1366 X58 Xeon 5650

dyrgutt · 15 Jul 2016 at 01:52

Kelt said:
Running LLC fine here.

Ste said:
I run it on mine...

Thanks guys, it has helped a little - but the biggest improvement was with eliminating power-on startup delay; I often had to wait around a minute before she would turn on.

Also, when people say 4.5 / 4.6ghz in their sigs - are we assuming all cores, or just at turbo with single core? Thanks Dyr

DragonQ · 15 Jul 2016 at 09:21

dyrgutt said:
Thanks guys, it has helped a little - but the biggest improvement was with eliminating power-on startup delay; I often had to wait around a minute before she would turn on.

Also, when people say 4.5 / 4.6ghz in their sigs - are we assuming all cores, or just at turbo with single core? Thanks Dyr

Man I wish I could get my Xeon to go that fast. My motherboard definitely holds it back (it complains about going above 200 MHz BCLK and throttles the turbo boost so I can't set it to 22x).

About the startup delay...do you mean that enabling LLC has reduced the startup delay on your system? Mine takes about 25 seconds before the BIOS screen even appears, but this has always been the case when an overclock is in place. I'm pretty sure I have LLC enabled though.

dyrgutt · 15 Jul 2016 at 09:34

DragonQ said:
About the startup delay...do you mean that enabling LLC has reduced the startup delay on your system? Mine takes about 25 seconds before the BIOS screen even appears, but this has always been the case when an overclock is in place. I'm pretty sure I have LLC enabled though.

Yep - so glad it's gone. Like yourself, i've always suffered from Post delay with this board and heavy oc - hell, I used to leave my 920 @ 4.2 constantly on (though it did have LLC on) - for if I turned it off in the latter stages of its life, I had to heat the cpu region with a hairdryer to get it to come on; ridiculous. Anyhow, mine before LLC would not show any activity after pressing the power switch, then roughly 40s therafter, it would magically come to life, ha!

Anyhow, really interested in whether you guys are referring to all core oc's, or just the turbo ghz reference?

Kelt · 15 Jul 2016 at 10:55

dyrgutt said:
Thanks guys, it has helped a little - but the biggest improvement was with eliminating power-on startup delay; I often had to wait around a minute before she would turn on.

Also, when people say 4.5 / 4.6ghz in their sigs - are we assuming all cores, or just at turbo with single core? Thanks Dyr

Mine runs all cores at 4.4Ghz on load. Occasionally a single core will turbo to 4.6+Ghz.

minicle · 15 Jul 2016 at 12:22

So after 6 years I swapped out my old i7 920 yesterday, drained and cleaned my water loop, particularly the heatkiller copper cpu block (I'll post some photos after the weekend of the tomato ketchup joy), updated the bios and dropped in a 5670.

Setup a very crude 4.2 - 200 x 21 overclock - at 1.35vcore and 1.30qpi which ran 12 hours prime overnight - so I have a stable backstop. Albeit more volts (but cooler) for extra cores and the same clock as the 920.

Tried a 4.8 - 200 x 24 - same volts which failed to load windows and a 4.4 - 200 x 22 which loaded windows and then crashed with a 24 error - in need of more vcore.

Then I remembered I upgraded the ram a year or so ago and the trusty asus appears booted up at 210 blck so I've dropped the multi down to 21 and am testing 4.4 at 210 x 21 with the same volts 1.35 and 1.30. (crashed needs a vcore bump!

)

Not very nuanced but temps are topping out at 61-67c with a clean water cpu block and loop. So lots of headroom..

Ste · 18 Jul 2016 at 20:50

dyrgutt said:
Thanks guys, it has helped a little - but the biggest improvement was with eliminating power-on startup delay; I often had to wait around a minute before she would turn on.

Also, when people say 4.5 / 4.6ghz in their sigs - are we assuming all cores, or just at turbo with single core? Thanks Dyr

205 x22 no turbo here.

dyrgutt · 19 Jul 2016 at 05:08

Ste said:
205 x22 no turbo here.

Thanks Ste. I have also dropped the turbo and gone 22x 200

for stability [my sig is now obsolete]. I haven't bothered trying 4.5ghz as my last 100mhz cost me 8 voltage steps, so I dont fancy going close to/over 1.5v. Oh well, I wont miss the random BSOD every day or two. Thanks

Also, shouldn't I be able to select 23x with 5670? When I do -> save the bios and reboot. It defaults to 22, or 24 if I have turbo enabled?

DragonQ · 19 Jul 2016 at 08:53

dyrgutt said:
Also, shouldn't I be able to select 23x with 5670? When I do -> save the bios and reboot. It defaults to 22, or 24 if I have turbo enabled?

My X5650 will only allow 20x and 22x when set manually, so to be expected I guess.

Ste · 19 Jul 2016 at 20:44

dyrgutt said:
Thanks Ste. I have also dropped the turbo and gone 22x 200 for stability [my sig is now obsolete]. I haven't bothered trying 4.5ghz as my last 100mhz cost me 8 voltage steps, so I dont fancy going close to/over 1.5v. Oh well, I wont miss the random BSOD every day or two. Thanks

Also, shouldn't I be able to select 23x with 5670? When I do -> save the bios and reboot. It defaults to 22, or 24 if I have turbo enabled?

To be fair to you I have ran an hour of IBT through this. I bet it'd fail 24h of prime. Never tried it but I've not had a single crash for about a year.

Apologies if it appeared I was being more thorough!

dyrgutt · 21 Jul 2016 at 04:34

Ste said:
To be fair to you I have ran an hour of IBT through this. I bet it'd fail 24h of prime. Never tried it but I've not had a single crash for about a year.

Apologies if it appeared I was being more thorough!

Ha! No worries, mate - if she performs perfectly for what you need and doesn't crash - you can't complain [who cares if she is a bit touchy when it comes to Prime

]. Yeah, I think my board is the bottleneck to all my OC's, with my old 920 I needed 1.54v to achieve 4.2ghz [but it was a C], still that's ridiculous. A 930 loan was much the same and this 5670 requires 1.44v @ 4.4. Besides, often she wont start [if it's too cold] and i have to persist pressing the power button every 40s or use a heater to warm the machine-up before doing so [llc helped, but wasn’t the solution] - again, ridiculous. Anyhow, I'm now running her at 4.3 24/7, being older/second-hand components etc., between 1.37-1.39vtt - so this will have to do. I can't justify getting another board, as the $140aud chip has seen some respectable gains [not earth shattering], but to keep forking out money on such old tech is pretty dumb...so I think I need to do some research on some unlocked/oc friendly 'later' released chips - and basically build a cheap machine on the side [as components arise] to replace this one; I really can't bear/justify buying new, as I'm from an era where purchasing/building a new PC meant doubling your performance each cycle; this clearly hasn’t been the case for some time.

Ste · 26 Jul 2016 at 19:55

Just for fun -

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13632145

I think puts me about 34th on the OCUK table and highest x58 score.

dyrgutt · 27 Jul 2016 at 00:44

Ste said:
Just for fun -

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13632145

I think puts me about 34th on the OCUK table and highest x58 score.

Absolutely brilliant - Love it! BTW, you dont happen to have your bios voltage/frequency settings jotted down anywhere do you, I would love to compare?

Ste · 27 Jul 2016 at 07:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ste View Post
205 x22
VCore 1.40625v from memory in BIOS - shows at 1.375v in CPUz after drop
LLC level 1 - minimal droop
QPI/Vtt at 1.25v (3 DIMMs only, this wouldn't work with 6)
CPU PLL 1.84v
IOH Core 1.20v
QPI x36 (3689mhz)
DRAM x8
Turbo disabled

I am undecided whether to stick with 4.5ghz as 4.4ghz only needed 1.375v (BIOS) / 1.344v (CPUZ) and suspect the real life performance difference is pretty much nil.

^ from earlier in the thread. I stuck with 4.5 though. Sounds better

Stu · 27 Jul 2016 at 16:53

Ste said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ste View Post
205 x22
VCore 1.40625v from memory in BIOS - shows at 1.375v in CPUz after drop
LLC level 1 - minimal droop
QPI/Vtt at 1.25v (3 DIMMs only, this wouldn't work with 6)
CPU PLL 1.84v
IOH Core 1.20v
QPI x36 (3689mhz)
DRAM x8
Turbo disabled

I am undecided whether to stick with 4.5ghz as 4.4ghz only needed 1.375v (BIOS) / 1.344v (CPUZ) and suspect the real life performance difference is pretty much nil.

^ from earlier in the thread. I stuck with 4.5 though. Sounds better

I would have gone for 4.4 and saved some electricity... you can still tell people that it is stable at 4.5 if that matter to you!

Ste · 27 Jul 2016 at 19:51

Where's the fun in that

Ghostom · 2 Aug 2016 at 18:12

DragonQ said:
Man I wish I could get my Xeon to go that fast. My motherboard definitely holds it back (it complains about going above 200 MHz BCLK and throttles the turbo boost so I can't set it to 22x).

About the startup delay...do you mean that enabling LLC has reduced the startup delay on your system? Mine takes about 25 seconds before the BIOS screen even appears, but this has always been the case when an overclock is in place. I'm pretty sure I have LLC enabled though.

I wish i could get my motherboard to even do 200, max stable i could get mine is 187 at 1.355 vtt.

Harpss1ngh · 2 Aug 2016 at 18:16

Ghostom said:
I wish i could get my motherboard to even do 200, max stable i could get mine is 187 at 1.355 vtt.

Need Moarrrrr voltageee

Ghostom · 2 Aug 2016 at 18:19

Harpss1ngh said:
Need Moarrrrr voltageee

I thought more than ~ 1.35 vtt/qpi wasn't recommended for these cpus?

Harpss1ngh · 2 Aug 2016 at 18:47

Ghostom said:
I thought more than ~ 1.35 vtt/qpi wasn't recommended for these cpus?

It depends. Voltage alone doesn't determine that. Cooling also has a big part to play as well.

If you're still planning to keep the CPU for 20+ years then sure keep your CPU within the stock intel spec if you want, but where's the fun in that

.

Increasing voltage reduces the lifespan of your CPU, but probably reduces it from lasting for decades to say ~8+ years, it depends on different factors, not simply just the voltage going over intel's spec.
Realistically who keeps a CPU for that long? Saying that, I still have an overclocked Q6600 and E8400 and they're still stable.

The distance from TJ. Max at 100% load and what your temps are like also plays a role. Provided your cooling is good you can push it as far as you want as long as you are still within a reasonable distance from the TJ Max rating of your CPU. I usually don't go beyond 1.45v. Also I use the voltage reported in CPU-Z rather than what is set in bios before I decide how much to push it. I also don't keep my CPU's running at full pelt at 100%.

ED209 · 13 Aug 2016 at 15:54

Hey All,

does anyone have a I7 950 at all and able to post their idle temps?

noticed mine recently has been sitting at 46C and I cant get it any lower even with re seating the cooler and replacing the paste with grizzly or do these things just run hot anyway?