Posts by Kimberly Gomez34

mellowtiger83 said:A buddy of mine is running that 3.2GHz overclocked chip paired with an R9 270, and everything runs smooth as silk. It’s a legendary processor; even if it's seen better days, the guy is still getting plenty of mileage out of it.

There's no denying this CPU is a legend and still functional. However, when you pair it with a GTX 660 for modern titles, even an overclock won't save it. Performance varies by title, obviously, but even something like an i3 would barely be a bottleneck for that GPU, since many newer games can really lean on those 8 threads.

Crysis 3 benchmark - Severe CPU bottle neck

It's hardly surprising:
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-c...nce/page6.html
http://www.overclock.net/t/1362591/g...pu-cpu-scaling

If you were using a GTX 680 (roughly comparable to today's R9 280x or a GTX 770) with this processor, you'd likely see your FPS cut at least in half.

David Sanders4 said:That’s exactly what I was thinking—once you find a stable voltage. I noticed when I enable CnQ, it stays at a 7 multiplier (1.4 GHz) while idling, but under load, it stays stuck at 7 too, which feels pointless if it’s just going to behave that way during gaming anyway....

The whole point of that feature is to drop the clock speed and voltage when the PC is idling so you aren't burning electricity for no reason. It shouldn't kick in while you're gaming. Intel has something very similar. The feature itself is fine; the issue is that sometimes the BIOS will include a disclaimer like this:

"In certain scenarios, this may lead to system instability when paired with specific RAM models; if instability occurs, please disable this setting."

That’s likely what happened to the woman mentioned in the link (since nothing worked, she didn't undervolt, and everything was at stock settings).

Basically, it's just hardware quirks caused by how different combinations of RAM, motherboards, and CPUs play together. Honestly, it's mostly noise—you're better off just turning it off and moving on. Personally, once I start overclocking or undervolting and move away from factory defaults, I feel like the transition from CnQ back to standard settings isn't perfectly smooth. It feels like a tiny micro-stutter, maybe for a fraction of a second, almost like a momentary lag... though it probably works better on newer processors and boards...

I've noticed AMD has all these features that just confuse the average user or gamer. It seems unbalanced to me; it's all set up automatically, but once you start tweaking things yourself, then it actually becomes useful...

Every BIOS has options like this; most average users just don't notice them. People only really care when they start overclocking. For the most part, it's not "make or break"—you can go one way or the other. More options generally mean more control. Take LLC, for example: some boards don't even have it, others only offer an On/Off switch, while you can actually fine-tune the levels on others.

I'm going to run the Crysis 3 benchmark. It runs beautifully now, unlike on the Q6600—it's night and day.

The FX-8350 is a beast in comparison. That Q6600 was a massive bottleneck for the GTX 660 in that game.

Roger Mitchell4 said:So it makes more sense to just grab the FX 6300 if the price gap is that small...
Are you kidding me?!

It’s definitely worth picking up at Amazon; their pricing is unbeatable right now.

Roger Mitchell4 said:Right, and when I'm shopping for a monitor (Full HD, HDMI, 21.5 inch) for about $150, what should I look out for? Does the graphics card actually matter when choosing one?
Also, quick question: should I go with the 260x or the NVIDIA GTX 750 Ti?

Go with the NVIDIA GTX 750 Ti, obviously.

Make sure the monitor is 1920x1080 and has a DVI or HDMI output (don't settle for one that only has VGA). Also, depending on your budget, try to find an IPS or PLS panel—or at least a VA panel. Those are much better than the standard TN panels you usually see.

David Sanders4 said:The issue is that if you want to be certain, you need to run every single test for at least 45 minutes. That takes serious patience; I usually run them for about 15 minutes and find myself yawning while waiting for the results...

Look, you don't have to run every single combination for an extended period. As soon as it passes a 15-minute stretch, drop to an even lower voltage until it fails. Then, dial it back to the last stable setting and run that one for a longer duration. If that still isn't enough after a long test, bump it up by one increment. Here is the "procedure":

That’s the quick-and-dirty method—undervolt until it fails to boot into Windows, then incrementally increase the voltage until it survives a few hours of testing and temperatures stay within limits. Once that happens, you're set. Essentially, the goal for the perfect overclock is to hit your target frequency (say, 4.5 GHz) at the lowest possible voltage while maintaining total stability. You want maximum performance with minimum heat and power draw. Also, there might be some BIOS settings you can toggle back on.

I've been reading through, but I don't see which cooler is being used... though I did notice they turned on CnQ once everything was assembled?!

Don't use CnQ while you're overclocking. People mention you can enable CnQ once you've found a stable OC and cleared all the stress tests, but honestly, most people hate it (myself included). That feature can cause nothing but headaches:

She should probably stop stressing over what's causing her trouble.

