Which of the best CPU stability test programs works well with an i7 3930k and supports continuous overclocking?
Which of the best CPU stability test programs works well with an i7 3930k and supports continuous overclocking?
Other than benchmarks, you won't notice significant real-world gains from OC'ing RAM. I stick to stock speeds, and at times even reduced clock speeds for stability.
For instance on my current setup - i7-5820k, X99/DDR4 - the chip struggles with RAM speeds above 2400Mhz without causing instability. It just doesn't tolerate it well. Apparently a BIOS update will fix this, but I'm still waiting... >.
I've checked the auto overlock voltage myself ^^ I don't rely on auto OC!
I have 1.3 v core and 44 multiplier, RAM at 1600Mhz with stock voltage of 1.5...
It looks like I can't just pass the OCCT Limpmax test, though - I can handle the OCCT CPU test, run 64 for an hour, take a prime one hour, do some extreme tuning and more.
Other than benchmarks, you won't notice significant real-world gains from OC'ing RAM. I keep it at stock speeds, and sometimes even reduced clock speeds for stability. For instance, on my current setup—i7-5820k, X99/DDR4—the chip struggles with RAM speeds above 2400Mhz without instability; it just resists. This should be resolved via a BIOS update, but I'm still waiting. >.
I've checked the auto overlock voltage myself ^^ and I don't use auto OC!
My system has 1.3 v core and 44 multipliers—RAM is at 1600Mhz with stock voltage of 1.5.
It looks like I can't just pass the OCCT Limpmax test, though. I managed to run the OCCT CPU test for an hour, then a prime one-hour session, followed by an extreme tune, and so on.
Have you performed a PSU stress test? I think the Linpack test applies extra strain on the power supply—possibly explaining why OCCT hasn't been updated in a while—but it wouldn't hurt to verify!
Other than benchmarks, real-world gains from OC are limited. I stick to the original frequencies, and sometimes even reduced clock speeds for stability. For instance, on my current setup -i7-5820k, X99/DDR4, the chip struggles with RAM speeds above 2400Mhz without causing instability. This issue might be resolved via a BIOS update, but I'm still waiting. >.
I've checked the auto overlock voltage myself ^^ and I don't use automatic OC!
My system has 1.3 v core and 44 multipliers; RAM runs at 1600Mhz with stock voltage of 1.5V.
It looks like I can't just pass the OCCT Limpmax test, though I can handle the OCCT CPU test—help me run 64 for an hour, then a one-hour break, and some tuning.
Have you performed the PSU stress test? I think the Linpack test puts extra strain on the power supply, which might explain why OCCT has been inactive for a while—but it wouldn't hurt to verify!
I'll attempt the OCCT PSU Test now, but as you can see, I'm using a Corsair 850-watt unit with bronze, which is decent. The GTX 1060 also needs very low power.
I'll try it and share the results tomorrow... Thanks for the advice!
Other than benchmarks, you won't notice significant real-world gains from OC'ing RAM. I stick to stock speeds, and sometimes even reduced clock speeds for stability. For instance, on my current setup (i7-5820k, X99/DDR4), the chip struggles with RAM speeds above 2400Mhz without causing instability—this is likely due to a BIOS update pending.
I compared the auto overlock voltage and confirmed I don’t use automatic OC. My specs are 1.3 v-core, 44 multipliers, RAM at 1600Mhz with 1.5V supply. It seems I can’t just pass the OCCT Limpmax test; I managed to run the OCCT CPU test successfully—about an hour of stable performance with CPU, FPU, cache, and RAM checked.
Have you performed a PSU stress test? The Linpack test likely puts extra strain on the power supply, which might explain why OCCT has been delayed. It wouldn’t hurt to verify that.
I’ll try the OCCT PSU test myself, but based on what I see, my Corsair 850W (bronze) works decently, and my GTX1060 needs very little power. GPU clocks are at stock speeds too.
I’ll attempt it now and share the results tomorrow. Thanks for the advice!
Passed Aida64 for an hour with detailed checks, including CPU/FPU/Cache/RAM, 4.4 GHZ (44X100 BCLK) at 1.30V core voltage. Are additional tests necessary? Temperatures are excellent, showing a max of 58°C. Should I keep the voltage or increase stress testing?
Brandon888 shared his experience after passing Aida64 with thorough checks. He mentioned stable temperatures and voltage levels, recommending sticking with 4.4Ghz unless you aim for higher speeds. He advised caution with increasing voltage beyond 1.3V, noting it can boost stability but also raise heat, power use, and chip life. Overall, he supports maintaining the current setting unless performance gains are significant.
This is where I might consider boosting the cache multiplier. The tighter your cache (still referred to as NB for NorthBridge in CPU-Z) frequency matches your CPU speed, the better. I keep the minimum and maximum settings identical so the cache maintains the intended pace—rather than sitting idle.
I’d begin with minor adjustments, similar to what’s done with the CPU—don’t just push it all the way up to match your CPU’s speed, as that could damage your system. Increase by small steps, like with the CPU, and monitor temperatures; if things heat up too much, be cautious. Just add 100Mhz increments, check for stability, and repeat until you hit instability or a crash, then reduce back.
This process is different from OCing the CPU core (uncore in some BIOS), as results can change greatly between chips. Some users have achieved speeds up to 4.0Ghz or more—but I often crash if it goes beyond 3.3Ghz, missing nearly a gigahertz of my CPU’s capability.
Of course, this is optional. You’ll likely see some performance gains if you manage the cache tuning well. The system and applications will feel more responsive, snappier.
Other users reviewed the situation and shared their experiences. They confirmed the performance was excellent and the voltage levels were within acceptable ranges. They suggested sticking with the current settings unless you aim for even higher speeds, in which case they recommend manually adjusting the voltage to 1.3V for stability. They also noted that keeping the voltage steady can improve stability but may increase temperatures and power use. Overall, most agreed it was a good result and no further changes were needed.
I realize this is an older thread, but since I've been gone for a while and only recently returned I thought it appropriate to address what I feel are conflicts of factual information in this thread, at least, depending on how you implement the criteria. Nothing at all wrong with using Prime95 to test stability and thermal limits. It's about HOW you do it that matters. Versions of Prime95 OTHER THAN version 26.6 are not suitable for this purpose unless you are planning to run applications that extensively use the AVX instruction set. Prime95 v26.6 is THE primarily accepted way to do the majority of baseline stability and thermal limit testing running the Small FFT option. Prime95 version 26.6: http://windows-downloads-center.blogspot...5-266.html Further, as explained to me and many others on this forum by Computronix, who has far more experience with CPU architectures and testing procedures than 95% of the people you will ever meet, speak to or read about. He is also the author of the Intel temperature guide, found here: This pretty well sums things up and is equally relevant whether working with an Intel or an AMD system.