just right click and hide it.
Also memory ambient always show 50c...


----------



## The EX1

Desolutional said:


> You would have to define the duty cycle your CPU goes through to compare. Using the 6950X for typical 24/7 HEDT tasks like rendering, compression and encryption may be an entirely different workload to your own, always important to mention how the CPU is being used with any quoted voltages.


Typical work day for my 6950x at 1.35v/4.3ghz.

1. Plex transcoding for my family to 2-3 devices. DVR mostly.
2. Work in Adobe Premiere, Photoshop, After Effects
3. Gaming
4. Running two VMs for work.

I won't say it is at max boost clock 24/7, but it gets a good workout pretty regulary. I think it is also important to take into account cooling. Mine is cooled with a EK monoblock on a custom loop. Temps are usually in the mid 40s to low 50s. 

My chip was also purchased used from ICC-USA's ebay store. They advertise "overclocked" hosted solutions. No idea to what level it was OC'd, but my chip also saw server duty for the first year of its life.


----------



## Satanello

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 
> 3200C14
> 
> 
> 
> https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/
> 
> 
> 
> You're in luck not too badly priced was 270.us though
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232348


Tnx I'll searche what I can find here in Italy at an affordable price!
LOL in my previous post I forgot to attach the images 









Inviato dal mio LYA-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Third party seller likely will ship anywhere.


----------



## Satanello

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 
> 3200C14
> 
> 
> 
> https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/
> 
> 
> 
> You're in luck not too badly priced was 270.us though
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232348


In Italy I'll pay at least an extra 22%. 

I've found only these at a "reasonable" price (over 50€ more expensive e than Kingston 3333) :

G-Skill - Kit di memoria Ripjaws V Serie F4-3200C14Q-32GVR 32 GB (8 GB x 4) DDR4 3200 MHz CL14, colore: rosso fuoco https://www.amazon.it/dp/B01AHWVPKY/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_nH4fEbT5GM7AC

What do you think about? The heatsinks are not beautiful but they cost 50/80 € less than other similar B-die ram.

Thank you. 


Inviato dal mio LYA-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## ThrashZone

Satanello said:


> In Italy I'll pay at least an extra 22%.
> 
> I've found only these at a "reasonable" price (over 50€ more expensive e than Kingston 3333) :
> 
> G-Skill - Kit di memoria Ripjaws V Serie F4-3200C14Q-32GVR 32 GB (8 GB x 4) DDR4 3200 MHz CL14, colore: rosso fuoco https://www.amazon.it/dp/B01AHWVPKY/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_nH4fEbT5GM7AC
> 
> What do you think about? The heatsinks are not beautiful but they cost 50/80 € less than other similar B-die ram.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> Inviato dal mio LYA-L29 utilizzando Tapatalk


Hi,
Can't see the tested latency timings if 14-14-14-34 buy it.
Yep looks good :thumb:

https://www.gskill.com/specification/165/184/1536132712/F4-3200C14Q-32GVR-Specification


----------



## Nastya

Desolutional said:


> Set "Phase Control" to Optimized, you need direct contact VRM liquid cooling for Extreme. Should be under the DIGI+ settings in the BIOS. Best way to check if it is a faulty sensor is to use an IR thermometer on the VRM heatsinks. Make sure power duty control is set to "T.Probe" as well. Check the attachments.
> 
> Messing about with VRM settings in AiSuite can cause these issues as well; uninstall AiSuite if you have it installed, before doing all this.


Out of curiosity, do you know which one of the settings "Auto" uses for CPU Phase Control?


----------



## Desolutional

Nastya said:


> Out of curiosity, do you know which one of the settings "Auto" uses for CPU Phase Control?


I think it uses Standard when there is no overclock, and Optimized when the system is overclocked. The behaviour does differ from BIOS to BIOS though, I've always used Optimized, ASUS seem to know what they're doing most of the time, mobo still running fine after nearly 5 years.


----------



## Nastya

Thank you.


----------



## blodflekk

Anyone have issues with SA voltage not being applied ? I'm on bios 2101. I have SA set to 1.0v but in bios and in windows its showing 1.2v and things are getting toasty.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Last I remember system agent is a offset unless going full manual mode.


----------



## blodflekk

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 
> Last I remember system agent is a offset unless going full manual mode.


Yeah I am full manual, set to 1.0v but that's not what I'm getting.


Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Sebbox99

*My Results.*

Hi,

i own the 6850k for about 3 Jeahrs now.Bought it very cheap around 250 dollar, and the Mainboard for 100 bucks both new. I have done a lot of weaking testing etc. 
I wana show my results to compare. Using a Gigabyte x99 gaming 5P. Bios without Meltdown patch.

BCLK @ 102.3 Stable
Ratio 43 @ 4.4 GHZ Stable (can do 4.5Ghz @ 1.351 V but its to hot for me dont like go over 69C under stress-testing so i stay with 4.4)
Uncore @ 3580 GHZ for more there is needed mutch more Voltege so i stay there(sweet-spot)
RingVoltage @ 1.180V inc Offset (+0.130V) in adaptive mode
Vcore @ 1.313V Inc Offset (+0.099V) in adaptive mode
VCCIO @ Stock -0.020V slight undervolt 
Sysagent @ Stock -0.020V slight undervolt
Mem @ 3266 Cl 13 13 13 13 26 240 @1.4V
VRIN @ 1.900V
Using low VRM @300-400 SF
LLC @ medium level 3 

The Performence is very nice:
Cinebench R15 [email protected] 1440 /Single @ 196
Cinebench R20 [email protected] 3380 /Singel @ 450
Timespy @ 7530 CPU score

Very close to a 8700K stock.
Sorry for my bad englisch and the misspelling im a dyslexic


----------



## Sebbox99

Hi,

i own the 6850k for about 3 Jeahrs now.Bought it very cheap around 250 dollar, and the Mainboard for 100 bucks both new. I have done a lot of weaking testing etc. 
I wana show my results to compare. Using a Gigabyte x99 gaming 5P. Bios without Meltdown patch.

BCLK @ 102.3 Stable
Ratio 43 @ 4.4 GHZ Stable (can do 4.5Ghz @ 1.351 V but its to hot for me dont like go over 69C under stress-testing so i stay with 4.4)
Uncore @ 3580 GHZ for more there is needed mutch more Voltege so i stay there(sweet-spot)
RingVoltage @ 1.180V inc Offset (+0.130V) in adaptive mode
Vcore @ 1.313V Inc Offset (+0.099V) in adaptive mode
VCCIO @ Stock -0.020V slight undervolt 
Sysagent @ Stock -0.020V slight undervolt
Mem @ 3266 Cl 13 13 13 13 26 240 @1.4V
VRIN @ 1.900V
Using low VRM @300-400 SF
LLC @ medium level 3 

The Performence is very nice:
Cinebench R15 [email protected] 1440 /Single @ 196
Cinebench R20 [email protected] 3380 /Singel @ 450
Timespy @ 7530 CPU score

Very close to a 8700K stock.
Sorry for my bad englisch and the misspelling im a dyslexic


----------



## Prime0ne

*My Results*

Hi im new in this Forum. 

I own the 6850k for round about 3 Jeahrs now.Bought it very cheap around 250 dollar, and the Mainboard for 100 bucks both new. I have done lots and lots of tweaking testing over the years. 
I wana show my final results to compare. Using a Gigabyte x99 gaming 5P. Bios F23 without Meltdown patch.

BCLK @ 102.3 Stable
Ratio 43 @ 4.4 GHZ Stable (can do 4.5Ghz @ 1.351 V but its to hot for me dont like go over 69C under stress-testing with my kraken x62 so i stay with 4.4)
Vcore @ 1.313V Inc Offset (+0.092V) in adaptive mode
Uncore @ 3580 GHZ for 100Mhz more there is needed mutch more Voltege so i stay there(sweet-spot)
RingVoltage @ 1.160V inc Offset (+0.110V) in adaptive mode
VCCIO @ Stock -0.020V slight undervolt 
Sysagent @ Stock -0.020V slight undervolt
Mem @ 3266 Cl 13 13 13 13 26 240 @1.4V
VRIN @ 1.900V
Using lowes VRM @300-400khz SF
LLC @ medium level 3 
Spreed Spectrum @ endebled can turn it off on my mobo (somtimes CPU spike to 4.45Ghz)


The Performence is very nice:
Cinebench R15 Multi @ 1440 /Single @ 196
Cinebench R20 Multi @ 3340 /Singel @ 445
Timespy @ 7530 CPU score
Aida64 Lantecy mem @ 49.5 ns

Very close to a 8700K stock.

In Idle i mangets to stay under 60 watt whole system power draw from the wall, with this settings.
on full load with gaming stay around 360 Watt with my 2080ti(not overclocked).

I dont know exekt FPS Numbers because i using G-Sync at 100Hz, but i can Play all Games BFV, CoDMW all on Ultra wit Ray-Tracing on
most with 100 FPS on my 3440x1440 Monitor. Somtimes dips to 90 Fps in BFV on 64 player Map if mutch going on.

So finaly the Brodwell-E is a lot better that most People expect, or i get an Golden Chip or MB combo.
Im m using good Memory with XMP 4000 Cl17 but i was able to do 3266 Cl14 with my old cheap kit from 2016 aswell.


I would like to see other results if someone like. Or maybe someone can use my settings to help by his OC.


Sorry for my bad englisch and the misspelling im a dyslexic and no native speaker


----------



## moonbogg

I still have mine and see no reason to replace it yet. I'm glad you like your chip. It's still perfectly fast and capable.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Just 2 weeks ago i upgraded my 6800k system to a amd 3900x and love it so much faster for me in everything even got a nice boost in games my 6800k was a crap clocker only 4.2ghz.


----------



## acquacow

Here's an odd one. I just picked up a 6850x and it runs great stock. I clocked in adaptive with a max turbo vcore of the following:
x40 @ 1.248
x41 @ 1.28 and
x42 @ 1.35
(Yeah, these voltages are about 1 multiplier higher than they need to be, just roughed them in to verify functionality/stability).

Those all run fine and I can run prime95/cinebench/etc with temps topping out at 75C on water.

The problem is that the system hangs often when it drops back down to idle.
Idle is x12 @ .833 to .946

Are there any specific voltages I should look at monitoring other than vcore for the transition back down to idle?
I tried adding in an offset of 0.02 to push idle voltage up a bit, but that hasn't helped...not sure if I need more non-turbo voltage or not...

I should note, it runs fine on full auto on x35, x38, and x40 multipliers for all core. Auto vcore at x40 is 1.1 something. I know we aren't fans of auto vcore due to asus boards frying things, which is why I want to get adaptive working correctly.
I need to try x41 and x42 on full auto, but I'll do that tomorrow.

Board is an Asus x99 Deluxe on the latest 4901 bios.
I previously had my 5930k in here running stable at 4.5GHz the last 5 years no issue (1.28v adaptive).

Thanks,

-- Dave


----------



## acquacow

Heh, apparently I left prime95 running all night. Came down and the CPU was at 65C, flatlined... Guess it's at least long-term stable at x40 and auto voltages.

Gonna try to figure out why adaptive isn't working... I already nuked the mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll file, so that shouldn't be messing with anything.


----------



## djgar

The mcupdate file hasn't affected my OC for several updates now.


----------



## mattliston

The mc update killed hyperthreaded performance on my X99 systems. Disabling hyperthreading actually gained back some performance prior to me finding and deleting the mc update


----------



## D-EJ915

acquacow said:


> The problem is that the system hangs often when it drops back down to idle.
> Idle is x12 @ .833 to .946


May have to adjust LLC and voltages a bit so you hit your desired load but idle is a bit higher.


----------



## acquacow

D-EJ915 said:


> May have to adjust LLC and voltages a bit so you hit your desired load but idle is a bit higher.


I tried LLC 3-7 with no changes.

I set the adaptive offset as high as 0.1 with no change either...

Not sure what other things to tweak.

Thanks,

Dave 

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk


----------



## acquacow

Realized I needed to install all the intel server chipset drivers to properly get every part of the 6950x recognized in windows 10. Will have to re-visit my previous overclocking attempts now that windows knows what it is.

