2400G @ 4175MHz opinions?

Would you try a run @3.825ghz? My 1600 might actually top your single thread. I don't want to raise my voltage that high or I would try mine at 4.175ghz too. Here's mine @3.825ghz. http://valid.x86.fr/bench/yfl6r9/1 I don't know how to submit a score and get the cpuz image to show up like yours did. Every time I try it won't let me stay anonymous.

Edit: I got it to submit, but now the original link doesn't work. I can only find it on the bench page. I don't know what gives with cpuz. I updated the link.

Edited by Spaceminer - 30 Apr 2018 at 1:28am

PetrolHead wrote: For comparison, my 1500X scores between 435 and 438 in the single threaded benchmark @ 3.8 GHz (3790.95 MHz) / 3333 MHz (3325.4 MHz). This means your ~10% higher clocks net you a ~10% higher score. The 2700X has ~4% higher clocks than you do, and should thus also get ~4% higher scores. Even the multi-threaded score of the 2700X isn't as high as one would expect (it should be more than double your score).

Just wanted to give a thanks for posting your numbers. Your 1500x and my 1600 are looking the same clock for clock. I think we both have well binned CPUs. I usually dust other 1600's at the same clock and even some 1700x's. I'd image your chip is bit of an over performer too.

Spaceminer wrote: Just wanted to give a thanks for posting your numbers. Your 1500x and my 1600 are looking the same clock for clock. I think we both have well binned CPUs. I usually dust other 1600's at the same clock and even some 1700x's. I'd image your chip is bit of an over performer too.

Well, I'd expect pretty much any 1xxx CPU to give similar results at these clock speeds. After all, the cores are the same in all of the CPUs. If someone gets significantly different results, my first assumption would be that the cause is differences in the environment the CPU has to work in (installed Windows updates, programs running in the background, CPU-Z version etc.), not the CPU itself.

Regarding binning, I don't think my CPU is particularly well binned. I wasn't able to overclock it beyond 3.7 GHz and 3200 MHz with reasonable voltages and temperatures using the stock Wraith Spire cooler. This may be of course be due to the fact that unlike many reviewers, I used Prime95 for stability testing, but I think a good chip could have been able to push to 3.8 GHz or 3.9 GHz with the same settings. Now that I'm using a liquid AIO cooler, I'm able to run the CPU at 3.8 GHz and 3333 MHz, but this required a notable jump in Vcore (from 1.25V to 1.325V in BIOS) and 3.9 GHz seems to still be out of the question with less than 1.4V (in BIOS, the real Vcore is higher on my motherboard).

Not that I'm unhappy with the performance of the 1500X or the speeds I'm reaching, I just don't think I've won the silicon lottery with my CPU.

PetrolHead wrote: I just don't think I've won the silicon lottery with my CPU.

Have you tried using a voltage offset? I get the same thing at higher voltages. If I need to run up 1.35v, then I'll set the Vcore at 1.30v with a +50mv offset. This allows you to essentially keep a hard limit on it. LLC is trying to account for Vdroop and bumping you up. I drop ~0.0625v under load. If I'm using the stock clocks, I actually have to set a -50mv offset instead, otherwise the VDD hits 1.47v briefly on auto. Which is absolutely insane to me. I like to be very cautious. I can run 3.9ghz at 1.33725v. And 3.925ghz at 1.35625v. Anything less and I will crash just from running Dolphin emulator for 2-3min. I haven't tried beyond this. I know a decent voltage jump is needed somewhere beyond that, and I'm not willing to try it on air cooling. I wouldn't count yourself out just yet. Prime95 really is a torture test. I say, if you can do the things you want with the OC you have, be it gaming, video editing, compiling code etc., without it crashing, or hitting dangerous temps, then it's stable enough for every day use. I like my vcore on the low side, so I keep mine at 3.725ghz with 1.31v for everyday use. LLC will occasionally push me to 1.32v when I set it this low. I peak at about 54°C under load with ambient temps of 22-23°C.

Spaceminer wrote: Have you tried using a voltage offset? I get the same thing at higher voltages. If I need to run up 1.35v, then I'll set the Vcore at 1.30v with a +50mv offset.

Nope. It seems that my motherboard has some auto LLC going on by default. If I set 1.325V in the BIOS (as I have), the voltage (SVI2 TFN) is about 1.362V when idling or under light load and about 1.337V when doing Prime95 testing, so I'm always above what I set in the BIOS.

If I'm using the stock clocks, I actually have to set a -50mv offset instead, otherwise the VDD hits 1.47v briefly on auto. Which is absolutely insane to me. I like to be very cautious.

On my board the auto voltages go beyond 1.5V at times. It does seem odd, but it shouldn't actually be harmful to the CPU (after all, it's the stock setting). The voltage keeps jumping up and down so those high spikes are not kept for very long and this is mainly happening when the CPU is not under load, which means the current running through the CPU isn't that high.

I say, if you can do the things you want with the OC you have, be it gaming, video editing, compiling code etc., without it crashing, or hitting dangerous temps, then it's stable enough for every day use.

You're probably right. I just want it to be a bit more stable than stable enough.