My 8700k Overclock results - 4.9ghz/1.24v - room for improvement?
My 8700k Overclock results - 4.9ghz/1.24v - room for improvement?
Actually, temperature has nothing to do with stability except possibly if you're at or near Tjmax. Then things will likely become unstable OR the system will throttle. If the system throttles, it won't be unstable because frequency and voltage are probably going to drop significantly. What will cause instability is a bad memory setup, a CPU clock speed that's too high for the voltage it's set to, or a voltage setting that exceeds what the VRM/MC/power delivery can manage. Also, a faulty CPU, memory, or motherboard could be the issue. I've never seen a CPU become unstable due to heat unless it was extremely hot—over 100°C. That doesn't mean it isn't being damaged. Instability and thermal damage are completely different problems. I would lower the overclock to 4.7Ghz, which is the single core maximum boost speed, and set it to about 1.3v, then test. If it remains unstable, increase the voltage by roughly 0.005v and retest. If it stabilizes, raise the clock frequency to 4.8Ghz and test again. Always check thermal compliance by running Prime95 version 26.6 every time you adjust the CPU settings. Before making any changes, I still don't see the details about your CPU cooler or the exact power supply model.
Darkbreeze :
Actually, temp has nothing whatsoever to do with stability EXCEPT possibly if you are at or near Tjmax. Then things will likely become unstable OR the system will throttle.
If the system throttles, it's not going to be unstable because frequency and voltage are likely to be severely reduced.
What WILL cause instability is a poor memory configuration, a CPU clock frequency that is too high for the amount of voltage that it is set to or a voltage setting that is so high that the VRM/MC/power delivery cannot handle it.
Also, potentially, a faulty CPU, faulty memory or faulty motherboard.
I've never seen a CPU become unstable because it was hot, unless it was VERY, VERY hot. Like, over 100°C. That does not mean however that it is not suffering damage. Instability and thermal damage are entirely different things.
I would reduce that overclock to 4.7Ghz, which is the SINGLE core max boost speed, and give it about 1.3v, and test it. If it's still unstable, up the voltage by .005v or thereabouts. If it is stable, then increase the clock frequency to 4.8Ghz and test again. If it is unstable, increase the voltage and test again.
Be sure to test thermal compliance by running Prime95 version 26.6 on Small FFT EVERY time you make a change to the CPU configuration.
Before you do ANY of that though, I still do not see that you have offered us the details regarding what CPU cooler you are running or what the exact model number of your power supply is?
oops i didnt see the post asking about my cooler. Im using a Kraken x62.
So i went from 1.215v to 1.23v and ran realbench again last night for 8 hours and passed. no instability errors and no errors in WHEA from hwinfo. Max temp overnight was 79 degrees. so i think im just going to leave it here and not tinker with it unless you see a reason to? In fact I may run that second prime95 test you were recommending after just to confirm stability. But I think upping voltage much more and going for 4.9 would result in 80+ degree temps.
I really appreciate your help thanks a lot! let me ask you one more thing if I could. Now that I have a stable configuration, should i start to dial in an appropriate offset? What is your opinion on the debate between using offset and just running straight at your vcore voltage 24/7. some people say it affects the longevity of your cpu, some say if its under 1.5 it doesnt matter..
I was actually running with speedstep disabled and powerplan settings on turbo mode (max cpu usage 24/7) until i recently read another one of your posts about how you should definitely not be doing that given that the ramp time from low cpu usage to max is almost instantaneous and there is no way to notice a difference. and instead saving on temps is more valuable.
Yes, that sounds acceptable. Do you have XMP activated for your memory and are they operating at their advertised performance with dual channel? If not, it would be ideal to enable XMP now and then perform four passes of Memtest86 to verify stability. Memory issues tend to cause more microerrors than CPU overclocking, though they can still be serious. Memory faults can rapidly damage your data and file system. If you've cleared Realbench, your setup is likely acceptable, but running a memory test is wise.
Darkbreeze:
Yes, that sounds acceptable, but do you have XMP turned on for your memory and are they operating at their advertised speed using dual channel? If you haven’t enabled XMP yet, now would be a good opportunity to do so, and then perform four passes of Memtest86 to verify the memory setup is stable. Memory issues are more likely to cause microerrors than CPU overclocking, though they can still be serious. Memory faults can quickly damage your data and file system. If you’ve cleared Realbench, your memory setup should be fine, but it’s wise to run a Memtest as well.
Resolving memory problems and configuring XMP/DOCP/AMP profiles
I previously had XMP enabled before all this. I just completed one pass of Memtest with no errors and will run the other three soon. I saw in another discussion that you’ve been in this community since the 80s, which is impressive. Thank you for sharing all the tips!
I believe my performance is limited to around 4.8 due to thermal constraints and operating above 80°C at higher voltages. The next step I considered was creating an offset. Do you notice any signs of CPU wear when running the CPU continuously at overclocked voltages, even if temperatures and stability are correct? Many users adjust the voltage curve or apply adaptive voltage to avoid constant low-voltage spikes during idle.
No, you can't do it like that. You can't do one pass, then two later, then another at some point. All passes are not the same. The passes get incrementally harder to pass, because the memory heats up which is part of what you want to see is whether or not it can still pass all four passes even when it's heated up from the combination of mathematical and row hammer tests. Plus, the difficulty increases, from what I'm told. I have no way to verify that since I am not an electronics engineer but what I can say for certain is that I've seen plenty of memory configurations pass one to three passes and then fail on the fourth one.
So you want to run all four passes in a row, no break in between passes. Run it overnight or while you're gone to work. There's no chance of harm from you not being present. You'll come back to see it either passed or there were errors. If there are errors, bump the DRAM voltage up by about .005-.020v in the bios settings, save settings and test again.
Darkbreeze :
No, you can't do it like that. You can't do one pass, then two later, then another at some point. All passes are not the same. The passes get incrementally harder to pass, because the memory heats up which is part of what you want to see is whether or not it can still pass all four passes even when it's heated up from the combination of mathematical and row hammer tests. Plus, the difficulty increases, from what I'm told. I have no way to verify that since I am not an electronics engineer but what I can say for certain is that I've seen plenty of memory configurations pass one to three passes and then fail on the fourth one.
So you want to run all four passes in a row, no break in between passes. Run it overnight or while you're gone to work. There's no chance of harm from you not being present. You'll come back to see it either passed or there were errors. If there are errors, bump the DRAM voltage up by about .005-.020v in the bios settings, save settings and test again.
ah yes i did run a full test. it does 4 passes. thought you meant from the beginning run it 4 times lol.