http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27U2533xUJU
He's using a 965 and seems to be running it pretty smooth with addons.
He's using a 965 and seems to be running it pretty smooth with addons.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD® Phenom™ II Overclocking Thread
- Thread starter Big.Wayne
- Start date
965 black edition i take it..?
it will depend on your bios i guess but on mine i just changed the multiplier and left everything else on auto
yup that should be fine. Just be aware that you might need a little more voltage if your rig isnt stable after doing the overclock.
DDR = Double Data Rate. so 800 is effectively 1600. and 667 is your 1333 (the maths ain't exact on that one lol)
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 177
If it keeps crashing after raising the multiplier you'll need to raise the voltage, ideally in .05 increments.
I wouldn't suggest going above 1.5 volts, although if you're running with a good mobo I doubt you'll have to raise it that high.
If you've got good cooling\mobo there's a good chance you'll be able to get it up to 4.2 Ghz.
Ok, thanks for info.
Currently sitting at around 30c idle so quite a bit of room for overclocking. If raising the multiplier do I just keep the voltage on auto for the time being and see how it goes? If it crashes, what's a good voltage start out at? 1.3?
Currently sitting at around 30c idle so quite a bit of room for overclocking. If raising the multiplier do I just keep the voltage on auto for the time being and see how it goes? If it crashes, what's a good voltage start out at? 1.3?
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 177
Yeah, just keep the voltage on auto and start by raising the multiplier. Then check your temps and run a Prime 95 test for 10 mins to see if it crashes or not. If it crashes raise the voltage by .05 and test it in Prime 95 again.
There's no point raising the voltage until you need to, otherwise you're just wasting power you might not need to.
Soldato
Got my 965 to 4GHz (not going above as i don't see the point) with no voltage tweaks and a CPU/NB of 2600.
After playing with 1.55V a few years back, my 965 has never been the same. It's now not fully stable at stock settings. I'm pretty sure it'll be dead before too long.
Stick to 1.525v people! Don't be sad like me.
unlucky mate
I really wish i kept my old 955, ran all day long at 1.55v, even survived some benching at 4.4Ghz with 1.6v shoved through it
Soldato
After playing with 1.55V a few years back, my 965 has never been the same. It's now not fully stable at stock settings. I'm pretty sure it'll be dead before too long.
Stick to 1.525v people! Don't be sad like me.
I never fiddle with voltage settings, so my overclock is on stock voltages.
Soldato
Thread resurrection: There's been a lot of water under the bridge since this got going.
You don't see much about Phenom IIs these days but I was interested in how they compare to more recent CPUs in games, given I'm still running my unlocked Phenom FX-5200.
And the short answer? Clock for clock and core for core, they beat Bulldozer and Piledriver. A Phenom II 955 or 965 is roughly equivalent to an FX-4300. An overclocked Phenom II x6 can still, in some circumstances, trade blows with a stock 4 core Ryzen. Sure, a Sandybridge onwards quad from Intel is in the same or better territory (unless we take 0.1% minimum framerates into account), but it's impressive to see these CPUs still have a little life in them (as long as they are paired with an nVIDIA GPU (these are with a GTX 1080) - AMD GPU drivers don't like a weak CPU.
Source: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-4 (as long as you ignore AOTS...) - and the various benchmarks available on gamegpu.com.
You don't see much about Phenom IIs these days but I was interested in how they compare to more recent CPUs in games, given I'm still running my unlocked Phenom FX-5200.
And the short answer? Clock for clock and core for core, they beat Bulldozer and Piledriver. A Phenom II 955 or 965 is roughly equivalent to an FX-4300. An overclocked Phenom II x6 can still, in some circumstances, trade blows with a stock 4 core Ryzen. Sure, a Sandybridge onwards quad from Intel is in the same or better territory (unless we take 0.1% minimum framerates into account), but it's impressive to see these CPUs still have a little life in them (as long as they are paired with an nVIDIA GPU (these are with a GTX 1080) - AMD GPU drivers don't like a weak CPU.
Source: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-4 (as long as you ignore AOTS...) - and the various benchmarks available on gamegpu.com.
I'm surprised to see the phenom X6 keeping up with the ryzen 3 tbh, although that's mostly when it's clocked at 4GHz and compared to a stock ryzen 3. I'm curious to read more about this NVIDIA doing better with lower end cpus than AMD. Do you have a link?
The phenom CPUs were amazing though I'm all nostalgic about my X2 550 unlocking! Such a bargain, I remember paying £65 for it in mid 2010 and upgrading from my core 2 duo E6420 @ 3.2GHz.It was much faster.
The phenom CPUs were amazing though I'm all nostalgic about my X2 550 unlocking! Such a bargain, I remember paying £65 for it in mid 2010 and upgrading from my core 2 duo E6420 @ 3.2GHz.It was much faster.
Soldato
Essentially, AMD's GPU drivers are relatively CPU intensive and that in itself results in a bottleneck with older CPUs when a CPU bottleneck is evident.
This is for an FX-4300 but the situation is very similar for older i3s, Phenoms IIs and anything that's worse:
The graph is generated from gamegpu.com. Most of the more recent game GPU / CPU benchmarks let you select a particular CPU or GPU to compare. It's quite useful for identifying bottlenecks. - It's not shown but grey is minimum framerate. The red or green is average framerate (depending on whether it's AMD or nVIDIA). The two are on separate Y scales.
Edit: There's another article here http://www.overclock.net/t/1495236/amd-vs-nvidia-cpu-overhead - Essentially: where there is a CPU bottleneck evident, it's frequently worse with an AMD GPU than with an nVIDIA one because of their respective driver overheads.
This is for an FX-4300 but the situation is very similar for older i3s, Phenoms IIs and anything that's worse:
The graph is generated from gamegpu.com. Most of the more recent game GPU / CPU benchmarks let you select a particular CPU or GPU to compare. It's quite useful for identifying bottlenecks. - It's not shown but grey is minimum framerate. The red or green is average framerate (depending on whether it's AMD or nVIDIA). The two are on separate Y scales.
Edit: There's another article here http://www.overclock.net/t/1495236/amd-vs-nvidia-cpu-overhead - Essentially: where there is a CPU bottleneck evident, it's frequently worse with an AMD GPU than with an nVIDIA one because of their respective driver overheads.
Last edited: