Alexander Metzger Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Maybe one of you can give me some advice on what to try to solve my problem overclocking my i7-980X. I switched a few weeks ago from an i7-940 running at 160x23=3.68 GHz to an i7-890X starting at the same settings. No issues running with auto settings for any voltages. Performance on FSX was slightly increased. The reason for changing was to have an unlocked CPU. I then increased the multiplier and at 160x27=4.32 Ghz, keeping voltages on auto, I found it to be at the limit from a temperature perspective having a Thermalright 120 Extreme air cooling unit on it. At full load testing it came close to 85°C core temperatures. Now with FSX running you have 100% CPU load only in intervals so the core temps were more in the high 60°C with FSX running, which I thought is fine. All seemed to be stable, flew long distance flights in FSX with MD-11, BUT then I got blue screens when the computer was at room temperature and just starting for the first time of the day. The blue screen appeared while starting windows 7-64, just after the "welcome" screen. Rebooted 2-3 times and then it was up an running with no problems at all. So I went back to 160x25=4.00 GHz and since then this start up problem is gone. Since the performance difference in FSX is noticeable between 4.32 vs. 4.00 GHz, I would like to achieve stable working conditions, but don't understand how the machine can have difficulties starting up when being "cold". Memory is Corsair 3x 2GB running with multiplier 10 @ 1600 (nominal value for it and using standard time settings as per default profile) Motherboard is Gigabyte 58X-UD5 Anyone have a hint what to try? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 This is quite extraordinary Alex, My 980X and Noctua D-14 cooler arrived today ... so I'll be interested to see what the brainstrust can come up with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennyson Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Just interested in both you guys thinking. I know that the 980x is still about 1300 bucks, but the sandy bridge alternative, even with change of mobo and cpu would be at least half of that. Has the 980x got more legs than the sandy bridge? Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Routley Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 No .. probably not, but I'll be waiting for the later chipset (Intel are doing it the other way round this time) My 940 has a hot core(Core 3) (should have bought a 920) that prevents me wanting to push it further ... the 980X was on special at AU$1100. This will delay my upgrades until X68A (or whatever it is) is mature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Alexander, go back to 4.32GHz and enable load line calibration at level 1 (don't use level 2) and see if you are stable. Now all voltage on auto may not be the best but if you feel OK with that keep it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 How much vcore do you get on auto ? Run cpuz while you stress-test then you see it. Auto usually over-volts, so my bet would be that you have an issue with your RAM settings (also auto ?). Could you post cpuz screen-shots (all pages) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 Alexander, go back to 4.32GHz and enable load line calibration at level 1 (don't use level 2) and see if you are stable. Now all voltage on auto may not be the best but if you feel OK with that keep it there. Okay, went back to 4.32 GHz and set LLC to Level 1 and it came up without a problem Maybe it is cured by that. Thank you for the advice. How much vcore do you get on auto ? Run cpuz while you stress-test then you see it. Auto usually over-volts, so my bet would be that you have an issue with your RAM settings (also auto ?). Could you post cpuz screen-shots (all pages) ? I ran LinX - just one 100% run and made the following screens. Vcore in CPUz does not change, it stays at 1.376 V. Core temerature seem ok? For the memory I have selected the XMP-1600 timings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 To be honest, that's not much bandwidth you got there... FSB at 160 with 1333 MHz RAM running extremely loose timings at 1600 MHz. If you are into overclocking, you should really look for 1600 MHz RAM. I can run better timings with my cheapo Dominators at 2000 MHz (1T)... You should aim for 21x200 with low latency 1600 MHz RAM at 2:8 divider. If your mainboard supports it, you can maybe run 2000 MHz low latency 2:10, but that's of course a budget thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 I do have RAM with 1600 Mhz installed and the clocks are set to what they recommended in the documents which was identical to the XMP-1600 profile I found in the bios. The RAM is Corsair TR3X6G1600C9 and they recommend XMP 9-9-9-24 at 1600 Mhz, 1.65V Could you give me a recommendation of tighter settings to try? Edit: I have tried 200x21 and 200x20 with memory set to multiplier 8 maintaining 1600 MHz. Though it starts normally, I do get a "blue screen" when using FSX and i.e. reloading a scenery. Does this indicate anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Wonder why cpuz says PC10700 (667) max bandwidth then... Are you sure that those are the correct timings ? It should be more like 8-8-8-20 or something like that. On the side of the RAM is a sticker which tells the truth. It's better to set the latency manual according to those sticker specs. Which mainboard do you have ? edit: i just Googled those and they are indeed CL9. Found also some posts were user get BOSDs at default specs... Looks like lousy RAM to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Best idea would be to run memtest86 on those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Best idea would be to run memtest86 on those. They doi show 1600MHz in CPU-Z... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 I guess I will invest in a new set of memory. Now the question is shall I take one with 9-9-9-24 @ 2000 or 8-8-8-21 @ 1600. Any recommendation for my GA-58X UD5? I have the Thermaltake 120 cooler an the fan extends right to the 5 row of the 6 RAM slots. Any advice on 12 GB versus 6GB using primarily FSX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I guess I will invest in a new set of memory. Now the question is shall I take one with 9-9-9-24 @ 2000 or 8-8-8-21 @ 1600. Any recommendation for my GA-58X UD5? I have the Thermaltake 120 cooler an the fan extends right to the 5 row of the 6 RAM slots. Any advice on 12 GB versus 6GB using primarily FSX? 12GB will need a lot of QPI/vtt voltage at 2000MHz and you will be staring at danger right in the face. If you don't need 12GB for other application stay with 6GB. The higher MHz and the tighter timing is better, mine are 2000MHz at 7-7-7-21.....here is a link to Super Talent.. http://www.supertalent.com/products/overclock_memory_detail.php?reg=N&mtid=5 If they don't make the 2000MHz at 7-7-7-21 they have some 1600MHz at 6-6-6-18....now that's fast also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 I could not find any 2000 with less than 8-9-8-24. Readily available and not having big fins on top which may interfere with the suction side of the fan are 2000 with 9-9-9-30. So I guess that should provide significantly more speed versus the 1600 with 9-9-9-24. Right? Or is 2000 8-9-8-24 significantly better than 9-9-9-30 for the purpose of flying in FSX? Thanks for your advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 1600MHz at 6-8-6-24 will be better compare to 2000MHz at 9-9-9-30 or 2000MHz at 8-9-8-24. 2000MHz at 8-9-8-24 will be better compare to 1600MHz at 9-9-9-30. Put it this way, MHz is the speed limit on the highway and the timing is how fast you will go from 0 to the speed limit. So for FSX reaching 1600MHz in 6 sec. will be better than reaching 2000MHz in 9 sec. if that make sense to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 Ok I ordered the OZ 2000 with 9-9-9-30 as they are on the compatibility list of the MB. If I understand the process correctly I would start with the 980 with 200x20 and the memory at 10x as a base line. I could then try to move the CPU to 200x21 and in a second step try if the memory would run also with 8-8-8-24. Alternatively I could set the RAM to 8x an check even lower timings such as 7-7-7-21? Finally try that timing with 10x. Would I need to to change any voltages in that process. The GA-X 58A 5UD supports memory with 2000 via XMP profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Here 2000MHz 6-9-6-24, I can't see how high the fins are but if you have a well ventilated case you won't need the fan. http://www.ldlc.com/fiche/PB00102296.html If they fit in you may be able to lower the middle number to 8 or maybe 7 but I don't know if they will stay stable. These will be a LOT better compare to what you got. If you can spend the money on them and can cancell the other order go for it if they fit under your cooler. Keep in mind that in any hobby you have to pay to play, that is why they are expensive, at 2000MHz with a timing of 6-9-6-24.....they will be screaming if you can keep them stable at 6-(8-7)-6-24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 Wow that is a different level of performance. Thank you for the hint. Need to find a source to get them here in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Wow that is a different level of performance. Thank you for the hint. Need to find a source to get them here in Europe. Top right corner http://www.ldlc.ch/ They are in France, last time I look France was in Europe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Wow, that's