Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1064 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s October 22 - 11:01pm EDT 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Overclocking /
 

  Overclocking an i7 920 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
C J Apr 26, 2011, 09:29am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List Replies: 14 - Views: 4011
Motherboard - GA-EX58-UD3R

RAM = http://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.a...u=C13-6152

I have 3 sticks of those running tripple channel.


Bios Settings.

CPU Clock Ratio 20x
CPU Frequency 4.00GHz (200x20)
QPI Clock Ratio Auto (I had it set to x36 then changed it to Auto and it has made a difference so far)
QPI Link Speed 7.2GHz
Uncore Clock Ratio x17
Uncore Frequency 3400MHz

BCLK Frequency 200
System Memory Multiplier 8.0

CPU VCore 1.325
QPI/Vtt Volts 1.315
IOH Core 1.30 (This setting I never changed until yesterday and I think it made a difference. This setting was mentioned in the article from Voicy but not in the guide provided by Gigabyte)
DRAM Volts 1.66v

CAS - somehow by default it was at 8/20 I changed it to 8/24 and tried 9/24


As of right now, I ran Prime95 for 2 hours and no errors, I also set Prime95 to test with 1 thread while setting the memory to 6100MBs and ran for over an hour with no errors.

I then Ran LinX with the default settings of 16331 for the problem size and 2048 for the memory but increased it to run 10 times and ran with no errors.. This was the program I was getting errors on earlier this week.

I then ran Memtest in windows. I ran 2 instances at the same time using 1500MB of RAM in each instance and it ran for over 200% coverage with no errors.

I ran Fraps, GPU-Z to record highest temps, Real Temps to record max temps and played MWII for well over an hour and no crashes at all.


Everything seem fine and dandy until yesterday, not even 4 rounds deep into MWII MP, it locks up, no BSOD, no hard crash like before, but a lock up with this loud repetitive sound. I had to do a hard boot and then I ran those tests again.

This time Prime95 had one out of 8 workers stopped. it ran 6 tests in 11 minutes with 1 error.. Ran 2 different tests in OCCT and they passed, then tried Prime again and the same worker stopped.

These are the 2 sources I used to help with the OC

http://www.overclockers.com/3-step-guide-overclock-core-i3-i5-i7/

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/10827/gigabyte_shows_how_to_over...index.html

The gigabyte link has a "grab a guide"


Can anyone tell me if my MoBo isn't meant to have the RAM OC'd? is it the IMC arguing with the RAM frequency? Does the CPU and the RAM not getting along to cause these lockups and BSODs before?

Please advise... I am at a loss.


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Dublin_Gunner Apr 26, 2011, 11:58am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
It has nothing to do with your overclock.

Its your computer telling you not to be playing such crap as CoD.

:P

Just kidding.

Could be your memory. As you're clocking it up from 1333 to 1600, 1.66v is very little tbh.

Try bump the vmem up to 1.8/1.85 and see if that helps stabilise it. You may also need to loosen timings, so maybe set the timings to auto, but leave them clocked at 1600. (you can check what the motherboard has set the timings to using CPU-Z).

But I'll be honest, if it is the ram, try keep it at stock speeds. You will notice little if any real word difference having the ram clocked that little bit higher. So put them on a lower multiplier, and see how much more you can get out of your CPU.


Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
C J Apr 26, 2011, 12:23pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Dublin_Gunner said:
It has nothing to do with your overclock.

Its your computer telling you not to be playing such crap as CoD.

:P

Just kidding.



LOLOLOLOL!!!


Dublin_Gunner said:

Could be your memory. As you're clocking it up from 1333 to 1600, 1.66v is very little tbh.

Try bump the vmem up to 1.8/1.85 and see if that helps stabilise it. You may also need to loosen timings, so maybe set the timings to auto, but leave them clocked at 1600. (you can check what the motherboard has set the timings to using CPU-Z).

But I'll be honest, if it is the ram, try keep it at stock speeds. You will notice little if any real word difference having the ram clocked that little bit higher. So put them on a lower multiplier, and see how much more you can get out of your CPU.




Well for starters, I cannot run the RAM at stock(1333) as long as I am running the CPU at 20x200.. My PC runs stable at 4.0GHz with the RAM at 600MHz DDR3 1200 (instead of 1600)

So from what you are saying is, I won't notice a difference between 1200 vs 1600?

now the guide from the tweaktown link achieved 1600 from 1333 RAM, granted he has the extreme version of my MoBo and used different Corsair RAM.

If I go back in and apply all of the settings for 1600, I need to raise the DRAM volts from 1.66 to 1.8 correct?

Dublin_Gunner Apr 26, 2011, 12:35pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
in games or most benchmarks you wont notice much if any difference.

Firstly try tunning it at 1200 to see if the errors go away, so we know for sure its the ram. Then work on stabilising it at 1600.

It still may be the cpu so its best to isolate them.

You could also try reduce the cpu multi to say 30 and see if the errors go. If they do its the cpu that needs to be stabilised.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
C J Apr 26, 2011, 12:38pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Dublin_Gunner said:
in games or most benchmarks you wont notice much if any difference.

Firstly try tunning it at 1200 to see if the errors go away, so we know for sure its the ram. Then work on stabilising it at 1600.

It still may be the cpu so its best to isolate them.

You could also try reduce the cpu multi to say 30 and see if the errors go. If they do its the cpu that needs to be stabilised.


I will tell you str8 up that it runs stable at 600MHz/DDR3 1200 (instead of 1600)

Problem is and I think its Gigabytes Bios, Im only allowed to select Auto, x36 x44(I think) and x48(I think)

Dublin_Gunner Apr 26, 2011, 01:59pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Are you confusing the qqpi ratio with the memory multiplier?

You should be able to set it at 7x to give you 1400mhz. Leave the qpi at auto.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
C J Apr 26, 2011, 02:26pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Dublin_Gunner said:
Are you confusing the qqpi ratio with the memory multiplier?

You should be able to set it at 7x to give you 1400mhz. Leave the qpi at auto.



Thats the problem. 6.0 = 1200 8.0 = 1600 there is no 7.0, it only goes in incriments of 2s, then next is 10.0.. God Damn Gigabyte...

Dublin_Gunner Apr 26, 2011, 02:32pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Up your base clock to 222mhz, cpu multi to 18, and qpi at auto.

That will give you 1333 memory and 4ghz cpu. You may need to up the mch / bus voltage a little.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
C J Apr 26, 2011, 03:07pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Dublin_Gunner said:
Up your base clock to 222mhz, cpu multi to 18, and qpi at auto.

That will give you 1333 memory and 4ghz cpu. You may need to up the mch / bus voltage a little.



Damn.. 222 and 18 seems alot. QPI = Auto but what do I set the VCore to?

MCH/Bus? I don't recall that setting at all.

so is it impossible to get 1600 and 4.0?

Dublin_Gunner Apr 26, 2011, 05:16pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
C J said:
Dublin_Gunner said:
Up your base clock to 222mhz, cpu multi to 18, and qpi at auto.

That will give you 1333 memory and 4ghz cpu. You may need to up the mch / bus voltage a little.



Damn.. 222 and 18 seems alot. QPI = Auto but what do I set the VCore to?

MCH/Bus? I don't recall that setting at all.

so is it impossible to get 1600 and 4.0?



222x18 = 4Ghz~, just like you had it. But 222x6=1333Mhz for your memory, so you get to keep your memory at stock, and your CPU at 4Ghz.

You can try loosen your ram timings, and / or upping the voltage to see if you can get the ram stable at 1600Mhz.


Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
C J Apr 26, 2011, 05:22pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Dublin_Gunner said:
C J said:
Dublin_Gunner said:
Up your base clock to 222mhz, cpu multi to 18, and qpi at auto.

That will give you 1333 memory and 4ghz cpu. You may need to up the mch / bus voltage a little.



Damn.. 222 and 18 seems alot. QPI = Auto but what do I set the VCore to?

MCH/Bus? I don't recall that setting at all.

so is it impossible to get 1600 and 4.0?



222x18 = 4Ghz~, just like you had it. But 222x6=1333Mhz for your memory, so you get to keep your memory at stock, and your CPU at 4Ghz.

You can try loosen your ram timings, and / or upping the voltage to see if you can get the ram stable at 1600Mhz.




Dublin,

Thx for your help, when you say loosen the timing, you mean go from CAS 8/24 to 9/24?

Dublin_Gunner Apr 26, 2011, 05:35pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Yep, or indeed leave all the timings at auto, and up the vmem.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
C J Apr 26, 2011, 08:28pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
Dublin_Gunner said:
Yep, or indeed leave all the timings at auto, and up the vmem.



I think I found an answer to my problems, per this link/article 4.0GHz and 1600Mhz together isn't going to happen nor deem success

you pretty much nailed what my only options are which is 3.999(4.0GHz) and 1333Mhz if I don't want 1200.

Some of this was a little over my head but when I scrolled down and read No. 3, it explained everything to why Im having issues trying to get 4.0/1600

Thanks for all of your help with this.



Ok, I think I finally have some answers to the 20x multiplier instability and a number of other issues many users are complaining about. You will have to follow me here as this is not that simple, but it makes a lot of sense and all of my testing to date has actually confirmed it. I have spent a lot of time figuring this out and I really hope that this will help people. Indeed, I am now able to predict ahead of time what settings will POST, what settings will not, and approximately which component will need to be juiced up higher to result in a more stable system. Furthermore, this will be a very thorough overview of Core i7 overclocking that will expose some serious limitations, particularly on the i7 920 and i7 940 parts. It is all primarily linked to the Uncore and QPI speeds.
First off, I will use the Core i7 940 for all of my examples. Core i7 920 and i7 940 are for all intents and purposes the exact same chip, but the i7 940 is just factory clocked higher. These are most likely not higher binned chips, and even if they are by some chance it really does not matter. You will soon see why. In essence, same holds true for the i7 965 EE though they are certainly higher binned and quite likely somewhat more forgiving when overclocking. The fact that they can overclock using an unlocked multiplier is a huge bonus for this chip.
For details on each of the CPU specifications see Intel's website and tech specs/data sheets. I'll just briefly mention the specs here, for reference.

Core i7 920 - 2.66GHz, 20x133MHz, 4.8GT/s QPI (2.4GHz), QPI multiplier 18x (18x133MHz)
Core i7 940 - 2.93GHz, 22x133MHz, 4.8GT/s QPI (2.4GHz), QPI multiplier 18x (18x133MHz)
Core i7 965 EE - 3.2GHz, 24x133MHz, 6.4GT/s QPI (3.2GHz), QPI multiplier 24x (24x133MHz)

The key thing to remember here is that for Core i7 processors everything is interconnected, much like in case of AMD processors. Therefore, changing the BCLK speed affects everything from core speed, to QPI link speed, to Uncore speed, to memory speed. The key elements and the limiting ones here are the last three, the QPI link speed, Uncore speed, and memory speed. Particularly, the QPI is the limiting factor for the other elements as the highest stable QPI link speed for the current Core i7 processors is 8.0GT/s or 4.0GHz for 99% of systems out there. Some exceptions have been observed, but these are extremely rare. This may also be chipset dependent limitation and it is possible that newer chipsets supporting Core i7 will not have this limitation. Anyway, enough introduction. Let's get to the details.

First let's look at the relationships between QPI, Uncore, and DRAM speeds.

DRAM speed must be in a 1:2 ratio or less to Uncore speed which in turn must be in 1:1 or less ratio to QPI link speed (8:9 Uncore to QPI or lower is preferred as the more you approach 1:1 the more unstable the system becomes).

So why Uncore to QPI ratio of 8:9?

I derived this ratio from Intel's specifications on Core i7 processors. Highest supported memory for Core i7 is 1066MHz with a QPI of 4.8GT/s or 2.4GHz. According to processor specifications then, Uncore would be running at 2xDRAM (or 2x DRAM multiplier, in this case 16x) which results in an Uncore speed of 2132MHz. When you take the ratio of Uncore to QPI you will get 2132:2400 or approximately 8:9.

I can run my Uncore higher than QPI and I am not seeing any problems. How come?

This is possible. In my testing this proved to be less stable than keeping Uncore speed below that of QPI. However, more importantly I found that running Uncore and QPI in a ratio more than 8:9 and approaching 1:1 made the system quite unstable, especially with added stress when overclocking. Furthermore, it is quite likely that running QPI lower than Uncore results in some performance degradation (I did not test this however). Finally, it is important to note that this flexibility is in a large part not there on the non EE parts as you do not have control over core multipliers to the extent where you could be running Uncore very high and QPI link very low as was shown in this example:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...79#post3491979

As a general rule of thumb I did not want to test combinations that fall way outside Intel's specifications, that require voltages approaching critical values according to Intel datasheets, etc. Most users are looking to overclock but still run a long term stable system and not just get the highest benchmark score. Naturally, a lot of instability issues can be resolved by sufficiently increasing voltages to the components experiencing problems but this is very risky and not sustainable for long term use. To be safe I would strongly advise staying within the limits specified by Intel (can be seen here http:// http://www.xtremesystems.org /forums/showpost.php?p=3435336&postcount=13) and recommend staying at least a good percentage below the absolute maximums.

Now that we know this relationship, let's dive right into some of the most common issues with Core i7 processors.

1. Why is it that I cannot run my 2000MHz memory in my new Core i7 system?

To understand this note the maximum QPI link speed we mentioned earlier. Using the simple ratio we defined, we can see that with the maximum QPI link speed of 4.0GHz we can have a theoretical maximum Uncore of 4.0GHz and a maximum memory speed of 2.0GHz. These however are only theoretical maximums and are by no means guaranteed. For starters, QPI and Uncore cannot be run at the same speed as any clock oscillations can result in a crash if the ratio of QPI to Uncore ever falls below 1:1. Therefore, Uncore must always be below QPI to avoid this, and preferably below the 8:9 Uncore to QPI ratio to guarantee stability. Consequently, if we cannot achieve 4.0GHz Uncore, this means that we absolutely cannot achieve 2.0GHz memory and we can therefore not guarantee any stability for 2.0GHz memory. Technically, the maximum DRAM speed for a stable system is equal to ((Max. Uncore) / (Safe QPI:Uncore Ratio)) / 2 or (4.0GHz / 9:8) / 2 = 1.777GHz. In between 1.777GHz DRAM and 2.0GHz DRAM you are likely to experience some level of instability over the long term. Past 2.0GHz you are just plain lucky.

2. Why is it that almost none of the X58 boards can reliably clock the BCLK over 222MHz?

The answer to this again lies in the QPI link speed. At default (and lowest possible multiplier) for QPI of 18x the QPI link speed becomes 18x222MHz or 3.996GHz (4.0GHz). As we have already stated earlier this is dangerously close to the maximum QPI link speed and is therefore very unreliable. Anything higher than 222MHz and you have exceeded the current QPI maximum so in 99% of cases you will experience no POST. For this matter, a simple guideline is that any BCLK combined with a QPI multiplier that is at or very near maximum 4.0GHz QPI link speed is a candidate for no POST or instability.

3. What the heck is the deal with the 20x multiplier then?

This one is a real kicker (in a funny way). Yes, 20x multiplier is special, in more than one way, but mostly in the way people are trying to use it. You see, there is nothing wrong with the 20x multiplier. Indeed, it works, just like all other multipliers, perfectly fine. It is the DRAM multiplier and BCLK that people are combining with it that causes problems when combined with the QPI multiplier and the Uncore speed. At 20x200MHz, our default memory multiplier is 8 and our memory is at 1600MHz. The Uncore speed becomes 16x200MHz or 3.2GHz (or 2xDRAM at minimum). Therefore, remembering our (safe) ratios of 8:9 Uncore to QPI we see that the QPI link speed must be a minimum of 3.6GHz or higher. In case of 20x200MHz the Uncore and QPI are exactly in this ratio and with the added stress on the core, cache, IMC, DRAM, etc. this becomes a problem. At this point clock oscillations become much more prominent and if the QPI link speed falls below the 9:8 ratio to Uncore at any point in time combined with the added stress on the components the system can and likely will become unstable. Hence, at 20x200MHz with a default memory, Uncore and QPI multipliers we cannot really have a 100% stable system. So you say "just up the QPI link speed then". Not so fast. Remember our multipliers for QPI? They start at 18x, and the next is 22x, and so on. Unfortunately, 22x200MHz results in QPI link speed of 4.4GHz which results in no POST. Therefore, this cannot be done. Indeed, the highest reliable BCLK for default multipliers when using 20x core multiplier is 181MHz which with a 22x QPI multiplier would result in 3.982GHz QPI link. Even if you could set QPI multiplier to 20x, this would still not work for 99% of the boards out there as your QPI link would still be 4.0GHz. So what is the solution you ask? Memory multiplier. It needs to be lower. 1600MHz DRAM is approaching the maximum stress point for 20x200MHz core settings as it pushes on the limits of Uncore and QPI too much. By using a lower memory multiplier (say 6x if possible) the DRAM speed would become 6x200MHz or 1200MHz, Uncore could then be set at 2.4GHz with a lower multiplier which would then allow the QPI link to stay at 18x and well below the QPI link limits but still in a stable ratio to the Uncore.

So there you go. A couple of answers to some of the most painful Core i7 questions. Unfortunately, if you can read between the lines, this does not bode well for anyone owning a Core i7 940 or a 965 EE. For all intents and purposes Core i7 920 performance and Core i7 940 performance are identical. Core i7 965 EE has more flexibility but only because of its unlocked multiplier which allows it to use lower BCLK speeds and DRAM multipliers to achieve higher clocks. Otherwise, it is no different than a Core i7 920 or a Core i7 940. Like I said before, this may also be a chipset imposed limitation, and the processors themselves may be a lot better but at the moment, the state of the affairs is like this.

I have put a lot of thought and work into this so please if you want to comment do it constructively. I welcome any feedback and I hope that this will help a lot of people. It has helped me now to have a rock solid 4-core/8-thread, full 64-bit instruction set 4GHz air-only overclock on the Core i7 940 combined with a nice 1800MHz on my Corsair Dominator triple-channel sticks while keeping all of the voltages within Intel's recommended settings (i.e., DRAM is below 1.65V, QPI/DRAM is below 1.4V, and Vcore is below 1.39V under 100% load).


Source - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3495431&...tcount=877

G. G. Apr 26, 2011, 09:20pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
wow... that's alot of reading.... lol


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-
C J Apr 26, 2011, 10:35pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Overclocking an i7 920
G. G. said:
wow... that's alot of reading.... lol



Yes it is.. however No 3 explains it all.


Write a Reply >>


 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.