My CPU will not overclock past 3.9GH'z!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Gundem, Jul 31, 2016.

  1. Gundem

    So, I've removed the 2 4GB sticks and I managed to boot with OC Genie active and run a full benchmark at 4.0GH'z, but for some reason basically no matter what I do all my BIOS options are voided out and I can only change my CPU settings via Intel Extreme Tuning.

    Could perhaps uninstalling the program allow me to OC from the BIOS?
  2. Gundem

    Pretty old comment, no idea how I missed that.

    But anyway, hehe, no.

    I have no idea where you got the insane notion that a 4670k/GTX 970 is a "Bottom End" machine, and I shan't ask where. This thing was a medium-high end rig when I built it and it's still easily a medium tier PC, before overclocking. It has absolutely no trouble running games like War Thunder or Battlefield 4 on the highest of graphics settings

    Planetside 2 does have some Multi-threading functionality, but an 8 core CPU at 2.1GH'z will not magically run this game better then a Pentium G4500 overclocked to 4.5GH'z. At heart, the game still primarily benefits from single core performance.

    And the GTX 970 is by no means a low end card either. In the current market, the GTX 970 sits as the fourteenth fastest GPU on the market, out of approximately 250 different cards on the market, based on user benchmarks. And it can be easily overclocked to reach speeds well above those of new cards like the GTX 1060 or the RX 480(Though the 1060 itself can also be overclocked, but that's not the point).

    The new objects being rendered is not the issue either. The Devs were very careful to stress-test the new Construction system, and people's systems only began to slow down once thousands of constructions literally blanketed the entire continent. There is another issue, something internal, that has been causing even the most beastly of rigs to slow down to a snails pace.

    In light of all this, I'll kindly ask you to stop spreading such appalling misinformation. I'd hate if some poor soul got completely screwed out of their money because you told them that a ******* GTX 970/4670k@4.5GH'z was a "Low End" machine.
  3. PasitheeVS

    My i5-4690k does 4,6GHZ @1.203V (aircooled) atm... and it's generally the same CPU.
    You either lost the silicon lottery or something else.

    Since the i5-4670k is a pretty old CPU, the thermal compound between the DIE (the chip) and the Heatspreader could be old and dried out. This is bad for the thermal conductivity and increases the temperatures and thus the OC results.

    What you can do about it, is removing the Heatspreader e.g. with a thin razor blade, remove the Thermal Compund and replace it with Liquid Metal Thermal Compound. This will improve the tempreratures by up to 20°C.
    Also you should cover contacts near the DIE with non-metall thermal compound to avoid a short circuit caused my the liquid metal.
    You can either glue it with silicon adhesive or just place it unglued on the HIS. (you should not use superglue, it will be very hard to remove it again...)
    Non-metal thermal compound will dry out too, and don't improve your temperature that much on long-term.

    I link you a video about how to do it.

    /edit: also, this:

    try to reset/uprdate your uefi/bios.
  4. fumz

    Not that it matters much, but the idea was to keep the 2x4gb sticks so you would run dual channel.

    Did you reset the bios and load the optimized defaults? If you did and still aren't getting the option to adjust it manually, then before uninstalling stuff that may have other uses (like fan curves), I'd see if there's an updated bios. If there is, grab it. It may turn out to be a bug and it's preventing you from manually oc'ing while the software is installed. It could also be some setting you've made to the software which has over-ridden your ability to manually oc. Wouldn't hurt to uninstall. Do you use anything else in the package besides the oc tools?

    I would not delid just yet. You don't have a temp problem.
    • Up x 1
  5. Gundem

    Probably what I'm going to do, though I've managed a 4.1GH'z overclock so far, which is nice improvement.

    I wasn't planning on delidding at all, I would personally rather not risk it at all. The 212's a pretty great cooler, if I have to ramp up my fan speed to max I'm not bothered by the noise.
  6. AtckAtck

    I have an MSI Board aswell, but never used the OC Genie.
    I am pretty sure that is the cause of your locked options.

    LLC can help to stable an oc that crashes when sudden loads occur, not only past 4,5 Ghz.
    But it can spike electricity into the cpu, and when near the volt limit (like your 1,4 volts) llc could possibly be the tipping point to killing the cpu.

    I can only recommend a german oc guide that I use for reference:
    But as you seem to know yourself around a bit the numbers should do it for you.
    There are even bios screenshots for a msi z87 board, with the most common options highlighted.

