*Official* NBR Desktop Overclocker's Lounge [laptop owners welcome, too]

Seems to work ok here too;
https://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5676315

 

Interesting comparison of 4 IHSs and load temps. It would be interesting how this stacks up with the Rockitcool Copper IHS.

 

We need to start doing sponsored you tube video's @Mr. Fox . Its amazing how much hardware most of these noobs receive. Some of these guys are fairly knowledgeable, but some (not this guy) are stupid, yet have shelves of hardware behind them in their videos.

 

UserBenchmarks: Game 159%, Desk 175%, Work 162%
CPU: Intel Core i7-8700K - 131.9%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti - 188.3%
SSD: Intel Raid 0 Volume 2TB - 192.4%
SSD: Samsung 960 Pro NVMe PCIe M.2 512GB - 278.4%
SSD: Samsung 960 Pro NVMe PCIe M.2 512GB - 350.2%
HDD: Seagate ST4000LM016-1N2170 4TB - 51.1%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) - 23,906.7%
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V DDR4 3200 C16 2x16GB - 117.2%
MBD: Asus ROG MAXIMUS X HERO (WI-FI AC)

 

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/7376460

Edit; rebooted and slightly better

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/7376607

 

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/7376603

 

Here's some additional validation to support my findings. No quite as good as what I experienced, but still good and recommended.


@Donald@HIDevolution @Ted@HIDevolution @thattechgirl_viv @Zoltan@HIDevolution @Prema

 

Still seems like 3400 is the sweet spot for this G.SKILL 3200 RAM. Benchmark scores are always a little better than 3466 or 3500.

 

I always liked Seagate HDD than WD. 2TB,4TB,8TB etc, even numbered capacity of HDD are very good.

 

I finally built out my desktop in the sig, so I ordered a few of these to play around with before I delid my 8700k and I'll test the other in my 775DM3, albeit the BitsPower SL IHS fixed a minor spread problem and shaved 3-7c off my temps with the already delidded 7700k so it might end up being a wash in the end.

 

If you look at the Toshiba HDD's that @TANWare and I are using, they score very well for some reason. 3TB versions.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

If you have the correct Bitspower lid, I think its thicker than the Copper lid from Rockit. All you will achieve is probably worse temp.

 

Yep, I ordered the skylake model specifically for the 4.4 height vs 3.4 of the kaby model to address the less than optimal fit. I know from pictures it appears the RockItCool copper IHS is approximately the same height as the stock intel. Knowing myself, I’ll still give it a whirl just to satisfy my curiosity.

I’ll definitely be putting the copper ihs on my desktop 8700k though.

 

Hey @Mr. Fox @Papusan @Johnksss @bloodhawk I think you all will like this conversation I just had with someone xD



He hits 98c in a stress at 4.9, wants to delid the chip, doesn't have any LM. He crying

 

LOOL. With 98C he is almost on level with Azor's dear AW and TRIPOD He lack only 2C degrees

 

Yes, he needs to delid. Like yesterday with an order of fries.

 

That's why I never stress test. I think it is the most idiotic way of testing the stability of an overclocked cpu. Might as well remove it form your chassis, place it on the sidewalk, and take a hammer to it.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

I have settled back to 4.0 GHz for that reason. At that speed I never see over 78C even in Prime95. Also P95 is stable for hours on end without a single issue at 1.350 Vcore so I know it is safe. 4.1 GHz @ 1.450 Vcore for me is just a bit more scary. 4.050 seems ok @ 1.425 but I am still not 100% comfortable there.

I just ordered a couple of 960 EVO 500 GB drives, time to heat up the case a bit more too.

 

Rather an AMD owner who was disappointed with the lousy overclocking result
Man Shoots AMD Threadripper Processor with gun - Bullseye

 

I think that if you've got good cooling, which is the best & first step, then stress testing is a great way to test stability of the overclock - afterall, who wants to dial in an unstable overclock and get random blue screens and OS corruption when you're trying to do other stuff. I stress test my 6700K at temperatures only in the 60's using OCCT and about 130W of load.

 

I never hammer a cpu with stress testing. I feel if its bench stable then I am stable. I see no reason to prime 95, or OCCT something that will never happen even in the most demanding benchmark suites.
I see people doing overnight prime runs, why? To prove that you are some master overclocker? Or have tons of money laying around to burn up expensive hardware? If I can run benchmarks that are the most demanding, then I consider it stable enough for my needs. If I can run back to back to back to back runs of cinebench, then its fine for what I need.

 

I agree with you. Torture tests should be reserved for R&D purposes. And, yeah... Like that ever happens any more, LOL. The general public is the test group and we foot the bill for them. Caveat emptor.

 

Its official, Vantage is a POS! I finally got a run in, and my very first HWbot submission....lol. Everything bone ass stock. If I change one tiny thing, it crashes. I can take my multiplier up to 39 (3.9ghz) which is turbo, and leave everything else stock, it still crashes.Note the awesome memory timings, which is Auto !
http://hwbot.org/submission/3789274

 

Could be some kind of issue with how Ryzen processes the load that causes it. If you are still planning an OS reinstall, there is a chance that will correct the issue. I've had that happen to me before with several benchmark that refused to run without crashing and a clean OS install corrected it.

 

Probably a good idea, since I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling it. This Windows install has been a bit on the flaky side.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

If you absolutely need to test out if your computer run avx load stable, use Aida64 tests who contains FMA and AVX tests (less stressful, but same type load as P95). Everyday task is your best stability test. Unstable or BSOD in this type heavy load, redo your Cpu settings.

 

I think finding an overclock that is stable to the most extreme scenarios ensures that it is 100% stable for all normal usage scenarios, if you don't test your overclock properly you could end up with instabilities/errors occuring during general use - at which point you'd be going "Well is that instability/error due to my overclock or is there a software bug", so it can cause issues and make diagnosis harder. I think Cinebench is really an easy-peasy stress test that really is not gonna weed out an unstable overclock.

I haven't "burned up" my hardware either, I only used Prime95/OCCT during my initial overclock stability testing, and then a few times to check effects of cooling modifications. And if your temperatures are good and you're not using too much voltage then you're golden anyway.

EDIT: I think this is a really good resource for overclocking (have a look at the stress testing section):
http://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/1570313-skylake-overclocking-guide-statistics.html
They don't recommend going quite as extreme as Prime95/OCCT, but they have a test tool there they created which is a lot more demanding than Cinebench but not as demanding as Prime95/OCCT - I'd be inclined to agree with them that maybe I've gone overboard with OCCT, but I think a good compromise is their advice in that thread.

 

I just tried out OCCT. I have found @4.0 GHZ that actually 1.30 Vcore is more stable and only brings the CPU to 66C. This is better than 1.35 Vcore at 74C.

 

My favorite part of that thread is this snippet from the opening post (especially where I added emphasis with blue italic text):

'I must pass all stress tests!'
This kind of thinking might had merit in previous generation CPUs, but in Haswell at least, it is a load of bollocks. As you can see from my chart below, the range of temperatures vary wildy from test to test. We are talking about a 45C difference in temperatures. If I had stuck to Linpack or go home, I would be down from 4.6ghz to 4.1ghz. (This is backed up by testing.) This is insane. Linpack is so ridiculously hot, so completely out there, it's not worth counting. The mentality of passing all tests for the sake of stability is more irrational than you might presume at first glance. That kind of mentality means passing whatever test people happen to be able to make. If nobody made Linpack, then you would think your CPU is stable. If somebody made Linpack 2.0 that makes Linpack 1.0 look like child's play, then you might as well never overclock, because Linpack is throttling a few people at STOCK. Indeed, Linpack uses AVX2 which is a new instruction set, but so does x264, and that is one of the coldest benchmarks. Stressing AVX2 set doesn't nessesarily mean high temps and failing Linpack doesn't mean AVX2 instability. And how will you know when to stop stress testing under the original ideology? You can only estimate. Computers are built for using, not for stress testing. If you're running Linpack, and you're under the opinion that you must pass all possible tests, you need to update the math logic for Linpack and run it at MAX setting. That means using up all of your available ram for the largest problem size.

Run 2-3 different types of stressing programs, and then use your computer normally. If you crash, then it's not stable. What's stable for you might not be stable enough for me. Some people need 100% reliability because of their jobs. Some people can handle a Bsod once a week. NO, saying that you want to pass Linpack 'just in case you use your CPU to extreme limits' is complete hooey. Prime95 is already ridiculous. Linpack is ridiculous on top of ridiculous on top of unicorn blood powered by the core of the sun, worshipped by space aliens. What if there comes out a new normal application that uses as much CPU power as Linpack? Well, there is no hint of that happening, so this is just a 'what if'. Well, what if there comes out a new application that throttles you at stock? Then let's all downclock our CPUs! If you insist on passing every test just because, fine, just don't expect any half-decent overclock. If I hit 95C+ easily at 1.2v with D14, there is no way anybody can hit 1.25v+ with Linpack set to max even after delid and x60 Kraken. And guess what, the average voltage setting for the OC results chart is 1.3v, so what does this tell you? You'll be lucky to stay on 1.25v after delid and liquid cooling and having a stable setting because between Prime 28.3, which discovers stability issues like a god and Linpack at max which raises temps like a god, you will be severely hampered by the combination of both tests.

Don't give me that 'If you crash on anything, you're unstable, period' crap. Anything is decided by whatever program people decided to make. And if your definition of the word stable means not crashing in anything, ever, then I don't care about what you call stability. You will never know if something is stable by your own criteria because if you pass Prime for 500 hours, what's to say the 501th hour will be stable? That's right, you stop at some arbitrary time. I care about the computer not crashing often enough to annoy me. And that could be once a week, once a month, once a year, never, every 5 seconds. But as long as I'm fine with it, that's all that matters because it's MY CPU.

If you're ever Bsoding 'too much', all you have to do, if you are in the heat of the moment, is to lower the multiplier by one and BOOM, rock solid stability.​

 

Windows in itself is inherently unstable, same goes with any application ever written for it. Instability is, and always will be part of the PC experience. There is no code that is written to perfection, period. End of story. To hammer my cpu to submission is not my idea of testing for instability. I'm fairly knowledgeable, and can figure out if it's my overclock, or a stupid application I just installed. Cooking hardware to the point of failure can be someone else's cup of tea, I will stick with good hard benching tools to test.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

Yes, I agree, I acknowledge I went to the extreme with OCCT stability testing. I think stress testing is important, and I like their advice in that thread. I think using their x264 stress test they created is a good balance to achieve a stable overclock. I may re-evaluate my overclock with their x264 stress test to see if I can get 4.8Ghz or more (I'm 4.7Ghz OCCT stable at the moment). In their hierarchy of stress testing programs they put Cinebench as the easiest to pass and their x264 program in the middle, and OCCT as the hardest to pass. I'm curious if I can get a higher overclock with my 1.4V max voltage that I've allowed myself, I may explore x264 stability testing in an attempt for a higher overclock. (busy the next few days, but soon perhaps). Stress testing is good, just gotta choose the stress test that is good enough, so far I've gone for ultra rock solid extreme stability, there could be some room for movement here, but I don't agree with Firestrike or Cinebench stability when it comes to CPU overclock testing, that's just not enough in my eyes.

EDIT: Ha, well curiosity got the better of me and I tried 4.8Ghz at 1.4V using x264 as less stringent stability test - well it failed within 5 mins! Looks like I'll be staying with my rock stable 4.7Ghz OCCT stability tested overclock then! Seems like my CPU has just hit the wall with 4.7Ghz.

 

Looks really good just from that pic, but maximum possible kudos if you build it yourself!

(EDIT: updated my previous post about CPU overclocking / stress testing - 4.8Ghz not stable even with relaxed x264 testing, my CPU hit a 4.7Ghz wall I think!)

 

Ha, congrats!

 

I don't really care for stress testing except to see the limit of cooling. Realbench was useful. I also found OCCT to be an extremely useful test for that (though it is using AVX I believe). I simply open it, run it, then lower voltage until it's no longer stable. Great for finding the low-point of a chip, and then that's all. When I find the point I just bump voltage a little and call it a day once it can manage a few minutes at that voltage/load. If it crashes any other way bump voltage a little. I like the test because when you get an error, it stops the program instead of crashes the PC. So you can do on the fly tuning with Throttlestop to find out what your solid point is, then bake it into BIOS if you want after.

Otherwise, I don't really run any of those things.

 

I haven't run Occt in a long time, they must have changed it a bit in ten years. I don't remember that it would stop the program instead of crashing the pc? That is pretty cool. I do like your idea though. I might have to download and try it once my system is back up and loaded.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

I can't see it from tapatalk. What is it?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

Yup! It errors out and says it has an error detected, and won't crash the PC. So I can just adjust voltage, and then restart it. That's the only thing I've ever used it for and I've found it effective enough for undervolt stability testing. You don't even need to end the program to do it, you can leave it running and adjust voltage in TS on the fly with "save voltages now", and if you set it to save the overall TS configuration to a safe profile, even if you BSOD, TS will load up safely and you can adjust any profile's FIVR from the safe one.

 

TANWare, out of curiosity, does x264 stability testing allow you to hit a higher overclock? That's the stress test located at the following thread that I've been talking about over my last few posts: http://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/1570313-skylake-overclocking-guide-statistics.html
It didn't allow a higher overclock for me vs OCCT, but the resources in that thread suggest that stress testing with x264 is likely to allow for a higher overclock, while also being a more sensible, real-world way to check stability.

 

I can't find the software stress test of which you speak, I must be going blind I guess.

 

Click on Stress Testing (Temperature Chart, Quick Download Links, etc) . Then roll downwards and you will see it.

 

Click on the Stress Testing hyperlink in the original post of that thread I linked. Here's a copy of the hyperlink: http://redirect.viglink.com/?format...op Functionality and Other Improvements v2.06

(wow, that looks weird, but does work!)

 

The workload from this test is unrealistically harsh and totally unwarranted. There is no point at all in running it because at 5.0GHz with -2 AVX offset the temps are 8°-10°C hotter and easily 20-25W more than I have ever seen doing anything else at 5.2GHz with 0 AVX offset. I've never seen temps as high and my 8700K exceeds 200W. So, long story short, I see no benefit whatsoever to using it.

 

http://hwbot.org/submission/3789644_

 

http://hwbot.org/submission/3789677_

 

Finally broke 26k!

 

I have it now, and like Fox I see a good 40w higher total package usage than even OCCT.

 

New toy installed


Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

Put in the 2 960 EVO drives. Great for benchmarks but other than a slightly faster to desktop I do not feel much of a real world benefit yet to the drives over the 1TB SATA 2.5' SSD.

http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/7413412
UserBenchmarks: Game 144%, Desk 145%, Work 173%
CPU: AMD Ryzen TR 1950X - 119.1%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti - 173.5%
SSD: Mushkin Reactor 1TB - 78.5%
SSD: Samsung 960 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB - 228.9%
SSD: Samsung 960 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB - 237.7%
HDD: Toshiba P300 3TB - 92.8%
USB: WDC WD10 EURX-63C57Y0 1TB - 49.3%
USB: TOSHIBA DT01ACA200 2TB - 38.2%
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3466 C16 4x8GB - 170.5%
MBD: Asrock X399 Taichi

 

Weird, I see 15W less power consumption using that x264 test vs OCCT! My finding also tallies with what they say in that thread with x264 being a middle ground stability test. However, I do have a Skylake CPU, and that's a Skylake thread, maybe the later Intel CPUs and Ryzen CPUs go nuts with power consumption on x264, maybe something to do with the different architectures.

 

Yeah, Ryzen seems to use higher wattage and subsequent heat.