But yes, after you finish the OC, you can re-enable certain features, like thermal throttling. Why not? It prevents overheating, and unlike during a stress test, in normal daily use or gaming, your temperatures won't get anywhere near the limit, so the feature will never actually trigger anyway.

By the way, that guy's cooling setup is a Coolermaster Nepton 280 l Quote

Well, I just grabbed everything that was in the link since it was priced below market value.

What kind of deal? A special discount or through a corporate account?

LLC stabilizes your CPU voltage (comparing what you set in the BIOS against what CPU-Z shows under load during a stress test)—but because of that, it also bumps up your temps slightly. You really need to play around with it and test to find that sweet spot, especially with high-end boards that offer different stages like high, medium, etc.

Generally speaking, it helps, but if the voltage isn't dropping, then LLC isn't doing much for you. For example, here is a rare case where LLC didn't help at all:
http://forum.pcekspert.com/showpost....0&postcount=94

There's no real need for just one GTX 660; having a stable 3.5 is more than enough for it, but once they go SLI, we'll see...

You might actually see some benefits in those strictly single-threaded games that don't play nice with AMD, even with that card (like World of Tanks, Rome TW, etc.). Since you picked up that CPU, motherboard, and cooler, it would be a shame not to push it past 4GHz—even by a few hundred MHz. Those newer Visheras (8320e, 8370, 8370e) seem to be absolute beasts when it comes to overclocking (they require less voltage for a given clock speed, which means even better temps).

My FX8320E holds 4.1 GHz at 1.2vcore.
For an FX8370, I need 1.39vcore for 4.9GHz, but it holds 4.4 at 1.2625v.

Check out the results from Hawker:
http://forum.pcekspert.com/showthrea...=262724&page=7

Sure, he’s using high-end cooling and a premium motherboard, but those results and temperatures are insanely good...

As for coolers—honestly, forget liquid cooling; air coolers are much more cost-effective. That’s the other issue with the cooler you bought—it isn't a great value. It’s more expensive than a Noctua NH-D14, yet it performs worse.

Is it just me, or is the AMD website constantly out of date? It feels like half the stuff we discuss here on the forums isn't even reflected on their official pages.

The AMD FX-4300 was never a great deal here in the States since it usually sat just a few bucks cheaper than the FX 6300, but at Newegg, things look different because it's priced at $192. With a setup like this, you actually have a decent upgrade path, maybe moving up to an FX8320E later on
.

What kind of settings could I run in GTA 5?

Only a psychic could possibly answer a question that vague

There you have it. And then they claim AMD runs "hot." 😬

David Sanders4: song

Basically, the plastic film on the cooler had this nasty smell 😬

Man, I'm just glad it didn't fry my CPU 😬

It was obvious from the temps that something was seriously off; there's no way I'd be seeing numbers like that with a decent cooler

That isn't a motherboard limitation. You haven't enabled all the necessary overclocking features in the BIOS yet—specifically regarding Thermal throttling. During a proper stress test, your clock speeds should remain pegged at the maximum consistently. That fluctuation you're seeing in voltage is likely just the system dropping the voltage as the thermal throttling kicks in and throttles the clocks. It doesn't look like classic overvolting or voltage sag; it’s much more significant than that.

You can't take a half-measure approach like this. Based on that cooler and your motherboard, I think that CPU could actually perform quite impressively without even breaking 60°C during a multi-hour stress test.

,1356

?

Regarding the clock speeds:

Thermal throttling is when the CPU overheats, the mobo sets its speed lower, so it can generate less heat and cool down.

I’d suggest brushing up on some tutorials; it looks like you’re trying to run before you can walk when it comes to overclocking.

Regardless, those temperatures are absolutely insane. You can tell by the erratic voltage drops that nothing is lining up here. Are you 100% certain the cooler is seated properly? Check if the fan is actually spinning, or if you've used way too much—or not nearly enough—thermal paste.

And what kind of voltage are you seeing in CPU-Z when you're running a stress test (like OCCT or Prime95)? I'd love to see the delta between having LLC enabled versus leaving it off.

Regardless, there's no way your temps should be hitting those levels with that specific cooler installed.

David Sanders4 said:I honestly have no clue why the BIOS would be off by a full 0.1. 🤷

A moderate voltage drop or an overvolt isn't unheard of—I always suggest checking out a few tutorials—but seeing a shift across the entire first decimal point is definitely not standard. If I set it to 1.35V and it drops to 1.25V or spikes to 1.45V, that’s just way too much fluctuation.

Enable LLC

Something isn't adding up here. You need to disable several other settings—specifically C&C, C1E, and C6. I’d highly recommend watching a quick tutorial on this. Also, take some time to browse through the existing threads and double-check your BIOS settings.