The only driver/device that isn't installed is the turbo boost max 3.0 thing. Not sure I want to install that, as I don't plan on using a dedicated app to lock apps to cores/etc.

Before:









After:









Thoughts?

Thanks,

-- Dave


----------



## acquacow

Nope, this thing is still crashing with all bios defaults/etc... it idles better, but crashes under load after a few minutes.

Guess the chip is fubar.


----------



## Desolutional

Have you tried running this after doing a full CMOS reset (not just BIOS defaults) and on a fresh install of windows?

Don't mess about with adaptive below 40x multiplier, the stock voltage tables scale up to 40x, adaptive is actually worse up to 40x. Use a multiplier of 40x with "Offset Voltage" set to offset +0.001V, make sure XMP is disabled, DDR4 is set to 2133 or 2400MHz. Set VCCIN to 1.90V, and LLC to Level 5 out of 9.

*Do NOT overclock / over-volt the CPU Cache - this breaks Broadwell-E chips.*


----------



## acquacow

I reset the CMOS a few times due to instabilities. I did not reinstall windows. I was having some issues even on my 5930k, but this seems to be resolved now that I updated from Windows 10 2004 to 20H2. 2004 must have been pretty buggy, as even my software audio devices were having issues on that update, and PUBG wouldn't run longer than 15 mins w/o a hard lock-up/reset of the system.

That's all resolved now, and I have a different 6950x coming in two weeks to re-test again.

-- Dave


----------



## acquacow

So I returned the 6950x I had and grabbed another off ebay that shipped from Hong Kong. Took 4 days to arrive via DHL, amazingly.

So far everything is super stable, no issues at idle/etc.

Only oddness is that when I swapped my 5930k out with default bios settings and dropped the 6950x in, I see CPU-Z has the multiplier set at 40x and this chip is running at 4GHz under peak workload.

I'm not sure if my bios somehow remembers settings per CPU that is installed, but I need to go in and see if I have any multipliers still set in there. It should have all been auto...


----------



## Desolutional

If everything else but the multi is set to Auto then the board will use excessive voltages on the chip, best to do a CMOS reset before continuing.


----------



## acquacow

Desolutional said:


> If everything else but the multi is set to Auto then the board will use excessive voltages on the chip, best to do a CMOS reset before continuing.


I've heard that, and it's why I went full manual for my 24x7 4.5GHz 5930k overclock, but while rough-testing the previous chip, I never saw any voltages out of spec in hwinfo when overclocking.

I've heard nightmare stories of vcore going to 1.5v for folks, but I've never seen that on this asus x99 deluxe.


----------



## acquacow

Aah, found it.

CPU Core Ratio was set to Sync All Cores, but with all the core speeds on auto.

Setting it back to Auto removes the core speeds options and brings the max multiplier under load to x34 instead of x40.

Interesting that it chose x40 as the max on auto. It even picked a proper vcore of 1.24, which is just enough for x41 based on other results I've graphed.

Gonna try x41 and x42 this weekend and see how that goes.

Thanks,

-- Dave


----------



## Desolutional

6950X Turbo Boost algorithm scales up to 40x, use offset Vcore when tuning up to and including 40x multi, you can use offset or adaptive at 41x or higher.

Also turn off "ASUS MultiCore Enhancement", it will conflict with Windows default CPU scheduler for little performance gain.


----------



## acquacow

Have any of you had issues with USB 3.0 dropping out on asus x99 boards when clocking these chips up? This was something that happened with my 5930k, and now with this 6950x. I wonder if the onboard USB ports aren't getting enough power, or are getting too much when overclocked, not sure how to troubleshoot.

I was running at 42x and the chip/benchmarks were perfectly fine, but then my keyboard stopped responding and I found both USB 3 ports non responsive on the back of the board. I swapped to usb 2 ports and things are fine. 

This has happened on two different asus x99 deluxe boards. I worked around it previously by disabling xHCI in the bios and forcing them to be usb2.0 ports instead.

Thanks,

-- Dave


----------



## Desolutional

Yes, I haven't had this occur on the front panel USB 3.0 ports yet though, give those a try. I still haven't figured out what causes it, but hazarding a guess it may possibly be PCH voltage. Interestingly enough, it only seems to affect my mouse, not any other USB 3.0 devices. It isn't worth disabling xHCI as USB 3.0 is much faster, try plugging the devices into a USB 2.0 port instead. Here's a chart showing roughly how much Vcore you need per multiplier for Handbrake AVX2 encoding stability:


----------



## acquacow

Desolutional said:


> Yes, I haven't had this occur on the front panel USB 3.0 ports yet though, give those a try. I still haven't figured out what causes it, but hazarding a guess it may possibly be PCH voltage. Interestingly enough, it only seems to affect my mouse, not any other USB 3.0 devices. It isn't worth disabling xHCI as USB 3.0 is much faster, try plugging the devices into a USB 2.0 port instead. Here's a chart showing roughly how much Vcore you need per multiplier for Handbrake AVX2 encoding stability:
> 
> View attachment 2472999


Heh, I actually made a similar graph based on some known good configurations I found. I didn't bother to perfectly fit the line though.


----------



## acquacow

So this latest used 6950x was stable and great since I got it, but it died on the 15th while just sitting idle overnight. I was on default bios settings since I was playing with memory timings a few days prior and failing at it. My eventlog showed a hardware error reported at 350am and when I woke up and got down to my PC at 9am to work, it was powered off and wouldn't post. Bios Q-Code was reporting "00" and the machine would shut off after failing to post.

I reseated the CPU a few times, but no luck.

I swapped back to my old 5930k, that's working fine and am seeing if the seller has any other chips.

Not sure why it's so hard to get a good 6950x


----------



## fellix

acquacow said:


> Not sure why it's so hard to get a good 6950x


I got my 6950X from AliExpress couple of months ago, from a recommended seller, and the thing has been rock stable since. I don't know if it is a top overclocker, but I keep it at 4.3GHz and 1.25v on air -- it could probably run at even lower Vcc, but haven't spend time for it yet. The mobo is ASRock X99 Extreme 6/3.1


----------



## savagepagan

Does not look like windows 11 will support our processors.


----------



## zoson

savagepagan said:


> Does not look like windows 11 will support our processors.


That doesn't mean it won't install on our hardware. Feature-set speaking, broadwell-e has everything necessary. The question is if your motherboard has a TPM header so you can stick a TPM2.0 module on it.

Just to further drive the point home, the i7 6950x is NOT supported by the latest version of Windows 10 (21H1) but it still installs and runs just fine:








Windows Processor Requirements Windows 10 21H1 Supported Intel Processors


This specification details the intel processors that can be used with Windows 10, version 21H1 Customer Systems that include Windows Products (including Custom Images).



docs.microsoft.com


----------



## savagepagan

zoson said:


> That doesn't mean it won't install on our hardware. Feature-set speaking, broadwell-e has everything necessary. The question is if your motherboard has a TPM header so you can stick a TPM2.0 module on it.
> 
> Just to further drive the point home, the i7 6950x is NOT supported by the latest version of Windows 10 (21H1) but it still installs and runs just fine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windows Processor Requirements Windows 10 21H1 Supported Intel Processors
> 
> 
> This specification details the intel processors that can be used with Windows 10, version 21H1 Customer Systems that include Windows Products (including Custom Images).
> 
> 
> 
> docs.microsoft.com


It does have a TPM header. But the TMP module prices have sky rocketed. My motherboard takes a 20 pin module. I hear a cpu with PTT is compatible with W11.


----------



## savagepagan

Does anyone have a link for the latest X99 chipset drivers?


----------



## Dazzler79

acquacow said:


> Realized I needed to install all the intel server chipset drivers to properly get every part of the 6950x recognized in windows 10. Will have to re-visit my previous overclocking attempts now that windows knows what it is.


@acquacow For the life of me, I cannot find a working set of chip drivers, the official ones refuse to install on Win10pro 21H1. My device manager looks exactly like your before image. Any tip/links to working drivers?

