i7 3820 Max Vcore?

roachyuk · 6 Apr 2012 at 14:11

ahhh i used the diamond 24....i put a blob on the center of the cpu as its impossible to spread...so its supposed to be good paste.

BrotherMuzone · 8 Apr 2012 at 13:47

All this talk on over clocking and I am still waiting for my H100 to return from its RMA =(

roachyuk · 9 Apr 2012 at 16:40

paradigm said:
mine had zero problems doing 4GHz with everything set to auro and the multi set to 40.

Heck, mine does 4.4 on everything set to auto.

ok ive used the auto....it lets to just over 4.00ghz...then spits it dummy out....so i persume i need to start messing with options and voltages now....any idea what i need to change in bios to say get to 4.3ghz...stable...thanks.

roachyuk · 9 Apr 2012 at 21:19

i have now had it running 4.5ghz for a hour seems stable enough...upped the cpu strap to 125...but put it back to the stock setting now as there wasnt that great of a increase on benchmark plus had my temps running around the 42c mark idle....ill have another play tomorrow lol.

estebanrey · 11 Apr 2012 at 11:13

My 3820 @ 4.8Ghz stable with RAM at full speed (2133Mhz 9-11-10-282)

Not sure on the longterm effects of running like that though (1.48v VCore for start, although that was a first attempt setting, I haven't tried lowering it yet at that speed).

For a supposedly 'locked' processor the 3820 OCing is pretty easy and rangey, seen stable 5Ghz clocks on this thing although I'm not quite there yet. Makes me glad I didn't shell out twice the price for the k series now!

My PC
Intel i7-3820 LGA 2011
Asus Sabertooth X79
G-Skill 16GB (4x4GB) DDR3 2133MHz RipjawsZ
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680
2 x OCZ Agilty III 120GB SSDs (240GB Tot in RAID 0)
2 x WD 7200rpm HDDs (820GB Tot)
Corsair TX850M
Corsair H100 Liquid Cooler
Antec Twelve Hundred Gaming Case

paradigm · 11 Apr 2012 at 12:10

As I said earlier in the thread, mine will do 5GHz at 1.41v, so 1.48v is HIGH!

estebanrey · 11 Apr 2012 at 13:16

paradigm said:
As I said earlier in the thread, mine will do 5GHz at 1.41v, so 1.48v is HIGH!

I've lowered it to 1.46 and still seems stable; as I mentioned I was just using that voltage as a start and looking to lower.

Could you let me know what other settings you have changed to achieve 5? Whenever I attempt it I can never get it past IBT testing and sometimes fails to load Windows at all.

paradigm · 11 Apr 2012 at 13:25

I'll have a sneek peek through my BIOS when I get home and post up what I have to set to achieve 5GHz stable

estebanrey · 11 Apr 2012 at 13:48

paradigm said:
I'll have a sneek peek through my BIOS when I get home and post up what I have to set to achieve 5GHz stable

Cheers, would appreciate that. I've basically just copied all the settings the guy recommends in this video....

...and then tweaking with the multiplier, vcore voltage and Dram settings.

P.S Managed to get 4.7Ghz @ 1.41v

paradigm · 11 Apr 2012 at 13:52

In the meantime, you could try reading this thread, I found it to be a great starting point for really understanding what the different settings are.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1189242/...anations-and-support-for-all-x79-overclockers

F4810 · 11 Apr 2012 at 19:34

From my earlier post. I used an X79-UD3:

Overclocking is easy. I bought the 3820 a few weeks ago. All I did was set the correct memory timings and voltages, as the defualts were not correct for the speeds I was runnig at. I then chose the CPU voltage I was happy with. I then increased the clock till it maxed out at 4.5 ghz without failing prime 95 for 24 hours or so. I was happy with that as the voltage was high enough for me. Temps are low and system runs fine. X79 has more life than the other chipsets as IB-E wont be out till next year.

F4810 · 11 Apr 2012 at 19:37

I choose 1.4 volts which shows as 1.392 in CPU-Z as from what I read that seems a safe 24/7 voltage.

You can muck around with LLC settings etc but I didnt bother as I am happy with 4.5Ghz.

So its very easy to overclock if you choose the voltage to want to run at from the start and fix your memory settings.

estebanrey · 11 Apr 2012 at 20:11

F4810 said:
From my earlier post. I used an X79-UD3:

Overclocking is easy. I bought the 3820 a few weeks ago. All I did was set the correct memory timings and voltages, as the defualts were not correct for the speeds I was runnig at. I then chose the CPU voltage I was happy with. I then increased the clock till it maxed out at 4.5 ghz without failing prime 95 for 24 hours or so. I was happy with that as the voltage was high enough for me. Temps are low and system runs fine.

Thanks for your specs and experience. Trying to get down to 1.4 myself now...

F4810 said:
X79 has more life than the other chipsets as IB-E wont be out till next year.

Yes but when they come out, Haswell will come very soon after creating the same situation that existed before 2011 emerged, that being the enthusiast platform (at the time the 1366) being less powerful than the 'home user' platform (at that time the 1156).

F4810 · 11 Apr 2012 at 20:41

estebanrey said:
Thanks for your specs and experience. Trying to get down to 1.4 myself now...

Yes but when they come out, Haswell will come very soon after creating the same situation that existed before 2011 emerged, that being the enthusiast platform (at the time the 1366) being less powerful than the 'home user' platform (at that time the 1156).

Agree. But I wanted longevity with my platform over a longer term of say 4-6 years. If you can afford to change your whole system every 2-3 years then its always better the other way. If you see my other posts I paid £80-90 more for a quicker current platform than a 2500k platform, but I can probably slot in a hexa core in a few years and a new GPU and still have a quick system as opposed to change everything inc my mobo etc too.

paradigm · 11 Apr 2012 at 21:32

estebanrey said:
that being the enthusiast platform (at the time the 1366) being less powerful than the 'home user' platform (at that time the 1156).

1156 was never more powerful than 1366. 1155 arguably was, but that depended on the usage.

estebanrey · 11 Apr 2012 at 22:19

paradigm said:
1156 was never more powerful than 1366. 1155 arguably was, but that depended on the usage.

Apologies, I meant 1155 (i.e Sandybridge)

When SB came out it was generally considered the better platform for let's say game/enthusiast. For example my friend bought the top of range £2000 OCUK build last year (the tyranasaurus or whatever it's called and the good people of OCUK chose the 1155 board and CPU over 1366 for it's highest spec'd PC at the time).

estebanrey · 11 Apr 2012 at 22:24

F4810 said:
Agree. But I wanted longevity with my platform over a longer term of say 4-6 years. If you can afford to change your whole system every 2-3 years then its always better the other way. If you see my other posts I paid £80-90 more for a quicker current platform than a 2500k platform, but I can probably slot in a hexa core in a few years and a new GPU and still have a quick system as opposed to change everything inc my mobo etc too.

I'm in the same boat as you really, before I built my LGA2011 rig recently I was on dual core AMD from 3 or 4 years ago (and that was only because my previous LGA 775 rig had failed a year before otherwise I'd still have been on that).

I just wish Intel would release their enthusiast and 'regular' platforms at the same time so you knew where you were all the time.

paradigm · 11 Apr 2012 at 22:26

Well no, they built the easiest to overclock, and best bang for buck system they could for £2,000.

Had you wanted to go heavily overclocked 990X, you'd have needed much better cooling, more expensive motherboard, higher clocking RAM, and a lot of patience messing around with a lot more than a few voltages and the multiplier. Then the CPU would have cost almost half the budget alone.

estebanrey · 11 Apr 2012 at 22:52

paradigm said:
Well no, they built the easiest to overclock, and best bang for buck system they could for £2,000.

Had you wanted to go heavily overclocked 990X, you'd have needed much better cooling, more expensive motherboard, higher clocking RAM, and a lot of patience messing around with a lot more than a few voltages and the multiplier. Then the CPU would have cost almost half the budget alone.

Well yes but in my world CPUs that cost more than £400 don't exist.

The point is you SHOULD be able to build an enthusiast platform PC for £1500 (his was 2k due to having a 2nd GTX570) and a 1500k enthusiast platform PC should always 'beat' (for lack of a better word) a £1000 'home user' platform build; and for a while that wasn't the case.

Of course if money's no limit you can always buy the latest Xeon and you'd always have a more powerful CPU than the rest of the range...

paradigm · 11 Apr 2012 at 23:16

Actually, the latest Xeon is typically no faster (usually slower) than the high-end enthusiast part.

They are however cherry-picked for stability and can contain more cache.