Overclock reducing perfomance?

[compupertortoise]

I have my CPU and GPU overclocked. I have an i5-4690k running at 4,5Ghz with 1,225V and MSI GTX 1070 TI with core clock offset +132MHz, memory clock offset +230Mhz and power limit maxed out at 133%. My CPU cooler is Corsair H100i GT.

 

CPU Overclock pictures:

#1 , #2 , #3

GPU Overclock picture:

#1

 

I have been noticing a weird behavior in games like PUBG and R6 Siege. The overall frames have dropped and game feels laggy + I have a 144Hz monitor so it's more noticeable. Today I decided to roll all of the clock settings on CPU and GPU back to default to see if it makes difference and to my surprise the started working smoother. Also when I was in BIOS I tried to use Gigabytes fancy visual BIOS where you can use your mouse and the moment I switched to it everything froze. The basic bios settings view (the blue thingy where you can only use keyboard, seen in pictures) worked fine and didn't freeze. After I applied default settings in BIOS I proceeded to "Save & Exit", my PC didn't boot, I just froze on black screen. After I shut it down by pressing power button, everything seemed like it worked fine. Games worked fine.

 

I've stress tested my CPU with Prime95 with the correct version for Haswell based CPUs and temps were around 70ºC. I never had any BSODs or anything like that.

Is there something wrong with my overclocking settings? Something with components?

 

PS.

You can see rest of my components in my signature. 

 

 

[Jurrunio]

lower the clocks a bit

[compupertortoise]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

lower the clocks a bit

On CPU or GPU? 

[Jurrunio]

Just now, Grendes said:

On CPU or GPU? 

Both

[Klemmbrett]

Most likely you did not verify those clocks and then you end up with an unstable performance your components cant handle the clocks you applied.  Think of a glass of water you want it as full as possible but not so full that it spills over as soon as you pick it up from the table. 

[compupertortoise]

42 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Both

I will try that tommorow. Weird thing is that it's started happening after like 2 weeks of running those clocks. Maybe I just didn't notice it right away, who knows...

20 minutes ago, Klemmbrett said:

Most likely you did not verify those clocks and then you end up with an unstable performance your components cant handle the clocks you applied.  Think of a glass of water you want it as full as possible but not so full that it spills over as soon as you pick it up from the table. 

As I said, I ran Prime95. Just forgot to mention that it was on for at least one hour with every test. Also run FurMark for sufficient time. I did multiple runs with Valley and 3Dmark firestrike. There was no crashes, BSODs or any type of errors and the temps stayed decent.

 

But I get what you are talking about, maybe it passes all my tests but at the same time doesn't deliver proper performance. I will try lowering the clocks.

[HumdrumPenguin]

If you don't monitor for some days your temps, clock speed, voltage, etc. after you overclock, you won't realize if things are stable or not very easily. 

[compupertortoise]

18 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

lower the clocks a bit

 

17 hours ago, Klemmbrett said:

Most likely you did not verify those clocks and then you end up with an unstable performance your components cant handle the clocks you applied.  Think of a glass of water you want it as full as possible but not so full that it spills over as soon as you pick it up from the table. 

 

So I lowered my clocks and seems to be working. My CPU is now at 4,2 GHz (1,17 V) and GPUs core clock offset is +70, memory clock offset is +116 (power limit maxed out at 133%). Frames went up and games seem smoother.

 

Still feels kinda weird that there was no crashes or anything like that, but the performance was bad.

[Klemmbrett]

1 hour ago, Grendes said:

So I lowered my clocks and seems to be working. My CPU is now at 4,2 GHz (1,17 V) and GPUs core clock offset is +70, memory clock offset is +116 (power limit maxed out at 133%). Frames went up and games seem smoother.

 

Still feels kinda weird that there was no crashes or anything like that, but the performance was bad.

That board isnt the best so your VRMs are the limiting factor for your CPU not the CPU itself i guess, and on the card its a 10 series Nvidia card so GPU boost 3.0 does the trick here it already OC´s the card on its own far past the advertised clock speeds as long as temps allow for it you can ofc go a bit faster, with the offset but with 50-100 you reach the point of DR in most cases my card for example is a 1080 TI it has  1582 base/ 1695 boost advertised out of the box without me doing anything it was boosting 1989 MHZ. After raising power limit to 108 %  it boosted up to 2012 Mhz  offset +50 and i reached the 2050 MHZ i could go higher i guess but i dont see a reason there atm this card handles everything with ease what i trow at it. 

[Ace McPlane]

20 hours ago, Grendes said:

I have my CPU and GPU overclocked. I have an i5-4690k running at 4,5Ghz with 1,225V and MSI GTX 1070 TI with core clock offset +132MHz, memory clock offset +230Mhz and power limit maxed out at 133%. My CPU cooler is Corsair H100i GT.

 

CPU Overclock pictures:

#1 , #2 , #3

GPU Overclock picture:

#1

 

I have been noticing a weird behavior in games like PUBG and R6 Siege. The overall frames have dropped and game feels laggy + I have a 144Hz monitor so it's more noticeable. Today I decided to roll all of the clock settings on CPU and GPU back to default to see if it makes difference and to my surprise the started working smoother. Also when I was in BIOS I tried to use Gigabytes fancy visual BIOS where you can use your mouse and the moment I switched to it everything froze. The basic bios settings view (the blue thingy where you can only use keyboard, seen in pictures) worked fine and didn't freeze. After I applied default settings in BIOS I proceeded to "Save & Exit", my PC didn't boot, I just froze on black screen. After I shut it down by pressing power button, everything seemed like it worked fine. Games worked fine.

 

I've stress tested my CPU with Prime95 with the correct version for Haswell based CPUs and temps were around 70ºC. I never had any BSODs or anything like that.

Is there something wrong with my overclocking settings? Something with components?

 

PS.

You can see rest of my components in my signature. 

 

 

I would read some overclocking guides and some good ones too. Watch some videos on it as well.

I noticed quite a few things you could have done differently.

For example, why did you turn off EIST?

You want your CPU to clock down at idle and all of that. It's a good thing.

You don't gain anything major by turning that off and you can also just set your power plan to high performance at any time in windows if you don't want it to clock down.

 

You probably could have gotten away with 4.5ghz if you increased the voltage a bit more, but at 70 degrees, you wouldn't want to go much higher.

You could have at least pulled off 4.4ghz I think. You didn't have to go all the way down to 4.2.

 

There are other things you can do to squeeze out more like lowering your ring ratio since that matters so much less than your core multiplier. 

 

It's worth it to read more on it.

I used to just do quick and dirty overclocks and I didn't find out how wrong I was to do it that way until I started using applications in VR that stress the CPU more than any normal game.

 

And FYI, even a 24 hour stress test passing does not mean for sure that your overclock is stable.

I had one pass a 48 hour stress test and still BSOD'd once I used it in a CPU intensive VR game.

I increased the voltage by .01 and it stopped doing that.

That's all it takes to get stability sometimes.

As long as you stay under 80 degrees, I'd keep trying to improve that OC.

[compupertortoise]

Thanks for very detailed answer, @stateofpsychosis. 

Quote

I would read some overclocking guides and some good ones too. Watch some videos on it as well.

I did that of course, because first time I applied OC ( ~3 years ago) I was very scared to brake stuff, but I guess I haven't read enough.

 

2 hours ago, stateofpsychosis said:

For example, why did you turn off EIST?

I got this picture from videos I saw and posts I read, that it's a better way to go than power plan.

 

2 hours ago, stateofpsychosis said:

There are other things you can do to squeeze out more like lowering your ring ratio since that matters so much less than your core multiplier.

The ring ratio is this kinda magic thingy to me. I do know roughly what it does, but I don't know what's the sweet spot. I'm sure it has to do with CPU cache speed. How much lower would you recommend setting it to?

[Ace McPlane]

15 hours ago, Grendes said:

Thanks for very detailed answer, @stateofpsychosis. 

I did that of course, because first time I applied OC ( ~3 years ago) I was very scared to brake stuff, but I guess I haven't read enough.

 

I got this picture from videos I saw and posts I read, that it's a better way to go than power plan.

 

The ring ratio is this kinda magic thingy to me. I do know roughly what it does, but I don't know what's the sweet spot. I'm sure it has to do with CPU cache speed. How much lower would you recommend setting it to?

 

Just keep in mind that turning off EIST means your CPU will be running at your overclock speed all of the time instead of clocking down at idle and turbo boosting up to your OC clock speed when under load.

The benefits of turning those off are largely exaggerated.

 

A higher ring ratio doesn't benefit you all that much.

The ring ratio is called uncore in your bios. 

You'd have to set the setting  to manual I'm sure instead of auto and then set the frequency below.

You're already at a big difference with it at 3.5, but I'd try lowering it a bit more just to squeeze a bit more out of your CPU clock speed. I'd try 3.3. I don't know if you can set the vring which is the voltage for it to auto or not, but that's best if you can. Read a guide specifically on that if you want to do it manually.

 

You might not even need to touch the ring ratio though. I actually read the numbers wrong at first and saw 40. I looked over too quickly. 3.5 is what I was going to suggest so my bad, but going to 3.3 wouldn't hurt.

 

So, your temps only got as high as 70 degrees?

 

I'd slowly keep stepping up that vcore by 0.01 or even 0.005 if you're paranoid since you're getting close to 80 and see if you can get that CPU clock speed higher. 

I got mine at 4.7ghz 1.25 volts and that's with a wide LLC I can't control with my mobo which is something that adds and takes away voltage to prevent something called vdroop. That means my actual maximum vcore is 1.274 in my case. 

My maximum temperature after 24 hours in aida64 is 77 degrees.

I'd say you'll be able to get up to about 1.24v and your CPU up to 4.6 if you keep at it. Just go slow and do stress tests each time you change something.

 

Read more guides.

The ones you've read aren't detailed enough I don't think.

 

Again, don't just go by what I said.

People mix up terms and names and whatnot.

Go by the detailed, double checked guides on this stuff.

 

And don't use prime95 anymore. 

It's too damn aggressive. It hits the CPU harder than any real world application ever would.

 

Use Aida64. I think it's a lot safer. Your max temperatures are even a few degrees lower in it so you probably have a bit more headroom than you're thinking.