Is this level of performance anticipated for these two versions?
Is this level of performance anticipated for these two versions?
Hello,
I’m writing with a question regarding two of my computers. To give you some context, I acquired “Rig One” back in 2015 from Scan Computers as a pre-built system. At the time, my girlfriend and I were traveling frequently between our residences, and I needed a machine at her place rather than transporting mine – which was an expensive setup at that point. I previously owned an older Acer computer with the same power supply unit (PSU) and an R9 270, and as I had never assembled a PC before, I decided to give it a try, investing in a new motherboard, RAM, processor, and other components over the years to create “Rig Two.”
Please find the specifications for both rigs below:
It seems there’s a lack of understanding regarding RAM speeds and timings. Or perhaps these aspects aren't important to you. You should verify if your memory’s operating frequency aligns with the manufacturer’s stated specifications for those particular modules.
I recently performed CPU-Z scans on both computers:
Machine one:
Type: DDR4
Channel: Quad
Capacity: 16GB
Nominal Bus Frequency: 2920.2 MHz
DRAM Frequency: 1396.6MHz
FSB RAM Channel 1: 22
CAS Latency (CL): 16 clocks
Row Time (tRCD): 18 clocks
Precharge Time (tRP): 18 clocks
Activate Time (tRAS): 36 clocks
Refresh Cycle Time (tRFC): 365 clocks
Command Rate: 2T
Machine two:
Type: DDR4
Channel: Dual
Capacity: 8GB
Nominal Bus Frequency: 3899.1 MHz
DRAM Frequency: 1500.0MHz
FSB RAM Channel 1: 30
CAS Latency (CL): 15 clocks
Row Time (tRCD): 17 clocks
Precharge Time (tRP): 17 clocks
Activate Time (tRAS): 35 clocks
Refresh Cycle Time (tRFC): 390 clocks
Command Rate: 2T
Therefore, considering these specifications and the increased clock rate, what is the impact?
Hello,
I recently sent a copy of each rig to a friend by exporting a report from CPUID and discovered that his x99 system’s NB frequency was 2920 MHz, which he considered low given the intended overclock of 4.2 GHz.
I then adjusted the setting to 3936 MHz, and my friend advised me to test for stability after any changes. The X99 machine now appears to perform better in gaming situations. I ran a Cinebench test successfully, prompting me to also run a Prime95 test. For context, this machine was initially pre-built and overclocked by the manufacturer, using a voltage of 1.35V and an overclock of 4.2 GHz. They provided testing files demonstrating their overclocking process with Adia64, but not Prime95.
Following my friend’s suggestion, I attempted to test the system with Prime95, resulting in extremely high temperatures – around 100°C – which caused the test to terminate. I subsequently spent considerable time creating a new overclock profile and reducing the Vcore, hoping to achieve greater stability at a lower voltage. While this improved Prime95’s performance initially, I still experienced temperatures reaching the 90s after approximately 5-10 minutes. Therefore, I decided to run the test at stock settings, but the same high temperature issue persisted.
My friend pointed out that my cooler is a 130TDP model – found here: [https://www.scan.co.uk/products/...mm-si...s-130w-tdp] – despite the CPU having a TDP of 140W, which I believe is accurate.
I have a few questions:
Is the NB frequency adjustment likely to significantly impact performance, or am I misinterpreting this?
Is the cooler an inadequate choice for an i7-5820K, both in stock and overclocked configurations? If not, what alternative cooling solutions would you recommend purchasing?
Could reapplying thermal paste resolve this issue?
I’ve been researching online regarding Prime95’s compatibility with Haswell chips – is this still a valid concern? Should I avoid using Prime95 for stability testing on this particular processor?