i7 5820k stress testing questions

[sirbuteodor]

Hey guys ,

I have my 5820k oc at 4,3ghz ... when I'm stressing it with prime95 it crashes and when I'm stressing it with intel extreme tuning it passes.

Also the difference in temperature is quite high. With p95 I got around 82 degree celcius (at 4.2ghz ) and with intel extreme tuning I got 69 degree at 4.3 ghz

Which program to trust?

[Deli]

It's a common knowledge, don't use P95 on Haswell.

[Ragin Asian]

Aida64. Prime95 cooks haswell.

[i_build_nanosuits]

intel extreme tuning utility was made by intel to stress test your intel CPU...prime95 was made years ago using ancient coding algorithm to destroy your CPU...the choice is yours. i test with intel XTU.

[Izaya Orihara]

Prime 95 will use more voltage as it uses adaptive voltage.

 

Use Aida64. What cooler are you using?

[sirbuteodor]

thanks guys 

 

Prime 95 will use more voltage as it uses adaptive voltage.

 

Use Aida64. What cooler are you using?

corsair h110

[Izaya Orihara]

thanks guys 

 

corsair h110

How much voltage are you applying to the 5820k?

[Enderman]

Always use intel XTU for stress testing intel CPUs. It is the safest and most accurate stress test.

[vorticalbox]

OCCT is what i use.

[sirbuteodor]

How much voltage are you applying to the 5820k?

Right now I have the voltage at 1.270 ... it failed at 1.250

Also , it's failing at 4,4 with 1.3 voltage

I guess I wasn't that lucky with this cpu but I'm quite happy with the performance that it is offering

[i_build_nanosuits]

Right now I have the voltage at 1.270 ... it failed at 1.250

Also , it's failing at 4,4 with 1.3 voltage

I guess I wasn't that lucky with this cpu but I'm quite happy with the performance that it is offering

it's normal for a CPU with more cores to have a harder time reaching higher frequencies.

With X99 you can pick which core you want disabled...so for instance you can cherry pick your 4 best cores and clock them higher and save this as ''gaming profile'' within the BIOS for example.

[runit3]

Right now I have the voltage at 1.270 ... it failed at 1.250

Also , it's failing at 4,4 with 1.3 voltage

I guess I wasn't that lucky with this cpu but I'm quite happy with the performance that it is offering

Average OC's on the 2011-3 CPU's are 4.3-4.6, so that's to be expected. What RAM are you running? That seems to be the other differentiating factor between High/Low OC's (at least in the 2800+Mhz category).

 

it's normal for a CPU with more cores to have a harder time reaching higher frequencies.

With X99 you can pick which core you want disabled...so for instance you can cherry pick your 4 best cores and clock them higher and save this as ''gaming profile'' within the BIOS for example.

^ also an excellent suggestion, although you don't necessarily have to disable cores. You should be able to do "per core" tuning and set your strongest cores to the highest multiplier while leaving the others at a lower. After you get a stable OC you can use core priority software to relegate your important programs to your strongest cores while leaving background processes to the slower ones. Takes a bit more effort to set up, but doesn't involve swapping BIOS profiles every time you want to play a game or edit/encode/w.e. you do.

[sirbuteodor]

Average OC's on the 2011-3 CPU's are 4.3-4.6, so that's to be expected. What RAM are you running? That seems to be the other differentiating factor between High/Low OC's (at least in the 2800+Mhz category).

 

^ also an excellent suggestion, although you don't necessarily have to disable cores. You should be able to do "per core" tuning and set your strongest cores to the highest multiplier while leaving the others at a lower. After you get a stable OC you can use core priority software to relegate your important programs to your strongest cores while leaving background processes to the slower ones. Takes a bit more effort to set up, but doesn't involve swapping BIOS profiles every time you want to play a game or edit/encode/w.e. you do.

 

2x4gb crucial at 2133 ... this was the only one in stock. I will upgrade later , probably in early 2015.

I don't really need to oc per core. I don't play high demanding games and I don't think that 2-3 cores at 4.3 and other 2-3 at 4.4-4.5 will make a big difference in performance. 

But thanks for suggestions  

[runit3]

2x4gb crucial at 2133 ... this was the only one in stock. I will upgrade later , probably in early 2015.

I don't really need to oc per core. I don't play high demanding games and I don't think that 2-3 cores at 4.3 and other 2-3 at 4.4-4.5 will make a big difference in performance. 

But thanks for suggestions

:huh: no quad channel on X99?

 

Yeah, it won't make much of a difference, just something to eek out that last little bit of performance.

 

Although, if you're only trying to OC based off core multiplier and Vcore that's probably where you're running into problems. I've had to mess with every voltage setting to get mine 4.375 stable (3.65 cache). X99 is no easy OC, touch one setting, like Z97/87.

 

Also, what BIOS are you running? To my knowledge nearly every manufacturer has released at least 1 updated BIOS since introduction to increase stability in some aspect (although my "stability" update did not fare that well).

[sirbuteodor]

I'm using the latest bios.

Actually I've let almost everything on auto. I've changed only the voltages and the multiplier. Even the EIS and Turbo. I've found in my case that it doesn't improve any stability with these deactivated.

 

cache ratio is ring ratio? I'm using an MSI board and they are using their own naming. 

[runit3]

I'm using the latest bios.

Actually I've let almost everything on auto. I've changed only the voltages and the multiplier. Even the EIS and Turbo. I've found in my case that it doesn't improve any stability with these deactivated.

 

cache ratio is ring ratio? I'm using an MSI board and they are using their own naming. 

Yes, cache ratio is ring ratio. But increasing cache is the last step in an OC, it will only introduce instability at a lower core OC if you do it early on.

I'm not sure how the MSI BIOS functions but on my ASUS I had to do some overrides to allow for VCCIN manual tuning (currently set at 1.89v), which is the only way I got it stable, also had to bump multiple other settings. I can go grab some BIOS screens if you want them.

[sirbuteodor]

that would be helpful if you have time. I will play more with oc settings more when I will have more time

[Jey R.]

Why everyone keeps saying to not use prime with haswell? I thought it already got debunked

[runit3]

Why everyone keeps saying to not use prime with haswell? I thought it already got debunked

Due to the sheer amount of people trying to OC with adaptive or software enabled OC's ON, which inevitably lead to, "Why is my CPU so hot!? Why is my voltage so high?!" etc. Not that XTU or AIDA won't put up critical voltages under those conditions either, it's just that P95 is notorious for cranking it to 11. Same reason I won't recommend IBT, both of the tests are unnecessary in terms of testing stability when you can accomplish the same goals with XTU/AIDA, both of which won't put obscenely unnecessary strain on components under the right conditions (manual OC).

[Jey R.]

Due to the sheer amount of people trying to OC with adaptive or software enabled OC's ON, which inevitably lead to, "Why is my CPU so hot!? Why is my voltage so high?!" etc. Not that XTU or AIDA won't put up critical voltages under those conditions either, it's just that P95 is notorious for cranking it to 11. Same reason I won't recommend IBT, both of the tests are unnecessary in terms of testing stability when you can accomplish the same goals with XTU/AIDA, both of which won't put obscenely unnecessary strain on components under the right conditions (manual OC).

So you suggesting that aida is best software to stress test the cpu specially the haswell?

[runit3]

that would be helpful if you have time. I will play more with oc settings more when I will have more time

I've red-boxed the pertinent settings that helped me get top end OC stable, they were much less important at anything lower than 4.3Ghz, that just happened to be the critical step for my CPU.

Basic Core settings:

Load Line Calibration (LLC):

Basic Power Saving Settings:

CPU System Agent Voltage and CPU Input Voltage:(Depending on your MOBO the CPU Input Voltage may be hidden -you have to DISABLE CPU SVID Support to reveal the CPU Input voltage setting)

PLEASE NOTE! Both of these voltage settings will increase temperature to a significant degree, as well as the cache voltage. PLEASE! DO NOT crank your voltages up to my settings for a first step, even though you have an AIO it's extremely necessary that you SLOWLY increase your voltage values. The settings I have are really the max recommended safety values (1.3v/1.9v/1.2v on Sys. Agent) and are not at all required for a mild OC.

