ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > OverClocking(OC) Zone > Achivement&Record
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Phenom II X6 1090T + ASRock 970M Pro3
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Phenom II X6 1090T + ASRock 970M Pro3

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Phenom II X6 1090T + ASRock 970M Pro3
    Posted: 06 Jan 2016 at 12:06pm
I thought I'd start a small thread concerning my rig and what I've managed to do to it. Here's what I'm running:

CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE
GPU: Asus GeForce GTX 650 DirectCU 1 GB GDDR5
MB: ASRock 970M Pro3
RAM: 2 x 8 GB Kinston HyperX Fury Black (official numbers 1600 MHz CL10)
PSU: Cooler Master V650S
HDD: Samsung 850 EVO SSD 250 GB
Case: BitFenix Prodigy M
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-C14S
Fans: 1 x BitFenix Spectre 120 mm, 1 x Noctua NF-A14 FLX 140 mm
OS: Windows 8.1 64-bit & Linux Mint 17.2 Cinnamon 64-bit

I've tried overclocking using only stock voltages and only now I'm starting to see what I can get out the CPU by increasing voltage. Using stock voltages is a good way to keep temperatures in check, but it naturally limits what speeds you can achieve.

I mostly use Prime95 for stability testing (custom runs, basically blend with more RAM in use), with the occasional RealBench stress test, various benchmarks, Unigine Heaven etc. to keep it interesting. Here's what is proven to be stable so far:

1. Stock voltages

CPU: 3500 MHz / 4000 MHz (Turbo Core) (I think this was Prime95 stable for 4 hours at least)
CPU-NB: 2400 MHz
HT: 2400 MHz
RAM: 1600 MHz CL9 (9-9-9-25-2T)

Edit: The 4000 MHz Turbo Core speed was tested only on the first core. However, based on other stability tests, it seems core number five is the weakest link in my CPUs chain. It may thus be that core number five is not stable at this speed on stock voltages, but I never experienced any issues running TC at that speed.

2. Non-stock voltages

Turbo Core mode disabled.

CPU: 3600 MHz @ 1.3375 V
+CPU-NB/HT: 2200 MHz @ stock voltage (not tested)
+CPU-NB/HT: 2400 MHz @ stock voltage (3 hours Prime95 stable), Geekbench 3.3.2: 1967 / 9765

CPU: 3700 MHz @ 1.375 V
+CPU-NB/HT: 2200 MHz @ stock voltage (2 hours Prime95 stable)
+CPU-NB/HT: 2400 MHz @ stock voltage (5 hours Prime95 stable), Geekbench 3.3.2: 1975 / 9940

CPU: 3800 MHz @ 1.4125 V
+CPU-NB/HT: 2200 MHz @ stock voltage (8 hours Prime95 stable)
+CPU-NB/HT: 2400 MHz @ stock voltage (4 hours Prime95 stable), Geekbench 3.3.2: 2043 / 10323

3. Notes

The thing about the higher voltages is that I'm reaching socket temperatures that seem relatively high considering the CPU stays below 50 C. With Vcore = 1.14125 V the socket temperature peaked at 68 C. I am not sure if a high socket temp is the sort of problem some people say it is, nor am I sure the reading is trustworthy. In any case, 70 C is often quoted as the safe limit and I'm only staying below it at the moment due to the fact that it's winter and the room temperature is lower than what it'll be most of the year.

Another thing I'm slightly worried about is the VRM. I'm not sure how much stress it's under and how much more it can take. After all, the 970M Pro3 only has a 4+1 power phase design. At the moment I mostly use HWMonitor to monitor the temperatures and even if there is a temperature sensor monitoring the VRM section, I'm probably not seeing the correct values. I'll see if any of the other available programs could give me more info.


Edited by PetrolHead - 23 Jan 2016 at 10:05am
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jan 2016 at 3:51pm
Something I failed to mention in your other post concerning socket temps.

Heating of the substrate below the socket, and in turn more importantly the traces leading to and from laced throughout in the substrate below the socket, will change the resistance of said traces.



X370 SLI/ac(r1.03, BIOS 5.10), 1500X, H115i, F4-4133C19D-16GTZA, 970 EVO M.2 250GB + 500GB, Tt Core X9 Black

16,441 - https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13030306
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 6:02am
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Heating of the substrate below the socket, and in turn more importantly the traces leading to and from laced throughout in the substrate below the socket, will change the resistance of said traces.


True, and it's easy to see how this could affect the stability of the system, since less current would be reaching the CPU. Thus, the user would need to increase voltage, which would lead to increased heat and also increased resistance... Apart from possible stability issues, this increase in resistance also affects the power draw, as you probably already know: A CPU can use several tens of watts more power at a higher temperature, even if clock speed and voltage are kept constant. But if one doesn't care about anything else than stability, does the temperature really matter?

I wish (AMD) motherboard manufacturers would specify a Tmax for the socket temperature, since they bother to measure it. Or maybe there's just no sense. Maybe the VRM or the CPU will put out smoke or start throttling before the socket components are in any actual danger.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 6:25am
There's probably no sense.

Every board will be other than the reference board AMD would use, except in the wild some boards are three layer and some are seven layer.

Then we can banter another week of one heretofore unnamed manufacturer using 2oz of copper in the power and ground versus one that doesn't. Which, IMO, didn't matter one bit of having 2oz of copper 'cuz all three went to sh*t all about the same time, from differing reasons.

Run it like you stole it ! Handshake YMMV Tongue



Variables,,,,, variables ..... Variable
X370 SLI/ac(r1.03, BIOS 5.10), 1500X, H115i, F4-4133C19D-16GTZA, 970 EVO M.2 250GB + 500GB, Tt Core X9 Black

16,441 - https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13030306
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 6:33am
I'd be better of running this like I couldn't afford replacing it. ;D

I bumped CPU-NB and HT to 2400 MHz on stock voltages. Didn't seem to have much impact on heatload, had a very slight impact on a few benchmarks (for the better) and seems to be stable as well (4 hours on P95).
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 11:30am
Originally posted by PetrolHead PetrolHead wrote:

I'd be better of running this like I couldn't afford replacing it. ;D


Then back away from the fence, find a happy median there, and for Gods sake stop running P95 and those other stress test programs.

Yea. Right. Ha! NOT Tongue Exclamation
X370 SLI/ac(r1.03, BIOS 5.10), 1500X, H115i, F4-4133C19D-16GTZA, 970 EVO M.2 250GB + 500GB, Tt Core X9 Black

16,441 - https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13030306
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2016 at 11:02am
I updated my BIOS and lost all my settings, so before setting everything up again, I decided to see what the "Load Optimized CPU OC" settings had to offer. Compared to my settings, the ~3.8 GHz load optimized setting had less Vcore, Vcpu-nb was something like 1.3 V, the bus speed was higher (250 MHz) and RAM speed was set at roughly 1000 MHz with CL 5, I think. I ran Geekbench (only once though) and it didn't seem to do any better than my current setup. Otherwise it was pretty even, but the memory performance was notably worse.

I then decided to try the 4000 MHz load optimized setting. Vcore was 1.45 V and everything else was pretty much the same as with 3.8 GHz as far as I can remember. Geekbench scores were marginally better than with my manual OC, partially because memory performance was again notably worse. I then decided to run Prime95 to see if the settings were stable. Were they? Not even close. It didn't take many seconds for several of the workers to produce an error, which would imply the Vcore was way too low. When I tried 4.0 GHz with a Vcore of 1.45 V I lost only one worker and it took slighlty longer, so it would seem the load optimized settings are so well optimized for the piece of silicon I own.

Of course this is not hugely surprising. This sort of "cookie cutter OC" rarely works quite as it should, especially if the OC is at all demanding. Still, it was interesting to see what sort of settings ASRock had chosen. Now my rig is back on my manual settings and running at 3.8 GHz. I might drop back to 3.5 GHz at stock voltages later on purely out of pity for the VRM section (more on this in another topic), but we'll see...
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2016 at 6:12pm
Stay under 1.4v on any AMD 4+1 board. Even with a fan blowing over the VRM sink.
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2016 at 7:39pm
I didn't check what voltages the CPU reached using those load balanced settings, but using my manual settings, Vcore never seems to even reach 1.4 V even though the value set in BIOS is 1.4125 V. During a four hour P95 run, the max Vcore value was 1.384 V. The corresponding value was 1.344 V with 3.7 GHz and Vcore at 1.375 V in the BIOS, although I only tested this for two hours. In any case there seems to be a 0.041 V difference between the set value and the value detected by HWMonitor. Safe or not? Who knows. I might drop down to 3.7 GHz for 24/7 use just to be "safe".
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2016 at 9:59am
Hmm. 3.9 GHz @ 1.4375 V has passed 1,5 hours in Prime95 and is still going strong. It might still fail, but if it does, 1.45 V should be enough to make it solidly stable. I know I'm taking a risk, but this is damn addictive. I shouldn't have looked at what people get out of this chip at hwbot.org... :D I mean, the average OC on air is ~4100 MHz. Naturally some of the better results aren't achieved on a 4+1 motherboard and some of the voltages are crazy high, so I might as well stop dreaming and settle for a mild OC. After all, I also want my system to be stable, whereas for those hwbot.org submissions it's enough that you're able to boot and run CPU-Z long enough to validate the result. ;)

Once I've finished two hours of Prime95 for this 3.9 GHz (stable or not), I'm thinking of going back to 3.7 GHz, since I only tested it for two hours. Then, just for the sake of completeness, I might see what voltage is needed for 3.6 GHz to be stable.

Edit: Wasn't stable. 1 h 47 minutes in and one error from worker 5. I'll try to resist the temptation to try 1.45 V before I'm able to measure the VRM temperature.


Edited by PetrolHead - 22 Jan 2016 at 10:13am
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.06
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.090 seconds.