5820k Dynamic OC Issues

[OG_Mega]

Hey all,

CPU: 5820k
Mobo: MSI X99A SLI Plus

For some reason I can't get my system to overclock in "Dynamic" mode.

I just finished a fresh install of Win10, installed newest Mobo BIOS, installed newest drivers, etc.

I made many attempts in Dynamic mode (1.3v @ 4.5ghz, 1.3v @ 4.4ghz, 1.35v @ 4.5ghz, 1.3v @ 4.0ghz, etc...) and - nothing.

I just put it on "Fixed" mode, which everyone says not to do because it's like flooring your car 100% of the time.

 

I'm currently stress testing "Fixed" on 1.33V @ 4.7ghz, temp constant at 68'c. 

Does anyone know what the issue might be, or why I can't OC in Dynamic? Literally every time I restart and open CPU-Z in Dynamic, it tells me 3.3ghz (stock).

[DildorTheDecent]

15 minutes ago, OG_Mega said:

 

Just used Fixed mode and enable C-states. Or when you find a stable OC on fixed mode, switch it to dynamic.

 

Why there's two different OC modes idk. Must be a weird MSI thing. 

 

[OG_Mega]

5 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

Just used Fixed mode and enable C-states. Or when you find a stable OC on fixed mode, switch it to dynamic.

 

Why there's two different OC modes idk. Must be a weird MSI thing. 

 

Not sure what you mean "enable C-states - this is what I see: 

 

 

Saw that I had "Intel Turbo Boost" turned OFF, and said, "What the hell.... Let's turn it on" (after reading that if you're overclocking you should keep it off. 

 

Anyway - it booted in Dynamic mode @ 4.5ghz... Very weird though considering I read in many different places to keep it off, unless I misunderstood something?

[DildorTheDecent]

Just now, OG_Mega said:

Not sure what you mean "enable C-states - this is what I see: 

 

That not much of an advanced BIOS. 

 

EIST is enabled so that should be enough. That and balance plan should let you drop clock at least. 

 

Other things to do

• Enabled boost and overclock that ratio instead. Just leave the standard ratio alone. You're trying to OC the base ratio. Could be what's causing issues. 
• Enable XMP.

[OG_Mega]

4 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

That not much of an advanced BIOS. 

 

EIST is enabled so that should be enough. That and balance plan should let you drop clock at least. 

 

Other things to do

• Enabled boost and overclock that ratio instead. Just leave the standard ratio alone. You're trying to OC the base ratio. Could be what's causing issues. 
• Enable XMP.

Made CPU Ratio 45, Volts at 1.35v, Intel Turbo Boost set to Auto and it turned on and CPU-Z says I'm running at 4.7ghz. 

 

I'm 3 minutes into the stress test as I type this (at 70'c) - I'm not optimistic but we'll see. 

 

I'm assuming that having Intel Turbo Boost disabled was causing the booting issue? 

 

I have 4 sticks of DDR4 3200 and the board lets me set it to that in BIOS. Should I still turn on XMP, or just change the frequency in BIOS?

[DildorTheDecent]

Just now, OG_Mega said:

Made CPU Ratio 45, Volts at 1.35v, Intel Turbo Boost set to Auto and it turned on and CPU-Z says I'm running at 4.7ghz. 

 

I'm 3 minutes into the stress test as I type this - I'm not optimistic but we'll see. 

 

I'm assuming that having Intel Turbo Boost disabled was causing the booting issue? 

 

I have 4 sticks of DDR4 3200 and the board lets me set it to that in BIOS. Should I still turn on XMP, or just change the frequency in BIOS?

 Leave base on auto or whatever stock is and apply the values to all cores via the boost ratio. Why it's applying 4.7 i've no idea. Might be using per core OC wouldn't really bother with it. 

 

Just use XMP. Makes life easier.

[pyrojoe34]

17 minutes ago, OG_Mega said:

Not sure what you mean "enable C-states - this is what I see: 

 

 

Saw that I had "Intel Turbo Boost" turned OFF, and said, "What the hell.... Let's turn it on" (after reading that if you're overclocking you should keep it off. 