a nice set of sticks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 Wow that is a different level of performance. Thank you for the hint. Need to find a source to get them here in Europe. Top right corner http://www.ldlc.ch/ They are in France, last time I look France was in Europe.... Sure that is right and they even have a shop in Switzerland but parts are not available right now. That's why I said I need to look around. I found them in Germany for even a bit less than the price in France but they also need to order them. Not an issue, I will wait for my ordered ones, need them by Friday as I sold all my old stuff over the weekend. Then I will see and probably get me those high speed ones if the memory issue is solved and I can run 200x21 without any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 Hi again, would like to receive some further advice from you. Installed the new memory and experience the following: CPU at 200x21 = 4.20 GHz - works CPU at 200x22 = 4.40 GHZ - boots and runs windows but blue screen in FSX RAM at 10x with 9-10-9-31 as per their default profile - works RAM at 10x with 9-10-9-27 as per XMP default - works RAM at 10x with 9-9-9-27 gave me one blue screen running FSX RAM at 10x with 8-8-8-24 does not boot. RAM at 8x with 8-8-8-24 - works So the question is now what is better to use for FSX? RAM an 1600 MHz (200x8) and tighter timings 8-8-8-24 OR RAM at 2000 MHz (200x10) and looser timings 9-10-9-27 Thanks in advance for your advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 CPU at 200x22 = 4.40 GHZ - boots and runs windows but blue screen in FSX What is your CPU cove voltage at? Do you have load line calibration enable? If not enable it, if you have more than one level keep it to level 1 only. =========================================== RAM at 2000 MHz (200x10) and looser timings 9-10-9-27 By lowering the timing or raising the MHz you are overclocking the memory, so at 2000MHz lowering the CL at 9-9-9-27 you will probably need a little rams voltage, try one notch higher, so if you are runnubg at 1.65v try the next level 1.66v, you will probably need a little more QPI/vtt voltage "WARNING" try to stay at 1.45v or lower if you can....over 1.45v you start flirting with danger, mine run at 2000MHz 7-7-7-21 with QPI/vtt at 1.457v ant the rams at 1.7v Overclocking your CPU should always be the first thing to do to reach stability with your rams at default, after you rig is stable you can start messing with the rams.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 CPU Voltage is 1.392 V when running idle at 200x12. When loading CPU with FSX at 200x24 CPU voltage drops to 1.376 V (all read in CPUz) DRAM voltage is 1.648 V (read in CPUz) QPI voltage is 1.70 V (read in bios) What is vtt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 CPU Voltage is 1.392 V when running idle at 200x12. When loading CPU with FSX at 200x24 CPU voltage drops to 1.376 V (all read in CPUz) DRAM voltage is 1.648 V (read in CPUz) QPI voltage is 1.70 V (read in bios) What is vtt? (Please tell me this is a typo) QPI is at 1.17v default and you are on auto? QPI at 1.70v means your CPU is just about to go Poofff Please post a screen shot of your bios, QPI/vtt should be at 1.45v maybe a little more, hard overclockers have it at 1.51 > but 1.70v .... eeeeeeeeeee Unless this is QPI PLL you'r talking about but still it will be to high WAY to high... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenBlade Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 If you divide the CAS with the freq. you get a comparable figure, the lower the number, the faster the ram. Bjorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 CPU Voltage is 1.392 V when running idle at 200x12. When loading CPU with FSX at 200x24 CPU voltage drops to 1.376 V (all read in CPUz) DRAM voltage is 1.648 V (read in CPUz) QPI voltage is 1.70 V (read in bios) What is vtt? (Please tell me this is a typo) QPI is at 1.17v default and you are on auto? QPI at 1.70v means your CPU is just about to go Poofff Please post a screen shot of your bios, QPI/vtt should be at 1.45v maybe a little more, hard overclockers have it at 1.51 > but 1.70v .... eeeeeeeeeee Unless this is QPI PLL you'r talking about but still it will be to high WAY to high... I'm sorry this was reading on the wrong screen of the BIOS. The 1.7 is the QPI voltage profile value in the memory part. Looking at the voltage page I found QPI/vtt Now the normal values for Vcore and QPI/vtt read both 1.175. I had them both set at "Auto" so I could see in CPUz that Vcore was maximum 1.392, but cannot find to read QPI/vtt somewhere. Going through the table the QPI/vtt values they start to turn to violet above 1.335. So that is the top of the recommended range I guess. I have tried 200x22 with Vcore 1.40 and QPI/vtt 1.335 but get blue screen at "windows welcome". Would it be advisable to have them both at 1.40 volts? Thank you again for looking into it and helping me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 If lower clocks with tighter latency is better or not, you can only find out with benchmarks. You won't notice a difference while flying, i don't think so. I would recommend to leave it at 4.2 GHz with moderate voltage and temps as 24/7 setup. Further run your RAM at 2000 MHz within the specs they are designed for. This will save you lots of headache and free up more time for the sim... It will sure run better than your previous setup, no doubt. But don't overdo it by running your PC on the BOSD border. Every crash is a risk - it can corrupt your OS or FSX. It's just not worth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 Heiko, thank you for your advice. It was the kind of what I was getting at. Never played before with OC, so I was looking to find the boundaries. CPU @ 4.4 GHz would have been nice but not on the expense of stability. I need to run it stable to avoid any loss of work done and want to finish my flights. The new setup is a big improvement over the previous and allows to enjoy even demanding planes in intense scenery. So I feel pretty good now as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Heiko is right about the memory, like I said earlier run your rams at spec. first to have a stable PC if you want to overclock, after your stable if you want to you can mess with them......(better stay at manuf. spec or buy the one I showed you) At 4.4GHz you will have to enable load line calibration at level 1 (no way around it) this will regulate the fluctuation of core voltage. Higher BCLK with lower multiplier will need more core voltage and other adjustment to be stable at high overclock (4.4GHz +) lower BCLK with higher multiplier won't need as much core voltage. So the best way to reach 4.4GHz will be with a lower BCLK, start from 4.2GHz slowly working your way up ...... At 200MHz on the rams you will need more than 1.35v QPI/vtt , remember that anything over 1333MHz is overclocking to start with, set QPI/vtt manually at 1.4v and start from there, you should not need more than 1.45v, mine need a little more because of my timing, you also need a well ventilated case because there is no software available to monitor the heat generated by this voltage, you may also need a little more voltage on the rams, mine can't run without BSOD at less than 1.7v on the rams and 1.457v on the QPI/vtt... good luck. By the way read this it will explain a lot http://www.chilledpc.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=9960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Metzger Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 Thank you! For me this is all too complicated, just cannot even follow those explanations in the reference doc you provided the link to. The 4.2 GHz I have now are from 200x21 and for RAM the 200x10 are the 2000 MHz which seem to be fine at the XMP profile 9-10-9-27 that are stored in the profile. I'm afraid to play more with it to get to 4.4 GHz unless just changing to 200x22 would work but though it boots I got one BSOD when using FSX . So the "Auto" settings for Vcore and QPI/vtt do not seem to work anymore. I know the CPU ran stable at 160x27= 4.32 GHz, but at that time I had the old memory at 1600 MHz with 8-8-8-24 settings. Changing from 160 to 200 BLCK should have helped with data processing through the bus and memory system and I think it did. Comparing with screenshots from same flight situations before/after I got about 10% more FPS. That is great! I tried to source the RAM you proposed, but it is not available, at least not in a 4-6 weeks time frame. Cannot estimate what it would really bring in terms of FPS or fluidity so spending that amount is questionable at best. I guess I leave it there unless the 4.4 GHz would be possible easily which I don't see how to achieve right now. I appreciate your help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 If you are happy with the setting you have right now keep it as it is. 4.4GHz with a 980x can be achieve without to much fuss but it is time consuming not because of the settings but because of the time needed to test for stability. I'm happy if I was able to help, if you need more info or help let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heiko Glatthorn Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Changing from 160 to 200 BLCK should have helped with data processing through the bus and memory system and I think it did. Indeed it does . Bandwidth is as important as processing power (that's also a point why Sandy Bridge is so strong). I believe 21x200 and 2:10 is a golden setting for this kind of system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.