VCCIO CPU:

This setting helped with top-end stability, and you will likely not need to touch it running 2133. Thanks to @airdeano for pointing this setting out

 

All of my stress testing was done with XTU/AIDA64 (until my trial ran out). Temps monitored with XTU, AI Suite 3, and AIDA. HWMonitor still doesn't have a compatible free release for X99 (as far as I'm aware) it's usually my go-to monitoring software.

 

I would strongly recommend taking voltage increments in the .01-.025 range per step, making sure to do short validation steps in the 10-15min range until you proceed to the next step. You'll notice a very large ΔC between settings when you're nearing your temp limit, although I still haven't even come close to my personal 24/7 temp limit (80C) under safe voltages (even unsafe voltages).

 

*edit* ALSO! forgot to mention to ignore all of my RAM/BCLK settings. For my G.Skill kit to be stable I have to have a 125 strap and 1.35v (3000MHz). Set your RAM to XMP if it's available and set your voltage to the recommended specifications. Following manufacturer settings for RAM is critically important unless you want to gimp it and run at JDEC.

[sirbuteodor]

thank you so much. this is very helpful

[runit3]

So you suggesting that aida is best software to stress test the cpu specially the haswell?

XTU is generally my suggestion as it's free. The AIDA64 versions are all downloadable as trials, however if you plan on taking a good deal of time to OC, possibly ending up with multiple stable benches for different reasons, XTU has the longevity as it never expires. I like the GUI of AIDA more in terms of categorized available information. XTU displays roughly the same info, but you have to change some settings and they're not tabulated like in AIDA.

 

When it comes to providing public advice, especially to people new to OCing, I can't in good faith recommend something that I know could potentially cause fatal problems if someone makes a mistake. If someone created a thread called "help me figure out my max temp OC -what software?" I would rec. P95/IBT as long as they had adequate cooling and knew what they were doing. Those synth. benchmarks just make more sense in that situation, and simulate worst case scenarios.

[Jey R.]

XTU is generally my suggestion as it's free. The AIDA64 versions are all downloadable as trials, however if you plan on taking a good deal of time to OC, possibly ending up with multiple stable benches for different reasons, XTU has the longevity as it never expires. I like the GUI of AIDA more in terms of categorized available information. XTU displays roughly the same info, but you have to change some settings and they're not tabulated like in AIDA.

When it comes to providing public advice, especially to people new to OCing, I can't in good faith recommend something that I know could potentially cause fatal problems if someone makes a mistake. If someone created a thread called "help me figure out my max temp OC -what software?" I would rec. P95/IBT as long as they had adequate cooling and knew what they were doing. Those synth. benchmarks just make more sense in that situation, and simulate worst case scenarios.

Okay fair enough thank you.

Wouldn't you use the latest 5 way Asus optimization with its new to oc?

[runit3]

Okay fair enough thank you.

Wouldn't you use the latest 5 way Asus optimization with its new to oc?

Nooooooo.

Every time I see anyone using ANY kind of automized OC system I tell them to uninstall/disable. 9/10 times it will overvolt the system. Auto-OC software (generally) only checks the set CPU multiplier and adjusts the voltage to a point that it interprets will be stable. If someone has even a moderately capable CPU it could set it as high as 1.4v with no warning messages, no "hey you're about to fry your CPU", and with no consideration for the PSU and potential HUGE increase in wattage draw -which can be a major issue with X99 in particular. @ 1.29v I can draw 220-260w, if I auto-OC'd with an end speed of 4.6 it would pump 1.4v+ and throw me into 340w+ territory.

 

*edit* The ONE time I did use Auto-OC it was on a Gigabyte Z87 w/4770k just for shits n giggles to see where it would throw the voltage at a 45 multiplier. End voltage was 1.38v, immediately threw the CPU into 95C throttling @ idle. It was a hilariously horrible experience. That same CPU is sitting at a 1:1 4.5core/4.5cache at 1.27v happy as a clam sub 75C load, 12hr AIDA stable.

 

The only acceptable suggestion for any kind of automation (IMHO) is setting the voltage to adaptive after you have manually reached your maximum OC point and will never ever be running a synthetic benchmark again.