Jump to content

Sync All Cores VS Per Core

SamTheWelshDragon
 Share
Posted

So I managed to get 4.6GHz stable on my i7-4790K at 1.36 volts with all cores synced. Lucky me! However, I can get 4.7GHz and upward stable on all but one core. I'm debating setting the forth core to 4.6GHz but I'm not sure. Thoughts and advice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

How stable on the other cores? Like boots ok stable or runs a benchmark for 2 hrs stable (I mean at 4.7)

Its automatic, just press this button!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

yes do it as you will still get a slight improvement on tasks which are not optimised for multi-core applications, could also spend more time fiddling and see if there is a way to get that 4th core up to speed with the rest of them! But that depends on how much free time you have ;)

CPU:                Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz (Skylake) Socket LGA1151 Processor

Graphics:         Inno3D GeForce GTX 980Ti Hybrid Black Edition 6144MB GDDR5 PCI-E

RAM:              Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-25600C16 3200MHz

Case:                Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX Mid Tower Case - Black (3x 140mm Phantek fans)
MOBO:            Asus Maximus VIII Hero Intel Z170 (Socket 1151) DDR4 ATX Motherboard

Boot SSD:        Samsung 250GB 840 EVO SSD 2.5" SATA
Game SSD:      Samsung 500GB 850 EVO SSD 2.5" SATA 6Gbps 32 Layer 3D V-NAND Solid State Drive

CPU Cooling:  Overclockers UK & SilverStone - 120mm FQ121WC Watercooling Radiator Fan x 2
                       Asetek 240mm 570LX

PSU:               Corsair 750M Semi-Modular 80 Plus Gold rated

Monitor 1:       Sony BRAVIA KDL32W705BBU Smart 32" LED TV

Monitor 2:       Samsung 24" S24C300

Keyboard:        Razer Blackwidow Chroma

Mouse:             Roccat TYON

Speakers:         SBS2112 with Bluetooth

Headset:           Turtle Beach Elite 800 Stealth

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I would just stick with the 4.6 because the extra 0.1 GHz probs isn't going to benefit you much at all in games.

Buy my yoga 2 pro!  http://linustechtips.com/main/classifieds/item/2711-lenovo-yoga-2-pro-i7-4510u-8gb-ram-4k-btc-accepted/

[spoiler=Trumps Wall

]AMD FX 8320 OC@ 4.4 GHZ GPU: amd sapphire 7950RAM: 12GB CORSAIR XMS3 Psu: Corsair cx 500m CASE: Corsair 800d MOBO: Asrock 970 extreme 3 r2 Storage: 256GB mx100 SSD, 1TB WD Blue,1tb Seagate Barracuda in Raid 0, 750GB Seagate Baracude. Os Windows 7
CPU: AMD A-10 5800k RAM: 4GB DDR3 Storage:Random drives Mobo:msi SomthingCase: good question   
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

i would drop the frequency instead of continue to raise it due to stability concerns lol

unless you're just doing it for the benchmarks :P

-sigh- feeling like I'm being too negative lately

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
3 minutes ago, mrgooglegeek said:

How stable on the other cores? Like boots ok stable or runs a benchmark for 2 hrs stable (I mean at 4.7)

They managed a good couple hours of RealBench so I'd call them pretty stable.

2 minutes ago, Kobrastachka said:

I would just stick with the 4.6 because the extra 0.1 GHz probs isn't going to benefit you much at all.

Every GHz counts. B|

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

While you could set for per core, it really may not help at all. I used to have a similar setup but i had issues with windows blue-screening from the lower core.

Its automatic, just press this button!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 minute ago, SamTheWelshDragon said:

Every GHz counts. B|

I think you just answered your own question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
3 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

i would drop the frequency instead of continue to raise it due to stability concerns lol

unless you're just doing it for the benchmarks :P

Doing it for the internet ego points and perhaps a couple benchmarks, though having wonky clocks will probably throw off my score in some.

1 minute ago, mrgooglegeek said:

While you could set for per core, it really may not help at all. I used to have a similar setup but i had issues with windows blue-screening from the lower core.

I guess I will run it on a trial period and see if Win10 handles funky core clocks well.

Just now, done12many2 said:

I think you just answered your own question.

It wasn't a question, I just wanted opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 minute ago, SamTheWelshDragon said:

Doing it for the internet ego points

ah yes :P full speed ahead lol

pro tip: for single core benchmark, you can disable the other cores and overclock one to high hell :P

-sigh- feeling like I'm being too negative lately

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
2 minutes ago, SamTheWelshDragon said:

It wasn't a question, I just wanted opinions.

My opinion is DO IT.  I like to get every bit out of a processor that I can.  I'm kinda surprised that you have a core limiting you at 4.7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
2 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

ah yes :P full speed ahead lol

pro tip: for single core benchmark, you can disable the other cores and overclock one to high hell :P

Thanks for the tip. Think I should risk pushing to 1.4 volts? It's tempting seeing as a couple cores seem like they're going to go beyond 4.7GHz.

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

My opinion is DO IT.  I like to get every bit out of a processor that I can.  I'm kinda surprised that you have a core limiting you at 4.7.

I'm a tad bit disappointed with that core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
6 minutes ago, Quibiss said:

Have you tried talking it out with the core in question? Maybe hearing out its opinion on the matter?

...I see myself out now.

That's a great point.  Try the talking bit, but in the end you may have to threaten it with voltage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
50 minutes ago, SamTheWelshDragon said:

So I managed to get 4.6GHz stable on my i7-4790K at 1.36 volts with all cores synced. Lucky me! However, I can get 4.7GHz and upward stable on all but one core. I'm debating setting the forth core to 4.6GHz but I'm not sure. Thoughts and advice?

you really lost the silicon lottery :o

i can get 4.6 Ghz on my i7-4790k at 1.2V or 1.25V i think :)

Dutch Talk Thread

Unofficial LMG Social Media Accounts Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
12 minutes ago, mikat said:

you really lost the silicon lottery :o

i can get 4.6 Ghz on my i7-4790k at 1.2V or 1.25V i think :)

4.6GHz is about average. I don't see why you're only running 1.2 volts, that's pretty low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
2 minutes ago, SamTheWelshDragon said:

4.6GHz is about average. I don't see why you're only running 1.2 volts, that's pretty low.

That's why I was surprised that a core was giving you problems at 4.7.  Every 4790k I've personally messed with would do 4.7 across the board all day long with a lot of them running 4.8 or higher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory

×