Started by wiredmarlin5 · · 👁 85 views · 2.2K replies
…
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.
David Sanders4 said:I honestly have no clue why the BIOS would be off by a full 0.1. 🤷
,1356
Thermal throttling is when the CPU overheats, the mobo sets its speed lower, so it can generate less heat and cool down.
Timothy Kim60 said:?
On a different note regarding the clock speeds:
I’d suggest brushing up on some tutorials; it feels like you're jumping from zero to sixty without checking the brakes first...
Either way, those temperatures are completely irrational. You can tell by the erratic voltage swings that something is fundamentally off. Are you absolutely certain the cooler is seated properly? Check if the fan is actually spinning, or if you've applied too much—or too little—thermal paste...
Timothy Kim60 said:That’s not a motherboard limit. You probably haven't even disabled all the BIOS settings needed for OC (clearly including Thermal throttling) — during a stress test, your clock speed should stay pegged at the max. That might be why your voltage is jumping around; it drops when thermal throttling kicks in and drags the clock down. This isn't your typical overvolting or voltage drop—it's way too much
You can't do things halfway. Honestly, with that cooler and board combo, that CPU could perform pretty damn well without even breaking 140F during a few hours of heavy stress testing.
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...
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.
Timothy Kim60 said:Using an LLC setting stabilizes the processor voltage—you can see the difference by comparing your BIOS settings against what CPU-Z reports during a heavy stress test. The trade-off, however, is that it tends to bump up your temperatures slightly. It’s definitely something you need to play around with; I’ve found it’s worth running a few tests to hunt down that perfect sweet spot, especially on those high-end boards that offer multiple stages like high or medium settings.
It generally helps, but if you aren't seeing any voltage drops, then LLC isn't really doing much for you. Here is a rare instance where I found LLC to be pretty much useless:
I’ve been looking over the benchmarks again, and I have to admit, I might have been a little too optimistic about how much headroom we actually had. It turns out that even with an upgrade, some of these older components just can't keep pace with modern demands. Regarding what Timothy Kim60 mentioned earlier, I think there's a valid point there about thermal throttling. It's easy to forget how much heat builds up when you're pushing hardware like this through a heavy Crysis 3 benchmark. Even with a decent setup, if the cooling isn't perfectly dialed in, you're going to see those numbers dip. I also noticed David Sanders4 brought up the power draw. It’s a fair observation. When you're running a GTX 680 alongside more modern parts, you really start to feel the strain on the PSU. It’s one of those things you don't realize is an issue until you're staring at a system crash during a stress test. Anyway, I'll keep tweaking the settings and see if I can find a more stable middle ground. It’s a bit of a balancing act, isn't it?
Timothy Kim60 said:You might actually see some real benefits in those heavy single-threaded titles that don't play particularly nice with AMD hardware—even when you're running a card like the GTX 660—think stuff like World of Tanks or Rome: Total War. Given the CPU, motherboard, and the Coolermaster Nepton 280 l Quote setup you picked up, it feels like a missed opportunity not to push it past 4GHz. Even a modest bump of a few hundred MHz would be worth the effort. It looks like those newer Vishera chips (the 8320e, 8370, and 8370e) are much more aggressive overclockers; they seem to require less voltage to hit higher clock speeds, which keeps temperatures much more manageable.
Timothy Kim60 said:Check out these results from Hawker:
I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, seeing how much things change over time is pretty fascinating. It feels like just yesterday we were all arguing about whether a specific GPU could even handle basic tasks, and now we’re looking at benchmarks that seem almost impossible. Regarding the points made by David Sanders4, I think there’s some merit to his skepticism, though perhaps he's being a bit too cautious. We've seen hardware perform significantly better than the initial projections suggested in the past. Still, I can see why one might hesitate to jump in without more data. As for what Timothy Kim60 mentioned earlier, I find myself agreeing with the general sentiment. It's easy to get caught up in the hype, but if you look at the actual performance metrics, the reality is often a bit more grounded—sometimes a little too grounded, if you ask me. It’s an interesting time to be keeping an eye on these developments. There's always someone convinced we've hit a plateau, only for a new release to completely shift the goalposts. I'll be curious to see how the community reacts once the next round of official testing is out.
Sure, the cooling setup and motherboard are top-tier, but honestly, those results and temperatures are just unreal.
Timothy Kim60 said:Regarding coolers—honestly, forget about liquid cooling. Air coolers are just much better value for your money. That’s my second point about the one you picked: it isn't really worth the investment. It actually costs more than a Noctua NH-D14, yet it performs worse.
