i7 920 C0 overclock poll

[N1GHTRA1N]

Please choose one and explain why?

Which option would you pick for general computing a gaming?

 

[obliv]

I have never seen the sense of getting a HT enabled chip and disabling HT. I have a 920 D0 and was able to get 4.2 with HT, If your not as lucky, i would still prefer 8 Threads at 3.7 than 4 at 4.1. However i am stubborn and performance wise, unless using a highly threaded application, 4.1 will probably give you the best performance.

 

[N1GHTRA1N]

I have never seen the sense of getting a HT enabled chip and disabling HT. I have a 920 D0 and was able to get 4.2 with HT, If your not as lucky, i would still prefer 8 Threads at 3.7 than 4 at 4.1. However i am stubborn and performance wise, unless using a highly threaded application, 4.1 will probably give you the best performance.

I haven't been able to go past 3.7GHz (20x185) and stay stable with HT enabled. I can hit 3.8GHz with HT on (20x190) but it crashes sometimes. I've been playing with HT off these past couple of days because Battlefield 3 seems to run better without HT enabled. So far to me 3.99GHz seems the best overall with BF3, I get a couple extra FPS over 3.7GHz HT off and 4.1GHz HT off (maybe due to slower memory). Crysis bench is pretty close to the same in all three overclocks. General windows usage is almost no difference. However, windows almost appears to boot quick with HT off, but I didn't clock it. Obviously I see no reason to run stock speeds. Also the D0 is suppose to clock higher than a C0

 

[N1GHTRA1N]

Here is Crysis results

4GHz (190x21)

10/27/2011 5:48:31 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1900x1200, AA=16xQ, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 52.19s, Average FPS: 38.32
Min FPS: 30.91 at frame 156, Max FPS: 46.10 at frame 984
Average Tri/Sec: -14648804, Tri/Frame: -382282
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.40
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 48.84s, Average FPS: 40.95
Min FPS: 30.91 at frame 156, Max FPS: 46.57 at frame 877
Average Tri/Sec: -15071729, Tri/Frame: -368025
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.49
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 48.80s, Average FPS: 40.99
Min FPS: 30.91 at frame 156, Max FPS: 46.93 at frame 998
Average Tri/Sec: -15046068, Tri/Frame: -367106
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.50
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

10/27/2011 5:48:31 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 40.97


3.7GHz (185x20)


10/6/2011 2:58:33 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1900x1200, AA=16xQ, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
============================================================ ==
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 51.93s, Average FPS: 38.51
Min FPS: 30.66 at frame 156, Max FPS: 45.81 at frame 980
Average Tri/Sec: -14701829, Tri/Frame: -381750
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.40
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 48.84s, Average FPS: 40.95
Min FPS: 30.66 at frame 156, Max FPS: 46.63 at frame 876
Average Tri/Sec: -15059727, Tri/Frame: -367770
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.49
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 48.80s, Average FPS: 40.98
Min FPS: 30.66 at frame 156, Max FPS: 46.88 at frame 998
Average Tri/Sec: -15060262, Tri/Frame: -367496
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.49
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
============================================================ ==

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

10/6/2011 2:58:33 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 40.965

I wonder if the extra HT virtual cores help the 3.7GHz keep up with 4GHz. Or if the frequency is so close that it doesn't matter.

 

[Roscowgo]

3.9 HT enabled.


Cause I wanted to.

 

[scaarbelly]

I had 4.3 stable with HT enabled on my C0 chip. But after lots of testing I found there is very little benefit for the temps gained after 3.8 due to the voltage increases. So now 3.8 with HT all the time, I just crank it up for benching.

 

[N1GHTRA1N]

I had 4.3 stable with HT enabled on my C0 chip. But after lots of testing I found there is very little benefit for the temps gained after 3.8 due to the voltage increases. So now 3.8 with HT all the time, I just crank it up for benching.

What volatage is yours running at? I'm using 1.35 for everything I listed. idle temps are around mid 40's with HT enabled and a 2-3 degree drop with no HT. 100% load and 10 mins of Prime95 at 3.7 with HT is low 80's. with HT off at 4 or 4.1 it is high 70's.

I didn't really want to push beyond 1.35 with C0. I found with 3.8GHz (190x20) the system would crash in Prime95 after 8 or 9 minutes. It would never crash in general computing and would crash rarely with games. 3.7Ghz is rock solid. I tried 181x21 for 3.8 and the results were the same.

 

[obliv]

If your finding that HT disabled and Higher clocks runs better for you, then i think you answered your own question. A lot of people on here run without HT because in all honesty it doesn't make that big of a difference. Im just too damn stubborn to pay for it and not use it

 

[N1GHTRA1N]

If your finding that HT disabled and Higher clocks runs better for you, then i think you answered your own question. A lot of people on here run without HT because in all honesty it doesn't make that big of a difference. Im just too damn stubborn to pay for it and not use it

I've been running it ever since I posted with at 3.99GHz with HT off and I can't say I really see any difference overall. Boot times felt quicker but I timed it with my iphone and from pressing the power button to the time my gadgets finish loading was 0.4 seconds quicker but that could just be my delay in hitting stop. Benchmarks are exactly the same in games and 3dmark 11. I really wonder if HT is even used, lol.

The only thing I see a noticeable difference in is a slight drop in CPU temps (3-5C) and Battlefield 3. The FPS are 1-2 FPS higher at 3.99GHz and the game doesn't display the stutter I noticed with 3.7GHz and HT on. I really think this is due to a software bug more than anything else as many people find turning HT off helps. I'll use HT off until the game is patched.

The only thing I noticed the 3.7GHz with HT on was better at was encoding. Cinebench and x264 benchmarks were a good bit faster with HT on. Since I almost never encode it doesn't really matter.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

overclocked with HT on is what i chose, it really doesn't need an explanation why.

 

[Spitfire-76]

For the 3.7 option what voltages do you guys go with, 1.25, 1.35? Other question I have, would these clock speeds be good for either a c0 or d0? One more thing, do u adjust the dram timings no matter what the stock settings or try to get them close. My stock ram is 1333. Thanks.