How am i doing?
- Thread starter akirru
- Start date
Looks like a good start.
With the RAM running on that divider you should be able to get it running at 1T command rate, will improve performance slightly.
Have you tried pushing the FSB any higher? 1.44V (1.45V with a bit of Vdroop?) seems a lot to me for just a 200mhz increase in clock speed.
Also check that it's nice and stable
Jon
With the RAM running on that divider you should be able to get it running at 1T command rate, will improve performance slightly.
Have you tried pushing the FSB any higher? 1.44V (1.45V with a bit of Vdroop?) seems a lot to me for just a 200mhz increase in clock speed.
Also check that it's nice and stable
Jon
So do you think I should decrease the voltage and then start increasing the FSB some more?
I increased the voltage to play it safe ... I might invest in some better cooling though as the stock AMD cooler doesn't seem that great.
Cheers
Andy
I increased the voltage to play it safe ... I might invest in some better cooling though as the stock AMD cooler doesn't seem that great.
Cheers
Andy
Just to clarify the raising or lowering of the Voltage, I was under the impression for a more stable overclock, the simple laws of physics came into play:
You want to increase your overall frequency which increases operations per second...thus increasing energy flow through the chip..hence producing a higher temperature which can lead to instability and eventually chip damage... to counteract this rise in temperature you can do one of two (well probably many) things to get even more out of your CPU:
1) Get some better cooling devices (More expensive option but much much safer for your chip)
2) Raise the voltage to lower the current flowing through in every operation (P=IV, the chip will always use the same power (P) and therefore a higher V (Voltage) leads for a lower I (current) and it's always current in electronic circuits which produces the heat!)
The problem with that is that raising the voltage of a CPU is potentially fatal EVEN if done carefully , since voltage is the thing which controls how much punch each charge passing through the CPU has... I'm only running mine at +0.1V (Athlon 3700+) and wouldn't want to risk taking it further... but then I'm a student living on a student's budget so therefore cannot afford to replace my computer if it goes pop...even with a +0.1V increase I'm getting an extra 730MHz from my CPU (a boost of 37% of the factory settings) and have so far had no issues (and I'm using budget single channel RAM!) over the past 6 months I've been running these settings...I had it running for 6 months before that with no change to the voltage and could only stabily get an extra 300MHz from the CPU (but then I changed the memory speed/ratio too, which helped stability a lot!)
By lowering the CPU Voltage, you are inadvertantly boosting the current and therefore increasing the higher temperature effect you have noticed from boosting the frequency...in short, I can't see much point in lowering the CPU voltage as it shouldn't aid the frequency increases and will only make your core temperature problem worse...
Hope that gives you some basic ideas for a start to your overclock (and hope doesn't sound condescending at all...even though it may read that way
)
Just a passing comment...any advice given is the opinion of myself and based on my own experiences ... any advice followed is completely the person concerned's responsibility and I take no responsibility for any damages caused to systems (or operators) as a result however unlikely...
You want to increase your overall frequency which increases operations per second...thus increasing energy flow through the chip..hence producing a higher temperature which can lead to instability and eventually chip damage... to counteract this rise in temperature you can do one of two (well probably many) things to get even more out of your CPU:
1) Get some better cooling devices (More expensive option but much much safer for your chip)
2) Raise the voltage to lower the current flowing through in every operation (P=IV, the chip will always use the same power (P) and therefore a higher V (Voltage) leads for a lower I (current) and it's always current in electronic circuits which produces the heat!)
The problem with that is that raising the voltage of a CPU is potentially fatal EVEN if done carefully , since voltage is the thing which controls how much punch each charge passing through the CPU has... I'm only running mine at +0.1V (Athlon 3700+) and wouldn't want to risk taking it further... but then I'm a student living on a student's budget so therefore cannot afford to replace my computer if it goes pop...even with a +0.1V increase I'm getting an extra 730MHz from my CPU (a boost of 37% of the factory settings) and have so far had no issues (and I'm using budget single channel RAM!) over the past 6 months I've been running these settings...I had it running for 6 months before that with no change to the voltage and could only stabily get an extra 300MHz from the CPU (but then I changed the memory speed/ratio too, which helped stability a lot!)
By lowering the CPU Voltage, you are inadvertantly boosting the current and therefore increasing the higher temperature effect you have noticed from boosting the frequency...in short, I can't see much point in lowering the CPU voltage as it shouldn't aid the frequency increases and will only make your core temperature problem worse...
Hope that gives you some basic ideas for a start to your overclock (and hope doesn't sound condescending at all...even though it may read that way
)Just a passing comment...any advice given is the opinion of myself and based on my own experiences ... any advice followed is completely the person concerned's responsibility and I take no responsibility for any damages caused to systems (or operators) as a result however unlikely...
Last edited:
I would recommend doing it systematically. Get the core clock as high as you can (and stable) on stock voltage; then start looking at increasing voltages.akirru said:
The stock AMD cooler is actually quite good, you've just got quite a lot of voltage running through the chip at the moment. Having said this, I do recommend the Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro. For about £15 it's far, far better than the stock one.akirru said:
More volts = higher tempsEgan said:
Jon
Sorry...I figured I'd phrased it confusingly...
Obviously if you increase anything you're gonna get higher temps, what I meant was...increasing by 100Hz at stock voltage will be a larger jump in temperature than an increase by 100Hz at stock +0.1V etc etc...thus you can boost the frequency more before you get to the instability range with higher voltages than you can with stock voltages (or generally lower voltages)
Hope that makes more sense
Obviously if you increase anything you're gonna get higher temps, what I meant was...increasing by 100Hz at stock voltage will be a larger jump in temperature than an increase by 100Hz at stock +0.1V etc etc...thus you can boost the frequency more before you get to the instability range with higher voltages than you can with stock voltages (or generally lower voltages)
Hope that makes more sense
Last edited:
Isn't it the other way round? Higher clock speed always equals higher temps. I do see your logic with the P=IV idea, but higher voltage will always equal more heat.
Also remember that the power dissipated by a circuit increases with the square of the voltage applied. So any advantage of using less current and more voltage to reduce resistance and therefore heat is instantly negated by the fact that the additional voltage actually generates more heat than is saved.
The reason additional voltage is needed when overclocking is as follows: (Quoted from Wikipedia):
PS. Welcome to the forums by the way
Also remember that the power dissipated by a circuit increases with the square of the voltage applied. So any advantage of using less current and more voltage to reduce resistance and therefore heat is instantly negated by the fact that the additional voltage actually generates more heat than is saved.
The reason additional voltage is needed when overclocking is as follows: (Quoted from Wikipedia):
Jon
PS. Welcome to the forums by the way
Last edited:
Hmm...makes sense, but I found the opposite to you when tuning my system, hence that was the explaination which fit best using stuff I found on the net plus things I knew already ... plus as most of my electronic lab work at uni has shown currents are more devastating when you talk temperature than anything else...that's why kettles and other heating devices use so much energy (P - Power), because you're using a fixed voltage from the wall and as a result it draws more current.
The voltage doesn't shorten the threshold of timing directly, it helps the movement of charge in the chip which means that fewer charges fail to jump the band gap in the semiconductor layers in the chip (not trying to sound like a smart ass ... honest lol)...by providing more energy the chip has fewer failed charge jumps (counting as a 1 ... Basically the chip has to count so many electrons which have jumped the gap before it considers it as a 1 rather than a 0) and thus becomes more stable...so I suppose it does in theory allow shorter times between changes and is another reason behind why you can get more out of your CPU with higher voltages...but I get about 15 degrees C lower in my chip when I boost the CPU by 300MHz with stock compared to +0.1V voltage..that's what I found anyway...using my BIOS temperature sensors rather than any software...but as my rather cynical signature/disclaimer says...it's what I found, so believe it at your own risk/peril, lol
Thanks for the welcome to the forum too
Just seen your quote about the charging of capacitors, this doesn't affect the CPU performance very much as there aren't any large capacitance capacitors in the chip...but it will directly change the time taken to load and unload the RAM which is full of capacitors, hence higher voltages result in fewer blue screens of death aka memory failure therefore...more stability...(the original post was meant as a brief description of the pros and cons of voltage changing etc but since you mentioned it lol) I know when I started overclocking I was mainly concerned as to how to get my frequency as high as possible without burning out my chip...then I got into the memory stuff and so on
The voltage doesn't shorten the threshold of timing directly, it helps the movement of charge in the chip which means that fewer charges fail to jump the band gap in the semiconductor layers in the chip (not trying to sound like a smart ass ... honest lol)...by providing more energy the chip has fewer failed charge jumps (counting as a 1 ... Basically the chip has to count so many electrons which have jumped the gap before it considers it as a 1 rather than a 0) and thus becomes more stable...so I suppose it does in theory allow shorter times between changes and is another reason behind why you can get more out of your CPU with higher voltages...but I get about 15 degrees C lower in my chip when I boost the CPU by 300MHz with stock compared to +0.1V voltage..that's what I found anyway...using my BIOS temperature sensors rather than any software...but as my rather cynical signature/disclaimer says...it's what I found, so believe it at your own risk/peril, lol
Thanks for the welcome to the forum too
Just seen your quote about the charging of capacitors, this doesn't affect the CPU performance very much as there aren't any large capacitance capacitors in the chip...but it will directly change the time taken to load and unload the RAM which is full of capacitors, hence higher voltages result in fewer blue screens of death aka memory failure therefore...more stability...(the original post was meant as a brief description of the pros and cons of voltage changing etc but since you mentioned it lol) I know when I started overclocking I was mainly concerned as to how to get my frequency as high as possible without burning out my chip...then I got into the memory stuff and so on
Last edited:
Fair enough, I see your pointEgan said:
We shall let the OP have a play around and see what works out best for him.I'm sure other people will be along soon to share their experiences, but for me, running this CPU (4400+ X2) at 2.4Ghz at stock voltage results in lower temps than running at 2.4Ghz with +0.05 Vcore.
Thanks for the explanations etc, I learned a lot
Also apologies to akirru for a slight thread hijack! Let us know how you get on with the overclocking
Jon
/Edit: Good stuff akirru, looking good. Running at 1T as well, nicely done
I think at that voltage you should still be able to push the FSB up higher though.Is it stable?
Last edited:
I'm not sure on the operations of Dual Core processors...haven't had the finances to upgrade yet lol...I would say that you'll most definitely get a different result with dual core than with the likes of mine...dual core has more involved circuitry which I don't quite understand yet lol...
Another reason might be due to the factory settings? I believe the 4400 X2 has a standard frequency of 2.3 GHz, and if you're running it only 100MHz above then the voltage might have more of an effect than the current...as the current effects are multiplied by the frequency where as the voltage effect is constant, there's probably a crossover where below a certain overclock you are looking at higher temperature (given I've only done the test with 300MHz on a 2.0 which is an increase of 15% compared to your increase of only 4% the crossover may be between the two...I look forward to finding out other peoples' discoveries on this as you say anyway)
Anyway, yes...sorry Akirru for the hijack, it wasn't intended to be one when I first posted, honest
Given your processor is only one step down from mine, you're only getting less than 10% less overclock and mine is on the border of stability, I could go about 50MHz higher but it starts to cry so to speak...I would be weary about increasing it too much...but you probably can go a little higher...but then you should experiment and see how far you can go whilst it's stable...as I say, I'm on budget Single channel RAM with a high latency so it's likely you may even be able to get more out of your 3500 than I can from my 3700 given my hardware limitations...and my unwillingness to up the voltage further than 0.1... Sorry if I'm babbling again lol
Another reason might be due to the factory settings? I believe the 4400 X2 has a standard frequency of 2.3 GHz, and if you're running it only 100MHz above then the voltage might have more of an effect than the current...as the current effects are multiplied by the frequency where as the voltage effect is constant, there's probably a crossover where below a certain overclock you are looking at higher temperature (given I've only done the test with 300MHz on a 2.0 which is an increase of 15% compared to your increase of only 4% the crossover may be between the two...I look forward to finding out other peoples' discoveries on this as you say anyway
)Anyway, yes...sorry Akirru for the hijack, it wasn't intended to be one when I first posted, honest
Given your processor is only one step down from mine, you're only getting less than 10% less overclock and mine is on the border of stability, I could go about 50MHz higher but it starts to cry so to speak...I would be weary about increasing it too much...but you probably can go a little higher...but then you should experiment and see how far you can go whilst it's stable...as I say, I'm on budget Single channel RAM with a high latency so it's likely you may even be able to get more out of your 3500 than I can from my 3700 given my hardware limitations...and my unwillingness to up the voltage further than 0.1... Sorry if I'm babbling again lol
Last edited:
that should go to 2700MHz (246x11), maybe needing upto 1.475vCore set in BIOS
I find it easier to start clocking at using just 1.3000vCore and test it every 100MHz, once you hit a problem up the vCore and try again.
I find it easier to start clocking at using just 1.3000vCore and test it every 100MHz, once you hit a problem up the vCore and try again.
Last edited:
If your board allows boosting from the standard 1.35V to 1.45V then it stands to reason that the board can only cope with a 0.1V increase...so I would presume forcing it higher may damage your mobo as well as potentially your CPU...not to mention your wallet
But then again, it could just be ASROCK covering themselves, who knows
But then again, it could just be ASROCK covering themselves, who knows
That should be enough to get the bulk of the speed from the chip, it all depends what the chips like?akirru said:unfortunately the bios provided with the boad only allows 1.45 Volts
I have included my notes and a screenie from my Venice 3200+ overclocking log, it may help you zero-in on what your chip can do at what volts. .
2000MHz (200x10) 12:00 Small FFTs Passed 1.300vCore
2400MHz (240x10) 02:00 Small FFTs Passed 1.300vCore
2500MHz (250x10) 24:00 Small FFTs Passed 1.300vCore
2600MHz (260x10) 00:02 Small FFTs Failed 1.300vCore
2600MHz (260x10) 01:43 Small FFTs Failed 1.325vCore
2600MHz (260x10) 24:00 Small FFTs Passed 1.350vCore
2700MHz (270x10) 00:03 Small FFTs Failed 1.375vCore
2700MHz (270x10) 00:03 Small FFTs Failed 1.400vCore
2700MHz (270x10) 24:00 Small FFTs Passed 1.425vCore
2800MHz (280x10) 00:02 Small FFTs Failed 1.425vCore
2800MHz (280x10) 00:02 Small FFTs Failed 1.525vCore