    Like I said, Ring bus is not very important and oc'ing it has near to no effect. So keep it as low as possible. (Which is always around 200 MHz below cpu oc speed. lower will probably cause a crash. Higher will cause your oc to need higher voltage for little effect.
  7. fumz

    let's just agree to disagree on this one. :p

    progress is good though. least we're headed in the right direction.
    llc exists to offset vdroop. it's not so much a sudden load, but rather a heavy load, like a benchmark. worry about vdroop when you're going lower to fine tune vcore. right now, let's just get this to a meager 4.4 at or near stock vcore. fiddling with too much at once never a good idea. not saying you're wrong, just sayin too soon.
  8. AtckAtck

    This is why he should turn it off unless needed. ;)

    What do you think about keeping the ring bus as low as possible?
    Or do you keep the ring the same as the cpu always like the OP?
  9. fumz

    Typically I defer to guys who're familiar with the specific board and chipset. In this case, you're the MSI Z97 guy. I'm familiar with Asus; and the last two chipsets were p-67 and z-170.

    Having said that. I would not turn llc off. Vdroop happens no matter what. It is unavoidable. I would just use the board's default setting of (my guess is) ~ level 3-5. I'm using level 6 for a mild 4.5GHz 24/7 oc, but z170, so mileage may vary?

    As for the ring bus, just leave it auto. I haven't ever heard of anyone saying it increases performance or has any meaningful impact on stability. Again though, there may be quirks to MSI boards that change things?
  10. CriGGles

    Have a 4930k OC'ed so can't really give any specifics on your particular chipset/setup.

    Very brief and basic steps on how I overclocked mine :

    1. Set voltages to default, multiplier to what you'd like to have in the end (be reasonable), correct ram timings and speed.
    2. Set Vcore to Offset mode.
    3. Boot into Windows.
    4. If successful, open up CPU-Z and fire up Prime95 and start a test.
    5. If BSOD, note error code. Prime95 throws different error codes for what resulted in failure. (0x00000124 is Vcore too low).
    6. Go back into BIOS bump up offset by .005, rinse repeat.
    7. Make sure you don't overvolt too much. Keep monitoring vcore in CPU-Z and also keep an eye on temperatures with CoreTemp or your favourite temperature monitoring tool.

    All of this is much easier to do if you you have already overclocked with vcore in normal mode and then convert it into an offset voltage.

    Here is an OC guide for Haswell CPU's. Motherboards may make a bit of difference, however, the overclock guidelines are mostly the same. There is also a chart that contains values for other users that have overclocked their boards. While their values are not likely to work, it allows you have a ballpark on where to expect a stable OC.

  11. Gundem

    Well I did some digging on google, and it appears that the brilliant designers of the MSI 5 decided to force you to use the numpad to adjust overclock settings within the BIOS, and make absolutely sure they never specify that anywhere just to make it as confusing as possible.

    That was awkward.
  12. fumz

    Yeah, lol, that happens, a lot more often than you'd think too. So how high have you gotten now that you've unlocked the board's secrets?
  13. Gundem

    Keepin' her at a safe 4.2GH'z before I run Prime95 for 8 hours to ensure stability, but I'll try and get it has high as I can as long as temperatures stay within a safe margin.

    Man, I've been fantasizing of a mega-monster dual Titan X Pascal PC with a 6700k overclocked to +5.5GH'z with some Phase Change cooling system and a pair of 1TB PCIe SSD's in RAID 0.

    It physically hurts to think of both the cost and the performance of such a monster. I should stop myself.
  14. fumz

    Let me pour some water on that dream, for your own sanity. The 5GHz Skylake oc's that we were promised never materialized. Yes, there are 1 or 2 guys here and there who've hit 5GHz, but that's been so exceedingly rare that it can be labeled an anomaly. Only 50% of Skylake cpu's will do 4.5GHz or greater. The %'s go down as clock speeds increase. 4.8GHz @ < 1.4v is a phenomenal chip.

    It's been a while since we've had to run an 8 hour loop of Prime. Haswell is hot; you're just needlessly cooking your cpu. If you're going to Prime, do it last, and only use Prime v. 26.6, and then, a 2 hour loop is sufficient. Prime is very old. Run a 2 hour loop of RealBench, and 2 hour loop of Aida64 stress test. If you can pass that, followed by 2 hours of p95 it's highly unlikely you're not stable. In the end, stress tests don't mean much; it's games that matter. The only 8 hour loop worth doing anymore is memtest.

    Anyway, I like your dream... I might steal it tonight!
  15. Gundem

    So basically Haswell CPU's are better for overclocking the Skylake?

    What about relative performance? Does a Skylake clocked at 4.8GH'z perform comparably to a Haswell clocked at +5GH'z?

    Honestly at this point Intel should just release a "Gaming" line of CPU's with better heat distribution, more voltage protection, high-grade thermal compound and more quality control for overclockability, though I doubt they would ever do that.
  16. CriGGles

    Average is 5% improvement in pure CPU bound tests. For gaming, there is almost 0 difference. If you want to read the full results:

    Lastly even that Titan X-P build will probably net you very little gains in Planetside 2 as the engine itself is working poorly at this point. Even with an OC'ed 4930k(4.4GHz), 16GB 2133/CL10 RAM and a Strix 1080(1825 core/ 1376 mem), I struggle to get stable 60fps on 1080p with mix of low/medium settings. Even more ironic is that according to the game, I'm GPU bound which I find laughable at this point.
  17. Gundem

    True that there's some performance issues in the backend, but remember that #1, those issues will likely be fixed in the future, and #2, such a setup could easily be for any other game.

    Just imagine a mutli-monitor setup like x6 1440p @90HZ for a game like War Thunder or Battlefield 1.
  18. Eyeklops

    You keep saying this. Show me a screenshot, or even better a video, of you getting better than 80 FPS in the center of a 96vs96 and I'll believe it runs "just fine"
  19. fumz

    Well, that's a complicated answer. Lets start by agreeing that nothing oc'd better than Sandy Bridge in terms of clock speed gains. However, it's not always clock speed that matters (and i can't believe i just said that). On average, clock for clock, Skylake's IPC is ~ 25-50% faster than Sandy Bridge, dependent on the application. Clock for clock, Skylake's IPC is ~ 10-25% faster than Haswell, again though, dependent on the application.

    It's not an apples to apples comparison though because the platform matters. If we bench Haswell vs Skylake in an apples to apples test, we must do so using 2133MHz memory. This slow speed cripples Skylake, as you can see here: However, when you take advantage of Skylake's platform and use much faster RAM, Skylake's gains increase.

    When it comes to games the general rule about gpu limited games still applies: cpu (intel) and ram speed don't matter much because you're limited by the graphics card. However, with cpu limited games, it's a little different. With cpu limited games ram speed matters, and this is where you can see Skylake shine. It's not so much that Skylake's faster IPC and faster ram increases your max fps, it does, but only by a frame or two; it's that with faster ram and Skylake you have much better minimum fps.

    So if the question is, for you specifically, "is it worth it to jump to Skylake?" No. The gains just aren't worth it, even after all those words I just posted. Haswell has, just like all Intel's, crazy good single-threaded performance; more than enough for any gain. Oc'ing only increases that. 4.5GHz seems to be the magic number, from Sandy Bridge on, where users just don't have to worry about lack of cpu strength no matter what game they're playing. A 4.5GHz Intel isn't going to be anyone's bottleneck. Of course a 4.5 Skylake > 4.5 Haswell > 4.5 Sandy Bridge, but really, unless you're super nerdy (guilty), then you're in much better shape than you'd be if you purchased the cpu AMD releases a year from now.

    That's not really a definitive answer, but it's the best I can give. I can tell you that I settled on a 4.5 24/7 oc for two reasons: 1) low volts, it only takes 1.32v for me. 2) the memory controller lets me run 3200MHz cl14 at 1.35 at 4.5, whereas at 4.6GHz I have to run cl15, and the system is just snappier at 14. Even though it only takes 1.35v to do 4.6, it's all about the feel for me. Either way, in Planetside, I think we're all getting ~ the same performance, no matter what we do. More than anything, getting this game to run great is beyond our control. If we're running good or bad it's because of the latest patch and not our hardware.
  20. Eyeklops

    Just curious where you came up with the number "5"? Do hyperthreaded cores count or does it have to be a true 5 cores? I've been wondering myself if PS2 can take advantage of the new Intel 6 core CPU's but my research hasn't lead me to any concrete proof.