https://forum.asrock.com/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Sat, 13 Jun 2026 22:25:37 +0000 Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:59:09 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.04 360 https://forum.asrock.com/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=1667 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_images/web_wiz_forums_black.png https://forum.asrock.com/ https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=41214&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#41214 Author: PetrolHead
Subject: 1667
Posted: 17 Dec 2017 at 2:59pm

Apologies, I had missed your comment and I don't know if this helps anymore, but I ran the system mostly at 3.7 GHz and 1.375 V, then switched to 3.8 GHz and 1.4125 V for roughly half a year before switching back to 3.7 GHz last summer. I never felt like pushing the voltages to reach 3.9 GHz on my motherboard was worth the risk, especially since I never got around getting something I could measure the VRM temperature with.
]]> Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:59:09 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=41214&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#41214 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=26990&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#26990 Author: Z0mbiekiller187
Subject: 1667
Posted: 10 Apr 2017 at 11:41pm

Just wondering what you ended up with. I just got this board and CPU.]]> Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:41:36 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=26990&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#26990 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8909&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8909 Author: PetrolHead
Subject: 1667
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]]> Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:59:36 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8909&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8909 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8761&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8761 Author: PetrolHead
Subject: 1667
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".
]]> Tue, 19 Jan 2016 19:39:16 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8761&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8761 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8697&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8697 Author: wardog
Subject: 1667
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.
]]> Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:12:58 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8697&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8697 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8686&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8686 Author: PetrolHead
Subject: 1667
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...
]]> Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:02:52 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8686&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8686 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8095&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8095 Author: wardog
Subject: 1667
Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 11:30am

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
]]> Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:30:08 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8095&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8095 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8089&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8089 Author: PetrolHead
Subject: 1667
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).
]]> Fri, 08 Jan 2016 06:33:34 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8089&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8089 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8014&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8014 Author: wardog
Subject: 1667
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 ! YMMV



Variables,,,,, variables ..... Variable
]]> Thu, 07 Jan 2016 06:25:34 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8014&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8014 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8010&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8010 Author: PetrolHead
Subject: 1667
Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 6:02am

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.
]]> Thu, 07 Jan 2016 06:02:15 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1667&PID=8010&title=phenom-ii-x6-1090t-asrock-970m-pro3#8010