Windows 7: Post Your Overclock!

It's Gremlins, trust me!

I played around with the BLCK setting myself a bit and didn't have much luck. At least not to the point it was worth doing. Ended up with better overall results just bumping the CPU multi.

Guessing IB is not really any better off in this regard than SB is.

Either way, impressive OCs Still, squeezing every mhz out of it to find the MAX is FUN!

My chip needs an offset of +0.085 to run at 4.7GHz. LLC at level 1 (max) Ran 6 hours Prime with no errors so I'm happy. Funny thing is the temps were lower than they were when I was stressing with Aida64. Ambient temp was about the same. I've never seen that happen before. Usually temps under load with Prime are quite a bit higher than under Aida64

Bah! Swears re-instated.



(The other two cores were still happily going)

Right there is proof for all those naysayers who reckon 1 or two hours of prime is enough and that it's "pointless to test for 8hrs+"

However I might bump the offset up a notch and 'real world test it. If no, or the very rare BSOD - it then gets the Pat F.I.S.E* seal approval.


(*F**k It, Stable Enough )


Turns out, neither am I

Yep. Couple hours just isnt enough. Ive had one fail at just over 9hrs before.

I think IBT is better though for a quick test. Just run 5 passes or so, and get a good idea in just a few minutes, rather than a few hours with Prime.
But, for the final stabilty test, I think Prime is better for a 12hr run.

Definitely - I usually run IBT for 5/10 runs high/max as a quick test and then switch to Prime95 for a 12hr+ run.

But then again, there will always be those who disagree and think 12hrs is ridiculous. Ultimately that's their choice - but it will never be the advice I give or condone when given by others.

When it comes to Overclocking and stability tests, personal experience and majority opinion will always trump 'the pointless crowd'.

Would you say that while an OC might fail Prime95 after several hours, it would likely never be pushed that hard in day to day use? I'm not arguing your statement, but as one who has never OC (only a BCLK bump from 133MHz to 160MHz http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ency,2500.html), I am curious if this isn't why others think such a long test seems unnecessary. I have certainly seen multiple instances of people reporting a failure after prolonged testing, even after 12 hours or more. A Guy

Definitely. Stress testing is completely artificial with the assumption that if it can handle 'worse case scenario', it can handle anything. That's also why it's a good idea to throw several types of realistic and unrealistic tests into the mix. Varying load, voltages involved, components etc.

Everybody has their own approach and their own reasoning. I've also seen and experienced failures after prolonged testing. Also not everybody chases the same level of overclock.

Basically, no overclock can ever be considered fully stable no matter how it's stress tested. But prolonged testing does increase the chance of highlighting/uncovering an area or weakness where a likely failure is to occur.

Depending were and when it fails, can also help pinpoint what may the root cause (ie temps, particular voltage, Ram settings etc).

Thanks Patrick

A Guy

Quite true as Patrick said. I think even the lightest stress test does more work than about 90% of day-to-day usage will do. Personally I've not seen any real world increase in performance with any overclock in CPU clocks or RAM fiddling. These things will get better scores in bench tests though.

So far I have seen quicker PC responses (apps opening, CCleaner faster, quicker boots, etc.) only with hardware upgrade to something which is "faster" than the previous. SSD takes the checkers on that with an upgrade to Intel over AMD a real close second. I even went from 8 to 16GB RAM and see no real difference except in program that use more RAM...graphics and Word come to mind. I understand CAD software or video transcoding (what's that?) also benefit with more RAM.