• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

PLL Overvoltage messing with offset settings on voltage?

A

Aumakua

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
333
So I had a horrible Gigabyte boot loop issue yesterday (spent all day trying to solve it, finally on page 51 of a 55 page thread found something that worked) anyway, I am not going back to "testing how far I can push my system" instead I am going to go with what I know is stable, 4.4 ghz.

Interesting issue came up though, originally my settings were on AUTO PLL Overvoltage and I read in a few places to turn it to disabled if not going 4.5 or more, so I did that this time.

Results when PLL overvoltage was set to Auto:

Needed to set my Voltage to normal and Dynamic (I guess its the same as offset on other boards), the strange part is with "offset" people always have low values but I had to set mine to +0.125 to get it to run at 1.296-1.308V while running tests, it maxed at 1.332 at times, then down to 0.996-1.116 at idle (pretty huge dips, probably due to offset/dynamic setting).

THEN, after finally resetting Bios after boot loop, I flashed the same Bios I was using on previous overclock but this time turned PLL Overvoltage to DISABLED instead of Auto and now I am seeing these results:

Dynamic/offset setting is +0.010 (I used the 0.125 at first and voltage spiked to over 1.4v so I knew something was off), I am getting the same 1.296-1.308 now with this 0.010 offset and haven't seen anysort of peak (when I first tested 0.025 offset there was a peak slightly higher than the normal range during testing, but not on the 0.010 offset so far).

So does PLL overvoltage cause Dynamic/offset to be messed up on Gigabyte boards (and maybe others)? I was thinking about turning it to auto and retesting, but after the boot loop issue (any familiar with it will know why I don't want to go through that again) I don't really want to mess with Voltage settings too much.
 
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on overclocking but I think I can offer some advice. From your settings it sounds like you're working with a 2500k or 2600k (if not it would help to know what your CPU is). I got stable a 4.4GHz clock on my new 2500k a couple days ago and from my understanding what you want to do is enable PLL Overvoltage and do not use offset. Set a fixed voltage of 1.26 (that's what I found worked best for me) and then steadily move that number up if you're having boot or stability issues.
 
sorry, that is pretty important info, yes 2500k

i was only having stability issues over 4.6 ghz, up to 4.6 nothing bad ever happened, but at that point I was using overvoltage enabled.

I like using the offset so that when I am not playing games or editing stuff the cpu is only using around 1.0v compared to the 1.3v, I would say 50% of the time it would be using less power that way, not really concerned about electric bill compared to life of cpu...

To go from 4.4 to 4.5 I have to use about 0.05 more volts, to go from 4.5 to 4.6 I have to use about another 0.05 volts (so around 1.4) which I don't think is worth it for the little performance boost. 4.4 ghz seems like the sweet spot on this cpu to me (at least the one I got, I know some have had success with lower voltage but I wonder how stable they really are because I had too until stressing it hard for over 6 hours, 4 or 5 or even 10 hours is not stable if it crashed at 15 hours...). I have only been overclocking for about 10 years but in my experience until you can go 24 hours on Prime or say 8 hours on Intelburn, its not stable and even though it might last 4-5 hours on either test it could crash 15 minutes into a game 2 months later... If all of these chips could easily do 4.6-4.8 at low voltage and stability and life not effected, why wouldn't Intel market them that way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top