Thanks in advance


----------



## zoson

Dazzler79 said:


> @acquacow For the life of me, I cannot find a working set of chip drivers, the official ones refuse to install on Win10pro 21H1. My device manager looks exactly like your before image. Any tip/links to working drivers?
> 
> Thanks in advance


Chipset is Intel C610 series.
You'll need to also install xeon e7 v4 cpu drivers.


----------



## Nocturnal

acquacow said:


> So this latest used 6950x was stable and great since I got it, but it died on the 15th while just sitting idle overnight. I was on default bios settings since I was playing with memory timings a few days prior and failing at it. My eventlog showed a hardware error reported at 350am and when I woke up and got down to my PC at 9am to work, it was powered off and wouldn't post. Bios Q-Code was reporting "00" and the machine would shut off after failing to post.
> 
> I reseated the CPU a few times, but no luck.
> 
> I swapped back to my old 5930k, that's working fine and am seeing if the seller has any other chips.
> 
> Not sure why it's so hard to get a good 6950x


My 5930 just died today. I swapped it with a 6950x. I hope it doesn't do the same thing. Did you ever figure out what killed the CPU?


----------



## acquacow

Nocturnal said:


> My 5930 just died today. I swapped it with a 6950x. I hope it doesn't do the same thing. Did you ever figure out what killed the CPU?


Nope, and the ebay vendor ghosted me, and I haven't purchased another. I have been looking for other good vendors to purchase from see-ic is not one of them.


----------



## D-EJ915

acquacow said:


> Nope, and the ebay vendor ghosted me, and I haven't purchased another. I have been looking for other good vendors to purchase from see-ic is not one of them.


They worked fine for me, got 2 from them last year and had no issues. Both are better than my old "retail box" 6950x so I'm pretty happy. If you want my old one shoot me an offer in pm I can send you pictures.


----------



## mattliston

If you can deal with only 8 cores, e5 1660 V3 or 1680 Xeon chips are the bee's knees.

Mine does 4ghz at a measly 1.09 volts. Hammered it with all sorts of stress tests, didnt give up one bit. Even while running 3500mhz cache and Samsung ECC ram at 2666 CL17 (default CL19)

Been running my 1660 at 4.5ghz and 1.22 volts nowadays. SLowly cranking it up. At 1.22v and a Noctua D15 dual fan, it does not hit 80*C

Been playing some modded games recently, and while X99 has always provided awesome bandwidth (at 3500mhz cache and my Samsung ECC ram sitting at 2666 CL17 overclocked), I get nearly 64gb/s memory bandwidth. Write performance is just over 54gb/s and around 64ns latency. Not bad at all for very loose ram


----------



## Nocturnal

acquacow said:


> Nope, and the ebay vendor ghosted me, and I haven't purchased another. I have been looking for other good vendors to purchase from see-ic is not one of them.


Same thing. I got mine from eBay. It was a while ago though so I can't really claim any warranty or anything like that. I did buy a 6950x from a vendor, brand new.


----------



## marvintomes2018

fellix said:


> I got my 6950X from AliExpress couple of months ago, from a recommended seller, and the thing has been rock stable since. I don't know if it is a top overclocker, but I keep it at 4.3GHz and 1.25v on air -- it could probably run at even lower Vcc, but haven't spend time for it yet. The mobo is ASRock X99 Extreme 6/3.1


Super good chip if your getting those clocks at that voltage, I still to this day use the i7-6950x CPU and it has been an outstanding CPU paired with the Gigabyte Designare EX board.


----------



## marvintomes2018

marvintomes2018 said:


> Super good chip if your getting those clocks at that voltage, I still to this day use the i7-6950x CPU and it has been an outstanding CPU paired with the Gigabyte Designare EX board.


What Motherboard are or were you using with the i7-6950x?


----------



## acquacow

So I'm back on another 6950x and things have been good for a few months on stock speeds. Decided to pump that up a bit over the last two days.

Started with:
x42 @1.28v with x35 cache
DRAM at stock 16-16-16-39s speeds @2400
~12800 on cinebench R23 @85C max

I did have a USB 3.0 drop-out so rather than increasing voltages/temps more, I'm down to:
x41 @1.248v with x37 cache
DRAM now at 15-15-15-35 @2666
Still ~12800 cinebench R23 at 80C max

Will see how the week progresses. I can probably push the DRAM to 3000 at these speeds based on other results I've seen.


----------



## acquacow

Went through last night with HWINFO and was re-verifying all of my voltages and noticed cache/uncore was at 1.4V, so I went back into bios and dropped cache to x35 and manually set the voltage to 1.30

not sure if I can do x37 at 1.30, I had tried to manually dial that in previously earlier in my overclock and the system didn't post, so changed multiplier and voltage this time. I can try to notch it up again later.


----------



## xkm1948

1.3V cache is really high. BWE cache degrades very fast and if you are on X99 with those "OC sockets" I will be extra careful Watch out for CPU package temp


----------



## acquacow

xkm1948 said:


> 1.3V cache is really high. BWE cache degrades very fast and if you are on X99 with those "OC sockets" I will be extra careful Watch out for CPU package temp


CPU package temps are low. Core temps don't get over 75C either.


----------



## xkm1948

Keep your eyes on it. I would not run any stress test. Just daily drive it and hopefully it stays OK


----------



## acquacow

xkm1948 said:


> Keep your eyes on it. I would not run any stress test. Just daily drive it and hopefully it stays OK


Still running well, 100% stable. I dropped uncore to 1.28 and it's also still stable.

Going to notch it down a little each week till I find some unstability I guess.

-- Dave


----------



## xkm1948

acquacow said:


> Still running well, 100% stable. I dropped uncore to 1.28 and it's also still stable.
> 
> Going to notch it down a little each week till I find some unstability I guess.
> 
> -- Dave


good luck. my 6950X has uncore at default 2.8GHz with 0.85V. These old broadwell-e cores are not fast enough to be starved of data, with quad channel RAM it is as good as it gets. At this late lift point I care way more about how much longer I can stretch this X99 platform lifespan than a few points of synthetic benchmark.


----------



## Krzych04650

Getting ready for some upgrades later in the year so I made some benchmarks in games I found to be problematic on the CPU side to have some point of comparison with new CPUs. I will make a video or a separate post about it sometime so I am not going to explain all the games now, here are just some numbers.

6900K - 3.5 GHz all core, 2.8 GHz cache, 2400 C18 memory, no timing tuning
6900K OC - 4.5/4.4 GHz, 3.4 GHz cache, 3400 C13 memory, tuned subtimings

FPS numbers are (AVG / 1% Low / 0.1% Low)

1. LOTRO - DX11 ST - (3840x1600, Max Settings, Battle of Pelennor Fields)

6900K - 44.6 / 21.3 / 8.7 (100% / 100% / 100%)
6900K OC - 62.4 / 31.1 / 9.4 (140% / 146% / 108%)

2. The Witcher - DX9 ST - (3840x1600, Max Settings, Trade Quarter)

6900K - 45.8 / 30.8 / 24.9 (100% / 100% / 100%)
6900K OC - 64 / 45.2 / 35.3 (140% / 147% / 142%)

3. The Witcher 2 - DX9 ST - (3840x1600, Max Settings with Ubersampling, Foltest's Camp)

6900K - 49.3 / 31.1 / 25.6 (100% / 100% / 100%)
6900K OC - 61.4 / 40.8 / 33.1 (124% / 131% / 129%)

4. The Witcher 3 - DX11 MT (1920x800, Max Settings without Hairworks, Novigrad)

6900K - 126.9 / 85.9 / 53.4 (100% / 100% / 100%)
6900K OC - 180.1 / 127.3 / 71.7 (142% / 148% / 134%)

5. Assassin's Origins - DX11 MT (1920x800, Max Settings, Alexandria)

6900K - 47.1 / 31.6 / 25.9 (100% / 100% / 100%)
6900K OC - 62.1 / 45.9 / 33.5 (132% / 145% / 129%)

6. CS:GO - DX9 MT (1920x800, High Settings without MSAA, FPS Bechmark Map)

6900K - 346.2 / 105.6 / 78.9 (100% / 100% / 100%)
6900K OC - 463.3 / 138.6 / 83.5 (134% / 131% / 106%)


----------

