F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Overclocking CPU Base Frequency Locked?

CPU Base Frequency Locked?

CPU Base Frequency Locked?

D
D4rkr0m
Junior Member
17
08-04-2016, 08:25 AM
#1
I'm working with an AMD 8350 inside an MSI 970 Gaming mb. I'm just starting out with overclocking. What I think I should do is first increase the CPU base frequency until it becomes unstable, then lower it slightly and then increase the multiplier. After that, I should experiment with voltages. The issue I'm facing is that I can't adjust the CPU base frequency from 200. Is this typical? Should I try changing something else first? Any advice would be really appreciated. Thanks.
D
D4rkr0m
08-04-2016, 08:25 AM #1

I'm working with an AMD 8350 inside an MSI 970 Gaming mb. I'm just starting out with overclocking. What I think I should do is first increase the CPU base frequency until it becomes unstable, then lower it slightly and then increase the multiplier. After that, I should experiment with voltages. The issue I'm facing is that I can't adjust the CPU base frequency from 200. Is this typical? Should I try changing something else first? Any advice would be really appreciated. Thanks.

X
XknockMC
Member
121
08-05-2016, 04:43 PM
#2
I always begin with the multiplier and only use the fsb for minor adjustments at the end personally.
Increasing the fsb too much raises the risk of system instability, so you should lower the ram speeds first.
For beginners, the multiplier is a more suitable choice.
X
XknockMC
08-05-2016, 04:43 PM #2

I always begin with the multiplier and only use the fsb for minor adjustments at the end personally.
Increasing the fsb too much raises the risk of system instability, so you should lower the ram speeds first.
For beginners, the multiplier is a more suitable choice.

D
djninja444
Member
173
08-06-2016, 02:46 PM
#3
no, that was during the time of the AMD Athlon XP in 1998
but mostly you just overclock by increasing the multiplier, or else your system would crash.
D
djninja444
08-06-2016, 02:46 PM #3

no, that was during the time of the AMD Athlon XP in 1998
but mostly you just overclock by increasing the multiplier, or else your system would crash.

Z
zmanrules987
Member
218
08-06-2016, 03:29 PM
#4
This video discusses the topic presented in the link.
Z
zmanrules987
08-06-2016, 03:29 PM #4

This video discusses the topic presented in the link.

G
GGlobato
Member
176
08-06-2016, 08:42 PM
#5
What? It still functions the same as before, and it hasn't changed much. The video you shared even worked well. Although he talks about some drawbacks, it impacts RAM, HTT, and NBT, so you might need to tweak them for better performance. I don't mind worrying about it.
G
GGlobato
08-06-2016, 08:42 PM #5

What? It still functions the same as before, and it hasn't changed much. The video you shared even worked well. Although he talks about some drawbacks, it impacts RAM, HTT, and NBT, so you might need to tweak them for better performance. I don't mind worrying about it.

C
copyoflegos
Junior Member
17
08-08-2016, 11:51 AM
#6
I watched this video and it demonstrates how Jay adjusts the CPU bus frequency first. My setting is currently stuck at 200. I’ll verify and confirm that all the adjustments he made are disabled. If you have any other ideas, I’d appreciate it. Thank you for the video.
C
copyoflegos
08-08-2016, 11:51 AM #6

I watched this video and it demonstrates how Jay adjusts the CPU bus frequency first. My setting is currently stuck at 200. I’ll verify and confirm that all the adjustments he made are disabled. If you have any other ideas, I’d appreciate it. Thank you for the video.

E
EndlessGear
Member
65
08-08-2016, 10:05 PM
#7
start increasing the multiplier in increments of one at a time until it fails, for example 200x20.5 equals 4100. this shows when your system reaches full performance, like maxing out the CPU and all cores reaching 4.1 ghz. you can also check with the AMD OverDrive to get an approximate estimate for your multiplier.
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/sof...over-drive
it will detect the crash and then automatically overclock for you. I reached around 4.7 by adding a few volts and it worked stably.
I could try higher values, but the goal isn’t to push the CPU beyond its limits too quickly—it can damage it. Instead, keeping it at a lower setting helps the chip and motherboard last longer and perform better. 😉
E
EndlessGear
08-08-2016, 10:05 PM #7

start increasing the multiplier in increments of one at a time until it fails, for example 200x20.5 equals 4100. this shows when your system reaches full performance, like maxing out the CPU and all cores reaching 4.1 ghz. you can also check with the AMD OverDrive to get an approximate estimate for your multiplier.
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/sof...over-drive
it will detect the crash and then automatically overclock for you. I reached around 4.7 by adding a few volts and it worked stably.
I could try higher values, but the goal isn’t to push the CPU beyond its limits too quickly—it can damage it. Instead, keeping it at a lower setting helps the chip and motherboard last longer and perform better. 😉

B
Beytran70
Junior Member
10
08-11-2016, 11:22 AM
#8
I always begin with the multiplier and only use the fsb for minor adjustments at the end personally.
Increasing the fsb too much raises the risk of system instability, so you should lower the ram speeds first.
For beginners, the multiplier is a more suitable choice.
B
Beytran70
08-11-2016, 11:22 AM #8

I always begin with the multiplier and only use the fsb for minor adjustments at the end personally.
Increasing the fsb too much raises the risk of system instability, so you should lower the ram speeds first.
For beginners, the multiplier is a more suitable choice.

S
StreetHobo
Senior Member
568
08-31-2016, 01:08 AM
#9
that what i said to begin with, k1100 up there is trying to tell otherwise, i said multi from the getgo.
S
StreetHobo
08-31-2016, 01:08 AM #9

that what i said to begin with, k1100 up there is trying to tell otherwise, i said multi from the getgo.

F
Fred10244
Posting Freak
937
08-31-2016, 01:46 AM
#10
Consider revisiting it. I didn't advise using it. I was explaining how you're sharing incorrect information about a 1998 event.
F
Fred10244
08-31-2016, 01:46 AM #10

Consider revisiting it. I didn't advise using it. I was explaining how you're sharing incorrect information about a 1998 event.