With that motherboard and cooler, you have more than enough headroom for a serious overclock. You should easily be hitting 4.3–4.5 GHz while staying well under 60°C.

To give you an idea, look at Tom's setup: an FX 8370e paired with a Shadow Rock Slim cooler and a 990FX chipset.

The core voltage at 4.5 GHz was set to 1.315 V in the BIOS, resulting in an actual reading of 1.26 V.

Check HW Monitor.

http://imageshack.com/a/img909/1337/dSysCY.jpg

New AMD Radeon R9 280 cards are sitting at around $1500-$533, whereas used AMD Radeon R9 280 x models were moving for about $1000-$367

What on earth? How does that even work? What voltage settings are you running in your BIOS, and which specific features have you toggled on or off there?

Try using a different monitoring program to check those temperatures.

David Sanders4 said:I haven't even tested this with the stock cooler—I'm using a v8gts. My idle temps sit between 17-23°C, but under load at 4.3GHz, it climbs past 80°C. Even then, the voltage itself is spiking above 1.4V... I'm honestly getting worried about my motherboard if temperatures are hitting north of 90°C.

I’m not following you. Give me some actual details. What specific motherboard are we talking about? Which exact CPU? You mentioned an AMD FX Series, but was it an 81xx—basically a Bulldozer chip? And how much are we talking when you say "over 1.4V"? There is a massive difference between 1.405V and 1.45V.

Generally speaking, running those CPUs above 1.4V is asking for trouble; you need a heavy-duty motherboard and serious high-end cooling to pull that off.
It's likely you either set the voltages too high or you're working with a low-end board that's overvolting significantly due to poor VRM cooling or regulation.

Hitting 4.3GHz on Vishera chips can be done staying under 1.4V—in some cases, way lower. I know a guy who gets an AMD FX-8370 up to 4.1GHz while only pulling 1.2V 🙏 which is pretty impressive considering he's running it on a basic 4+1 phase ASrock 990 extreme.

crimsonstag84 said:~$1667

If you push that CPU overclock just a bit further, you should be able to hit high settings, though we don't have the exact hardware specs yet.

The system requirements for GTA V are out. Honestly, they look a little too optimistic—especially those minimum specs—considering how poorly optimized most modern games tend to be these days.

It’s common knowledge that the stock cooler just won't cut it. Honestly, I don't think anyone would even bother running these kinds of stress tests at stock settings—it's a non-starter. You'd definitely need to disable Turbo Boost and likely undervolt just to maintain base clock speeds under load.

Keep in mind that 62°C is basically the target sweet spot. You shouldn't be jumping into expensive aftermarket coolers based on random forum advice without reason.

Otherwise, Intel Core i7-4790K stock performance 😬
For comparison, here is an Intel Core i7-4790K paired with a massive Noctua NH-D15 aftermarket cooler.

Now we finally get to the meat of the matter: overclocking. Is this chip actually any better than the previous 4770K model? Well, just like with the last generation, it really comes down to the silicon lottery—it all depends on the specific chip you happen to grab.

To start things off, our specific unit hit 4.5 GHz at 1.3V quite easily, which was exactly what we were aiming for. It stayed perfectly stable during extended OCCT runs, though total system power draw climbed to about 180W. Pushing further, we bumped the voltage to 1.35V and the multiplier to 47. This landed us at 4.7 GHz, and while the CPU remained stable, temperatures did spike up to 88°C. During this, we kept the Vcore at 1.35V, the Ring voltage at 1.175V, and set the System Agent, I/O Analog, and I/O Digital voltages to +0.1V over nominal. We even managed to wake the processor up to 4.8 GHz; however, while it crushed every benchmark, it eventually crashed during stability testing after about 25 minutes of OCCT. Therefore, the absolute stable overclock for this chip is 4.7 GHz, making it objectively worse than our old 4770K, which could hit 4.9 GHz with ease.

That said, the lower-end chips don't run nearly as hot. A Pentium, for instance, can actually handle being pushed a little bit even on a basic stock cooler.

crimsonstag84 said:The only part of your statement that actually holds water is the bolded text... everything else is either debatable or just plain wrong.

Spot on.

I’d suggest sticking strictly to the bolded portion.

it runs way cooler than the AMD chips, uses significantly less power, and the overclocking headroom for this series is massive.
With Intel, you don't need those ultra-expensive motherboards, and because of the lower power draw, you can actually save some cash on the PSU, not to mention the cooler.

Are you seriously trying to claim Intel runs cool and lets you skimp on the cooler? If someone actually wants to overclock, they're going to have to invest heavily into that. These things are basically space heaters if you're serious about OC. Even just looking at raw temperature comparisons—Intel tends to run much hotter.

You're spreading misinformation.