 

Anyway - it booted in Dynamic mode @ 4.5ghz... Very weird though considering I read in many different places to keep it off, unless I misunderstood something?

I have the same board with a 6800k. You have to keep turbo boost enabled to OC. Just adjust the multiplier (the regular one, not boost) to your OC and it should work fine. I keep my voltage in override which keeps the CPU voltage constant but when I monitor idle power consumption and temps there seems to be no difference compared to adaptive voltage. It seems weird but apparently (in this case) the CPU at idle even with a higher voltage doesn't seem to effect power draw.

 

I had issues with this board randomly changing the voltage on me during regular use, changing to override made it happen much less often but it still occasionally gets stuck at some other voltage (usually like .5, .6, or .8V) and won't fix itself until I turn off and restart the computer. Strangely enough when the voltage gets stuck (confirmed by AIDA64, HWinfo, and the BIOS by restarting which doesn't reset the stuck voltage, only shutdown does), I don't see any stability issues even when gaming and using the CPU at 60% at 4Ghz. I would RMA the board but I don't want to be without the computer during the process (MSI tech support is trash and not helpful) and I have learned to live with the issue occasionally popping up. If it notice the voltage get stuck I just turn off the PC, restart, and the issue is gone.

[OG_Mega]

1 minute ago, pyrojoe34 said:

I have the same board with a 6800k. You have to keep turbo boost enabled to OC. Just adjust the multiplier (the regular one, not boost) to your OC and it should work fine. I keep my voltage in override which keeps the CPU voltage constant but when I monitor idle power consumption and temps there seems to be no difference compared to adaptive voltage. It seems weird but apparently (in this case) the CPU at idle even with a higher voltage doesn't seem to effect power draw.

 

I had issues with this board randomly changing the voltage on me during regular use, changing to override made it happen much less often but it still occasionally gets stuck at some other voltage (usually like .5, .6, or .8V) and won't fix itself until I turn off and restart the computer. Strangely enough when the voltage gets stuck (confirmed by AIDA64, HWinfo, and the BIOS by restarting which doesn't reset the stuck voltage, only shutdown does), I don't see any stability issues even when gaming and using the CPU at 60% at 4Ghz. I would RMA the board but I don't want to be without the computer during the process (MSI tech support is trash and not helpful) and I have learned to live with the issue occasionally popping up. If it notice the voltage get stuck I just turn off the PC, restart, and the issue is gone.

Thanks I appreciate your response. 

 

Right now I'm 18 minutes into my stress test (AIDA64) and so far so good. 

 

Settings: CPU Ratio 47 (4.7ghz), 1.35v, 70'c @ 100% load.

 

I'm thinking if it can make it 30 minutes I could try and crank out 4.8ghz? Probably not worth it but... *pulls out measuring tape*

[done12many2]

42 minutes ago, OG_Mega said:

Thanks I appreciate your response. 

 

Right now I'm 18 minutes into my stress test (AIDA64) and so far so good. 

 

Settings: CPU Ratio 47 (4.7ghz), 1.35v, 70'c @ 100% load.

 

I'm thinking if it can make it 30 minutes I could try and crank out 4.8ghz? Probably not worth it but... *pulls out measuring tape*

 

 

Have you increased CPU cache at all yet?  If not, I would stay where you are as cache is going to require not only additional VCache, but possibly more Vcore as well.  

 

Are you sure that you need that much voltage to run 4.7 GHz?

 

Congrats on the OC so far!

[OG_Mega]

Update: 

 

With Settings: CPU Ratio 47 (4.7ghz), 1.35v, 70'c @ 100% load I've achieved an AIDA64 stress test of 1 hour without any issues. 

I'm going to push to 4.8ghz and run another test. Hopefully that's successful and I can move on to my ram. 

 

 

[OG_Mega]

10 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

 

Have you increased CPU cache at all yet?  If not, I would stay where you are as cache is going to require not only additional VCache, but possibly more Vcore as well.  

 

Are you sure that you need that much voltage to run 4.7 GHz?

 

Congrats on the OC so far!

I probably don't need that much voltage, but it worked, and the temps are still relatively low all things considered, no?

 

What do you mean CPU cache? Is that the ring ratio?

 

EDIT: Does not like 4.8ghz at all, and I don't want to push past 1.4v. Back to 4.7 and 1.35v.

[done12many2]

Just now, OG_Mega said:

I probably don't need that much voltage, but it worked, and the temps are still relatively low all things considered, no?

 

Sure, but you shouldn't run more voltage through a CPU than needed for a given workload just because the temps are okay.  Speaking of workloads, what do you plan to do with the rig?

 

I ask because AIDA64 is pretty much the easiest thing out there to pass.  I don't think most people have a need for stuff as aggressive as Prime95 with AVX, but I do think that anyone subjecting their CPU to more load than opening up Google Chrome should probably test with something more stressful than AIDA64.  If something is AIDA64 "stable" it will more than likely fail in heavier workloads such as video encoding, rendering or even CPU intensive gaming.  

 

In the end, the amount of stability that you need is completely up to you as you're the one that knows how you use your computer.  

 

Just now, OG_Mega said:

What do you mean CPU cache? Is that the ring ratio?

 

Yes, on MSI boards, they label cache as ring ratio.   Cache directly impacts memory and CPU performance on x99.  More than it does on most mainstream platforms.  While 9 out of 10 times, CPU clock speed trumps all, cache and memory performance can play a major role in some applications.  I personally chose to increase the performance of all.

[OG_Mega]

3 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Sure, but you shouldn't run more voltage through a CPU than needed for a given workload just because the temps are okay.  Speaking of workloads, what do you plan to do with the rig?

 

I ask because AIDA64 is pretty much the easiest thing out there to pass.  I don't think most people have a need for stuff as aggressive as Prime95 with AVX, but I do think that anyone subjecting their CPU to more load than opening up Google Chrome should probably test with something more stressful than AIDA64.  If something is AIDA64 "stable" it will more than likely fail in heavier workloads such as video encoding, rendering or even CPU intensive gaming.  

 

In the end, the amount of stability that you need is completely up to you as you're the one that knows how you use your computer.  

 

 

Yes, on MSI boards, they label cache as ring ratio.   Cache directly impacts memory and CPU performance on x99.  More than it does on most mainstream platforms.  While 9 out of 10 times, CPU clock speed trumps all, cache and memory performance can play a major role in some applications.  I personally chose to increase the performance of all.

Thanks for the in depth replies, much appreciated. 

 

Essentially just gaming, nothing crazy either - just like to push things as far as they will go.

 

I'm restarting now at 4.7ghz with a cache of 101.05 (essentially 4.75ghz).

 

I think this is actually what Linus did 2 years ago when he was Overclocking this system

 

EDIT: BSOD Right after windows login with 101.05 settings. 

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, OG_Mega said:

Thanks for the in depth replies, much appreciated. 

 

Essentially just gaming, nothing crazy either - just like to push things as far as they will go.

 

I'm restarting now at 4.7ghz with a cache of 101.05 (essentially 4.75ghz).

 

I think this is actually what Linus did 2 years ago when he was Overclocking this system

 

Would you recommend that that cache (101.05) is good? Should I go higher/lower?

 

Cache should be a multiplier just like CPU clock.

 

Also, very unlikely that 4.75 GHz on the cache will be stable if it boots at all.  

 

Start with 4 GHz and work you're way up.  Make sure that you don't have your cache voltage on auto as it will automatically skyrocket as you climb up in cache mutlipliers.  

 

**Some x99 boards will not let you overclock cache past 4 GHz unless you have an OC socket.

[OG_Mega]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

Cache should be a multiplier just like CPU clock.

 

Also, very unlikely that 4.75 GHz on the cache will be stable if it boots at all.  

 

Start with 4 GHz and work you're way up.  Make sure that you don't have your cache voltage on auto as it will automatically skyrocket as you climb up in cache mutlipliers.  

Sorry, by cache I meant 101.05. 

 

I booted with a CPU Ratio of 47, and a cache of 101.05 at 1.35v and the comp BSOD right after windows screen. 

 

It seems to like CPU Ratio of 47 with cache of 100 @ 1.35v, and hasn't given me any errors (yet). 

 

I did attempt to up my ram to 3200 in BIOS and CPU-Z didn't reflect the change.

 

I restarted and used XMP instead, and still, in CPU-Z - NB Frequency: 1799.6 MHz, DRAM Frequency 1599.7MHz .... Any ideas?

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, OG_Mega said:

Sorry, by cache I meant 101.05. 

 

I booted with a CPU Ratio of 47, and a cache of 101.05 at 1.35v and the comp BSOD right after windows screen. 

 

It seems to like CPU Ratio of 47 with cache of 100 @ 1.35v, and hasn't given me any errors (yet). 

 

I did attempt to up my ram to 3200 in BIOS and CPU-Z didn't reflect the change.

 

I restarted and used XMP instead, and still, in CPU-Z - NB Frequency: 1799.6 MHz, DRAM Frequency 1599.7MHz .... Any ideas?

 

As I mentioned previously, there is a multiplier adjustment for cache clockspeed.  You seem to be adjusting BLCK.  Find the multiplier specifically for the cache and set it to 40, which would run your cache at 4 GHz even.  

 

Work on one part at a time or you will have a nightmare trying to track down instability issues.  I always overclock and verify stability in this order.  CPU, memory and then cache last making sure each is stable as I go.  

[OG_Mega]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

As I mentioned previously, there is a multiplier adjustment for cache clockspeed.  You seem to be adjusting BLCK.  Find the multiplier specifically for the cache and set it to 40, which would run your cache at 4 GHz even.  

 

Work on one part at a time or you will have a nightmare trying to track down instability issues.  I always overclock and verify stability in this order.  CPU, memory and then cache last making sure each is stable as I go.  

I think you're misunderstanding. 

 

I haven't touched BLCK - the only thing I've touched is my CPU. It's set at 47 = 4.7ghz. 

 

I changed cache to 101.05, and it was giving me issues, so I set it back to the stock multiplier of 100. 

 

In your order, I would be at step 2, which is memory.

 

I spoke too soon though, as it's variable. It keeps jumping up to 3.0MHz, but that's still short of the 3200 it's set at (this is through XMP and my own personal settings in BIOS).

[done12many2]

What I'm trying to tell you is that 100 or 101.05 isn't a multiplier.  

 

I'll download your manual in a few minutes and try to help you better.  

 

@OG_Mega

 

The "Ring Ratio" is your cache multiplier.  I believe that you were adjusting the BLCK somehow, which would explain your odd 100 and 101.05 numbers.

 

Maybe a screen shot of what you're doing may help.

 

 

[OG_Mega]

29 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

What I'm trying to tell you is that 100 or 101.05 isn't a multiplier.  

 

I'll download your manual in a few minutes and try to help you better.  

 

@OG_Mega

 

The "Ring Ratio" is your cache multiplier.  I believe that you were adjusting the BLCK somehow, which would explain your odd 100 and 101.05 numbers.

 

Maybe a screen shot of what you're doing may help.

 

 

That's what I adjusted, the ring ratio. I'm going to assume MSI is weird and uses multiples of 100? 

[done12many2]

Just now, OG_Mega said:

That's what I adjusted, the ring ratio. I'm going to assume MSI is weird and uses multiples of 100? 

 

Try inputting 40 and see if it will boot.  At 40, you can leave the cache voltage at auto for quick testing.

[OG_Mega]

6 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Try inputting 40 and see if it will boot.  At 40, you can leave the cache voltage at auto for quick testing.

So sorry!! I actually was adjusting the BCLK ... (go figure) staring at the same screen for hours has me delusional. 

 

Should the ring ratio match the CPU Ratio, or can I keep CPU Ratio at 47, and make the ring ratio at 40?

 

Edit: It powers on at a ring ratio of 40; however, it won't post anything through my DisplayPort. 

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, OG_Mega said:

So sorry!! I actually was adjusting the BCLK ... (go figure) staring at the same screen for hours has me delusional. 

 

Haha.  It's all good bud.  Happens to the best of us.

 

2 minutes ago, OG_Mega said:

Should the ring ratio match the CPU Ratio, or can I keep CPU Ratio at 47, and make the ring ratio at 40?

 

More than likely not.   1:1 between the CPU cores and CPU cache is not likely to happen stably.  Start with 4 GHz on your cache and work up from there.  A good Haswell-E CPU will run cache in the mid 4's without any problems, but most don't.  Usually lower 4's is what you should expect.  

 

Try 4 GHz with cache voltage on auto for now.  You can manually adjust it down once you get a pulse on what's going on. 

[OG_Mega]

16 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Haha.  It's all good bud.  Happens to the best of us.

 

 

More than likely not.   1:1 between the CPU cores and CPU cache is not likely to happen stably.  Start with 4 GHz on your cache and work up from there.  A good Haswell-E CPU will run cache in the mid 4's without any problems, but most don't.  Usually lower 4's is what you should expect.  

 

Try 4 GHz with cache voltage on auto for now.  You can manually adjust it down once you get a pulse on what's going on. 

 

Couldn't get it to boot at 4ghz cache.

 

4.7 wasn't stable so I'm going to knock her down to 4.5 when I get home and do 4.0 cache again and will report back within the hour.

[OG_Mega]

2 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

Haha.  It's all good bud.  Happens to the best of us.

 

 

More than likely not.   1:1 between the CPU cores and CPU cache is not likely to happen stably.  Start with 4 GHz on your cache and work up from there.  A good Haswell-E CPU will run cache in the mid 4's without any problems, but most don't.  Usually lower 4's is what you should expect.  

 

Try 4 GHz with cache voltage on auto for now.  You can manually adjust it down once you get a pulse on what's going on. 

Set my system to 4.5ghz at 1.4v (haven't played with the cache yet). 

 

I scored 111,XXX on Asus RealBench benchmark and am now running a 2-hour stress test (averaging 85'c)

 

Question - Is a higher score actually (better) , or a higher overclock?

 

For instance, two setups:

• A = 4.7Ghz stable overclock, benchmark score @ 105k 
• B = 4.4Ghz stable overclock, benchmark score @ 120k 

Would A be better because it's a higher stable Ghz, or is B better because it got a higher benchmark score? 

[done12many2]

25 minutes ago, OG_Mega said:

Set my system to 4.5ghz at 1.4v (haven't played with the cache yet). 

 

I scored 111,XXX on Asus RealBench benchmark and am now running a 2-hour stress test (averaging 85'c)

 

Question - Is a higher score actually (better) , or a higher overclock?

 

For instance, two setups:

• A = 4.7Ghz stable overclock, benchmark score @ 105k 
• B = 4.4Ghz stable overclock, benchmark score @ 120k 

Would A be better because it's a higher stable Ghz, or is B better because it got a higher benchmark score? 

 

Nice.  RealBench is a great stress test because it pushes your CPU and GPU to 100% load at the same time.  Total system stress and a lot more realistic to typical workloads than most others.

 

Not sure why your results varied so much between the two benchmark runs like that, but a lot of factors could have impacted the score.  Make sure that you run it with Windows Power Options set to High Performance every time.  Make sure that background tasks are running or at least make sure their the same each time.

 

4.5 GHz is a very respectable overclock especially when you consider that it's stable in RealBench for a couple of hours.  That's more than most folks do here on LTT.  

 

Oh, and to answer your question.  Performance is all that matters.  The clockspeed means nothing if it doesn't produce results.

 

If you feel like it, go to our LTT Cinebench thread and download/run the Cinebench benchmark and share your results with others in the thread.  People will be willing to help you out as much as you need.

 

Good luck man.