A simple question about overclocking

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
grizz86

grizz86

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2008
92
0
18,630
I have amd athlon64 x2 4400+ (brisbane) 2.3ghz processor.
Overclock it and whoops..... 2.6ghz (using stock cooler fan)

The question is, how further I can go overclocking my processor using STOCK fan?

Thanks.
 
General tools for overclocking.
CoreTemp : http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/
cpuid HW Monitor : http://www.cpuid.com/hwmonitor.php
cpuid CPU-Z : http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

Prime95 : http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4363
(make sure you enable "Advanced -> Round Off Checking")
OCCT : http://www.ocbase.com/perestroika_en/index.php?Download

MemTest86 : http://www.memtest86.com/memtest86-3.4a.iso.zip

As long as CoreTemp reports Prime95/OCCT load temperatures under 55°C-60°C and Prime95/OCCT doesn't report errors you are good.
 
CoreTemp reports temperatures for both cores.
If you run Prime95 with 2 threads(1 per core) both cores should be below 55°C-60°C. If they go over 55°C I would reduce the overclock. If they go above 60°C you are getting close to the thermal shutdown threshold and at that point you are risking potential heat damage to the CPU.

I wouldn't run it above 55°C for prolonged periods of time but that's just me.
 
The 55-60C should be read from HWMonitor where it says just "CPU Temp" or something to that effect. CoreTemp reads the temps directly from the cores, and they can run considerably warmer than the 'thermal threshold'.
 
Ok... right now I just got the cheap ThermalTake DuCool cooler fan..
do the magic and..

Bus = (200 default) 244 x 11.5
Core= (2300 default) 2805.5 MHz (21.98 % overclock)
HT link = 1219.7 MHz
Core volt = 1.35 v

temp = core 1 core 2
23c 21c
(@ 1-8% load)

temp = core 1 core 2
45c 46c
(@ 100% load)


so... is this good? I think its hot. Touch the heatsink pipe and burn like hell (@ 100% load)



 
Looks good if those are CoreTemp readouts. Everything below 50°C is good. Metal at ~45°C will burn you because it transfers heat better than air.
It's the same thing with a car in direct sunlight. It's only a few degrees hotter than the air surrounding it but it burns to the touch.
 

Drop CoreTemp. It is inaccurate by up to +/-15C or higher. Get RealTemp.
 
CoreTemp == simple and easy to use (like soccer mom minivan, practical and does many things good enough)

RealTemp == advanced, highly accurate, needs calibration (like an f1/indy racecar, razor sharp at what it does but useless when buying a large widescreen TV)

At the end of the day people with AMD chips don't have a choice and people with 45nm Core2 need to figure out RealTemp. :)
 


I highly disagree with this post. Here is what the makers of Core Temp say.

"Core Temp lets you monitor Intel "Core Duo", "Core Solo" (Yonah), "Core 2 Duo", "Core 2 Extreme", "Core 2 Quad", " Pentium E2000" series, "Celeron 400\500" series (Allendale, Conroe, Merom, Kentsfield, Conroe-L respectively), "Xeon 3000/3200/5100/5300" series (Woodcrest, Clovertown respectively) and all AMD K8 (AMD64) and K10 (Phenom, Opteron) series die temperature.
The temperature readings are very accurate as the data is collected from a Digital Thermal Sensor (or DTS) which is located in each individual processing core, near the hottest part. This sensor is digital, which means it doesn't rely on an external circuit located on the motherboard to report temperature, its value is stored in a special register in the processor so any software can access and read it. This eliminates any inaccuracy that can be caused by external motherboard circuits and sensors and then different types of programs trying to read those sensors.

This is how the program works:

Intel defines a certain Tjunction temperature for the processor. In the case of Yonah it is 85C° or 100C°. First of all the program reads from a Model Specific Register (or MSR), and detects the Tjunction temperature. A different MSR contains the temperature data, this data is represented as Delta in C° between current temperature and Tjunction.

So the actual temperature is calculated like this 'Core Temp = Tjunction - Delta'

The size of the data field is 7 bits. This means a Delta of 0 - 127C° can be reported in theory. But from preliminary tests, the reported temperature doesn't go below 0C°, no matter what kind of cooling was used.

AMD chips report the temperature by a special register in the CPU's NB. Core Temp reads that register and uses a formula provided by AMD to calculate the current temperature.
The formula for the K8 is: 'Core Temp = Value - 49'.
The formula for the K10* is: 'CPU Temp** = Value / 8'.

The sensor in AMD CPUs can report temperatures between -49C and 206C.

*K10 = Phenom (Agena), Opteron (Barcelona). The K10 reports a temperature value that is relative to a certain predefined value, it doesn't report the actual processor temperature! So take that into consideration.
**CPU Temp is because the Phenom\Opteron (K10) have only one sensor per package, meaning there is only one reading per processor. "

If you have a K8 or K10 processor, CoreTemp is one of the best temp monitoring solutions out there. Super lightweight, and free.
 


Yes.... Realtemp dominates! But it only dominates on INTEL and ONLY IF YOU SET THE CORRECT SETTINGS! If you don't set the calibration right for the Tjunction, then it's worthless.
 


yep thats right!

but i still like Core temp as it display the VID value and in a smaller and more attract window then Realtemp. Realtemp seems professional BUT too dull for my liking.
 
CoreTemp has 2 general issues:
1. Core 2 (Duo and Quad, 45nm/65nm) idle temperatures are either too high or too low (if you read the documentation of RealTemp you will understand why).
2. In some cases(some CPUs) there is no data for TjunctionMAX and since the DTS only reports the distance to Tjmax the value can be off by 10°C or more (the larger the distance the more inaccurate the value).

I like CoreTemp for it's simple interface and very nice layed out display. It is however just a very nice looking toy.
 
Yes. You get VID (it's was in the top right corner when switching displayed data) in the previous version. Now it's under settings.

Calibration is a downside of RealTemp (it's quite complicated and requires quite a bit of time). So is the non user friendly interface. It's a great program, but the UI needs a lot of work. The simple table look of HW Monitor is much easier to read, PROChot flags should not be done with checkboxes as they make users think they can select something. A dropdown menu would be an easy improvement. Colorcoding or temperature icons would be great for an easy readout. It's quite clear from a programmers point of view that RealTemp is not meant to be user friendly.
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom