Question DDR4 Chip and 10700K Overclocking Help.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 24, 2019
79
12
45
1
One thing I caught.
"I have two TF3D48G2666HC15B01 "
Part numbers are for a single stick of memory @ 8GB.
Mixing ram is not always stable.
For dual channel you need2 matched sticks from a set. not 2 single sticks.
Memory has a ton of secondary timings that must also match for stability.
That is why they are sold as Kits. The modules are tested to by the manufacturer to work together.
Buying 2 single sticks and putting them together is a crap shot if they work together.
Yes, good catch. Something I usually latch onto right away, and I agree, if those sticks did not come in a kit TOGETHER, then you're fortunate they are even running together, much less attempting to overclock them. I'd recommend that you run them at the stock XMP profile speed rather than overclocking them, if they were not both a part of a matched set. And these days, to be honest, it doesn't make much sense not to simply just BUY DIMMs that are the speed you want to run.

You don't actually NEED "two matched DIMMs from a set" in order to run in dual channel. Being matched has nothing to do with running in dual channel, but what DOES matter, is that the stick are compatible ENOUGH to run together in dual channel, and by that we mean that the ENTIRE configuration of the DIMM (ICs, ranks, rows, primary, secondary and tertiary timings) are similar enough that the motherboard is able to make micro adjustments that are amenable to both sticks. Sometimes both sticks look at the motherboard and say "no, thanks, we're not playing that game", while other times they are more like "ok, I guess we'll play", and still others when the memory is very much the same or is matched simply works together with no micro adjustments to any of the timings being necessary by the motherboard.

Besides which, dual channel operation isn't the issue in question here really AND usually, if the DIMMs are specc'ed within the JEDEC standards for the platform (So, for Z490, 2666mhz or less) there is usually a LOT more forgiveness for differences between DIMMs and not using matched ones. Outside of the JEDEC standard configurations, and anytime the XMP "OC" or an actual manual OC is involved, you quickly begin to move further and further away from that ESPECIALLY when you start trying to tighten timings on top of it. My further advice on this would be, if you're going to do something other than simply run them at their XMP profile values, then either overclock them OR tighten the timings, but not both. Especially not when (Or IF) they are not from a matched set.
Yes, I know, but on the day I went to buy there was no kit available, only individual ones. I've been using it for 1 year, apparently without problems and with all the timings identical. In a near future I will upgrade to 32GB, but I will consider only kits, maybe something like 32GB (2x16) 3200 CL16.
About my CPU OC thing, i'm starting to get extremely confused, because I can use 5100 mhz through XTU, with a very low Vcore. But if I replicate this result in the BIOS, my PC just crash.
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
XTU is probably automatically applying a much higher LLC. In the BIOS, what is your LLC (Load line calibration) setting set to?

What is your attempted clock frequency?

What is your vcore or core voltage?

What setting are you trying to get by with at this point on the VCCIO and VCCSA?

Which slots do you have the DIMMs installed in?

Also, there is a new BIOS version, version 1208 out now, it might be wise to update.
 
Oct 24, 2019
79
12
45
1
XTU is probably automatically applying a much higher LLC. In the BIOS, what is your LLC (Load line calibration) setting set to?

What is your attempted clock frequency?

What is your vcore or core voltage?

What setting are you trying to get by with at this point on the VCCIO and VCCSA?

Which slots do you have the DIMMs installed in?

Also, there is a new BIOS version, version 1208 out now, it might be wise to update.
I would recommend updating the BIOS, and starting over.

4 or 5 on LLC should be good.
LLC: 4.
Clock: 5100mhz (x51 bclk 100mhz).
Vcore: I tried with everything, adapative voltage with an offset and even left stock to see if i can mantain stability (Checking the Vcore obviously, i dont want anything higher than 1.35)
VCCIO and VCCSA: Tried with 1.0V, 1.09V and auto.
Slot: 2 and 4.

I will update the BIOS and raise the LLC and see if my problem is solved.
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
You might simply not have a good piece of silicon too, which you have to consider as a possibility. Trying to get an all core 5.1Ghz OC with only 1.35v might not be realistic, and to be honest, it probably is FAR from realistic. I can barely do stability on my 6700k, that only has four cores, at 4.6Ghz with 1.35v.
 
Oct 24, 2019
79
12
45
1
You might simply not have a good piece of silicon too, which you have to consider as a possibility. Trying to get an all core 5.1Ghz OC with only 1.35v might not be realistic, and to be honest, it probably is FAR from realistic. I can barely do stability on my 6700k, that only has four cores, at 4.6Ghz with 1.35v.
I thought about it too, but why is it so stable using XTU instead of the BIOS and with a Vcore so low?
 
Last edited:

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
and with all the timings identical
I'm not so sure, in fact I'd dare to say nope, not happening. The only timings that are identical is the Primary timings, the 16-19-19-39 2T (or whatever yours is) that's on the sticker. That's most of what you'll find. It's the 50+ Secondary and Tertiary timings that'll show differences between the DIMMs. Those 2 tiers of timings respond a lot to the impurities and levels of impurities in the silicon the ram ic's are made from. They have the most to do with whether 2 different DIMMs will be compatible or not or require tweaking or not.

If buying 2 seperate kits, check the production numbers, the closer to consecutive they are, the greater the likelihood of coming from the same batch. No guarantee, but a good chance.

There's no such thing as 'barely' stable. You are either stable, or not. Even infrequent crashes means you aren't stable. Vcore is only one aspect of OC, it's got to be balanced with everything else, LLC and vid and vccio and vccsa, PLL, power phases, speeds, everything.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2019
79
12
45
1
I thought you said earlier that XTU caused it to crash?
I believe I have not expressed myself correctly.
What is happening is the following: When I do an OC through the BIOS and try to see the current V/F curve in the XTU, my PC restarts. However, when I put the same amount of multiplier (or even more, 5.2 in 2 cores) in XTU and calculate the V/F curve, everything remains normal, no crashes, 100% stable.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2019
79
12
45
1
I'm not so sure, in fact I'd dare to say nope, not happening. The only timings that are identical is the Primary timings, the 16-19-19-39 2T (or whatever yours is) that's on the sticker. That's most of what you'll find. It's the 50+ Secondary and Tertiary timings that'll show differences between the DIMMs. Those 2 tiers of timings respond a lot to the impurities and levels of impurities in the silicon the ram ic's are made from. They have the most to do with whether 2 different DIMMs will be compatible or not or require tweaking or not.

If buying 2 seperate kits, check the production numbers, the closer to consecutive they are, the greater the likelihood of coming from the same batch. No guarantee, but a good chance.

There's no such thing as 'barely' stable. You are either stable, or not. Even infrequent crashes means you aren't stable. Vcore is only one aspect of OC, it's got to be balanced with everything else, LLC and vid and vccio and vccsa, PLL, power phases, speeds, everything.
I know there is an inconsistency, but I refer to the BIOS, since it is a manual OC, all timings are the same. Or am I still wrong and missing something? Like timings that are not shown in the BIOS.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Exactly. Bios contains 2 things. The settings you Can see (some are alterable, some may not be dependent on the bios/motherboard) and the settings you Cannot see.

When you manually OC, you are changing the visible settings, which may or may not affect any 'invisible' settings. When people use the cheater Software EZ 'one click' OC Genie, that changes a bunch of settings, some visible, but many are not. Which is where people run into major issues when they try and back out of that ****. You might have a voltage setting invisible, that'd normally be 1.1v for instance. When changing something else, that voltage might get changed to 1.2v just to maintain a balance. Then you revert the change, but the 1.2v is still an acceptable voltage, so remains. And then you can't figure out why after removing the software your pc is running 10°C hotter all of a sudden.

Even clearing CMOS doesn't affect many of the invisible settings, because clearing CMOS only forces bios to change unknown settings, or forces bios to discover hardware, it does not reset the bios. To reset bios, you have to choose that option IN bios, which resets everything back to factory optimized defaults.

My msi bios on my mpower Z77 actually does have a listing that's accessible through Command Center of all 3 tiers of timings. Most lower grade bios won't. Any of the Asus ROG bios can probably do similar, as they are far more extensive than the regular, non-ROG boards bios. The mpower would be MSI equivalent (back then) to a Asus ROG Hero.

Typically figure that bios is all the same (per vendor), an Award or Phoenix bios is the same for every model its used in. The differences between the bios are board/model specific to what's actually visible/alterable/user accessible.
 
Reactions: Maikurosofuto

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Even clearing CMOS doesn't affect many of the invisible settings, because clearing CMOS only forces bios to change unknown settings, or forces bios to discover hardware, it does not reset the bios. To reset bios, you have to choose that option IN bios, which resets everything back to factory optimized defaults.
This is wrong. 100% wrong. Ok, well maybe only 50% wrong. :)

Clearing CMOS "is" SUPPOSED to reset EVERYTHING to the default factory settings. What it does NOT do, is set and configure everything to the "Optimal default" settings (Meaning, the PREFERRED settings based on the actual INSTALLED hardware, rather than just the generic factory values), which you have to do IN the BIOS by selecting "Optimal default" settings if the option to do so is available in any particular BIOS. It IS for most motherboards, even ones from ten or fifteen years ago. Longer even. But this is not even that much of a problem.

What clear/reset the CMOS often does not do, that IS a problem, is force a reset of the hardware tables that tell the BIOS exactly what hardware is installed, how it is to be configured, what drivers to use and exactly how the legacy or Windows boot manager should be configured in order to boot the operating system according to preference. Usually, none of that is a problem when you clear or reset the CMOS, as it SHOULD reset the hardware tables, but sometimes it just doesn't happen for whatever reason and something, some setting, some driver, something, gets "stuck" for lack of a better word, in the old or previous configuration and a hard reset is necessary to force it to abandon all previous configuration and boot manager settings and entirely reconfigure from scratch.

Now, I'm no hardware or software engineer, but I believe THAT^^^ assessment to be completely accurate.

I think just about everybody here has seen my hard reset procedure about six million times, but just in case Maikurosofuto has not, I'll post it anyhow, just so he is aware that it is an additional option when trying to reset the CMOS settings.

BIOS Hard Reset procedure

Power off the unit, switch the PSU off and unplug the PSU cord from either the wall or the power supply.

Remove the motherboard CMOS battery for five minutes. In some cases it may be necessary to remove the graphics card to access the CMOS battery.

During that five minutes, press the power button on the case, continuously, for 30 seconds. After the five minutes is up, reinstall the CMOS battery making sure to insert it with the correct side up just as it came out.

If you had to remove the graphics card you can now reinstall it, but remember to reconnect your power cables if there were any attached to it as well as your display cable.

Now, plug the power supply cable back in, switch the PSU back on and power up the system. It should display the POST screen and the options to enter CMOS/BIOS setup. Enter the bios setup program and reconfigure the boot settings for either the Windows boot manager or for legacy systems, the drive your OS is installed on if necessary.

Save settings and exit. If the system will POST and boot then you can move forward from there including going back into the bios and configuring any other custom settings you may need to configure such as Memory XMP, A-XMP or D.O.C.P profile settings, custom fan profile settings or other specific settings you may have previously had configured that were wiped out by resetting the CMOS.

In some cases it may be necessary when you go into the BIOS after a reset, to load the Optimal default or Default values and then save settings, to actually get the hardware tables to reset in the boot manager.

It is probably also worth mentioning that for anything that might require an attempt to DO a hard reset in the first place, IF the problem is related to a lack of video signal, it is a GOOD IDEA to try a different type of display as many systems will not work properly for some reason with displayport configurations. It is worth trying HDMI if you are having no display or lack of visual ability to enter the BIOS, or no signal messages.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Ok, you just put it more eloquently than I did, with a much better explanation, but said the same thing.
'Clearing CMOS "is" SUPPOSED to reset EVERYTHING to the default factory settings. What it does NOT do, is set and configure everything to the "Optimal default" settings (Meaning, the PREFERRED settings based on the actual INSTALLED hardware, rather than just the generic factory values), which you have to do IN the BIOS by selecting "Optimal default" settings if the option to do so is available in any particular BIOS. '

Installed hardware can and does include the cpu, VRM's, super i/o etc and those particular settings such as voltages...

' but sometimes it just doesn't happen for whatever reason and something, some setting, some driver, something, gets "stuck" for lack of a better word, in the old or previous configuration and a hard reset is necessary to force it to abandon all previous configuration and boot manager settings and entirely reconfigure from scratch.'

Yep, exactly. Clearing CMOS is no guarantee that stuff in bios Will be reset.
' because clearing CMOS only forces bios to change unknown settings, or forces bios to discover hardware, '
I left out the part explaining that known settings are usually changed to factory default, but not always.

Yours was simply a better and more thorough explanation.
 

Phaaze88

Glorious
Ambassador
Just posting this here for reference:
CpuAll Core SSE FrequencyAll Core AVX2 FrequencyPer Core FrequencyAll Core Die Sense VcorePower Limit% Capable
10700K4.90GHz4.80GHz4C+100MHz1.190V210W100%
10700K5.00GHz4.90GHz4C+100MHz1.210V220WTop 68%
10700K5.10GHz5.00GHz4C+100MHz1.230V240WTop 20%
That's Silicon Lottery's binning statistics for the 10700K SO FAR. I know they're not the end-all-be-all, but I thought it might help anyway...
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Well, that's definitely a lower overall vCore than I expected to see for those frequency settings, but then again, what board was used for those findings? Pretty sure it wasn't the Gaming Z490-Plus, which itself is not one of the top end overclocking boards out there. Motherboard is half, or more, of the battle, when it comes to EVERYTHING related to overclocking your CPU and memory, as you well know. There aren't many reviews on this board, only Vortez and a vaguely optimistic Russian review at Greentech reviews, both of which turned out to be rather good but again, those reviews might have been using very well binned samples of the 10900k as well and this one might not be in that same ballpark.

I know that most of the "TUF" boards, which are descendants of the older Sabertooth TUF series boards, are not nearly as good in most cases as those boards were for the money, but this board seems pretty decent so I don't think it's a board related issue.

I'm thinking maybe this is a power supply issue at the root. The CX is not a particularly well suited power supply for high end overclocking endeavors. It might be a good idea to replace it with a unit that has much better voltage regulation and ripple characteristics, because those can have a tremendous effect on overclocking.

How old is that CX unit of yours and is it the older green lettering model or the black and gray label model?
 
Oct 24, 2019
79
12
45
1
Well, that's definitely a lower overall vCore than I expected to see for those frequency settings, but then again, what board was used for those findings? Pretty sure it wasn't the Gaming Z490-Plus, which itself is not one of the top end overclocking boards out there. Motherboard is half, or more, of the battle, when it comes to EVERYTHING related to overclocking your CPU and memory, as you well know. There aren't many reviews on this board, only Vortez and a vaguely optimistic Russian review at Greentech reviews, both of which turned out to be rather good but again, those reviews might have been using very well binned samples of the 10900k as well and this one might not be in that same ballpark.

I know that most of the "TUF" boards, which are descendants of the older Sabertooth TUF series boards, are not nearly as good in most cases as those boards were for the money, but this board seems pretty decent so I don't think it's a board related issue.

I'm thinking maybe this is a power supply issue at the root. The CX is not a particularly well suited power supply for high end overclocking endeavors. It might be a good idea to replace it with a unit that has much better voltage regulation and ripple characteristics, because those can have a tremendous effect on overclocking.

How old is that CX unit of yours and is it the older green lettering model or the black and gray label model?
Here, in Brazil, there's some decent/good reviewers too, there is a channel that makes an in-depth review giving each VRM characteristic of this board, even benchmarking it with the power hungry 10900K, his ambient temperature is higher than mine and a 5.1 Ghz overclock with a 1.30v Vcore, the VRM peaked only 81C. Combining my knowledge with the various reviews I read, this mobo is more than enough even for a 10900K, let alone the 10700K. My CX750 is the grey label one, iirc the 2017 version, but I doubt that it is the villain here, since i can easily put in 5.1 GHz using the XTU, which even with a vcore in the automatic, the voltages are relatively low.
The problem is i don't want to be depending on the XTU, I just want to replicate the results in the BIOS but there is something I should be missing that I haven't figured out yet.
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
I'm going to bring in somebody here that I am pretty certain will know the answer to this, because being honest, I can't tell you why you are seeing what you are seeing but I am very confident that he probably can.

He is the author of the Intel temperature guide and when it comes to Intel architectures there aren't that many people out there that know more about it than he does.
 
Oct 24, 2019
79
12
45
1
I'm going to bring in somebody here that I am pretty certain will know the answer to this, because being honest, I can't tell you why you are seeing what you are seeing but I am very confident that he probably can.

He is the author of the Intel temperature guide and when it comes to Intel architectures there aren't that many people out there that know more about it than he does.
Thank you very much for your attention and help, as well as the others who are also helping me. I'm trying to find something about this problem and i ended up finding someone who was having an almost identical problem in an AsRock mobo, apparently, he posted in 3 different locations, including here:
I've found an article saying it is necessary to activate MCE in order to overclock. Here.
Many will do it automatically, but the motherboard we are using here today – the ASUS ROG Maximus XII Extreme requires MCE (multi-core enhancement) to be enabled [...]
MCE is an ASUS option that bypasses the Intel operating limits and needs to be set for overclocking. Many boards do this automatically and do not have a BIOS option.
I've disabled the MCE the first day i got this MOBO, but i'll try OC'ing again right now leaving it enabled.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
MCE basically IS OC. It's a preset full core turbo. When it first came out, it was factory enabled, but that was soon changed after multiple complaints from the expert reviewers like Steve and Linus. It's one of those things that should never be used unless you do plan on OC and have the appropriate cooling for such.

So I'd not say it 'needs' to be enabled, but if what you are chasing is going to be that level or better, it's not going to hurt.
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
It might be necessary on newer chipsets, but on the ones I've used which are up through 8th Gen, it does not have to be enabled in order to overclock and in fact, enabling MCE caused me nothing but problems. If that has changed, I am not aware of it, but again, I've not worked with any 9th or 10 gen systems yet either.

I asked Comp to chime in here because I believe he'll have insights we lack, but he might be busy, or on vacation, or just tired of all of us. LOL.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
My guess would be research. CT is one of those ppl who is nothing short of extremely thorough, bless his soul lol, and rarely puts anything to paper without a Full explanation. Meaning he also often has to translate his own answers into layman English.... 😁
 

CompuTronix

Intel Master
Moderator
Thanks for the heads-up, DB.

Maikurosofuto,

I've reviewed each post in this thread, so to summarize, this appears to be where you're at:

i7- 10700K
5.1Ghz All Cores
79°C
LLC4
Adaptive Vcore, Offset - 0.105V (1.326V Peak running Prime95)

P95, AIDA64, CineBench R20, RealBench

Stable using IETU Settings
Unstable with IETU Settings in BIOS

Overclocking requires that we minimize as many variables as possible, of which there are dozens. So in order to compare apples to apples, we must always be very specific. Unless you're accustomed to closely observing the relationships between Core voltage, power consumption, V/F curves and thermal behavior, using both numerical values as well as graphical patterns, most users don't realize how various utilities and their assorted tests can differ drastically in the nature of the workloads they impose on a processor, which can dramatically affect stability.

“Stress” tests vary widely and can be characterized into two categories; stability tests which are fluctuating workloads, and thermal tests which are steady workloads. Prime95 v29.8 Small FFTs (AVX disabled) is ideally suited for testing power consumption and thermal performance, because it conforms to Intel's Datasheets as a steady-state 100% workload. You can also use v26.6 Small FFTs, which is an identical workload, but without any AVX code. (As per Intel's Datasheets, TDP and Thermal Specifications are validated without AVX.)

Utilities that don't overload or underload your processor will give you valid power and thermal baselines. Here’s a comparison of utilities grouped as thermal and stability tests according to % of TDP, averaged across six processor Generations at stock settings rounded to the nearest 5%:


Although these tests range from 70% to 130% TDP workload, Windows Task Manager interprets every test as 100% CPU Utilization, which is processor resource activity, NOT actual workload. Core temperatures respond directly to Power consumption (Watts), which is driven by Core voltage and workload. Prime95 v29.8 Small FFTs (AVX disabled) provides a steady 100% workload, even when TDP is exceeded by overclocking. (The topic of TDP is another involved discussion, which for the purposes of this thread, is unnecessary and will likely confuse the issue).

As you can see from the scale, Intel Extreme Tuning Utility is a fluctuating workload that's only about 80%. Conversely, AIDA64 has 4 CPU related stress test selections (CPU, FPU, Cache, Memory) which have 15 possible combinations that yield 15 different workloads and Core temperatures. That's a lot of variables and inconsistencies, which may explain when you plug IETU settings into BIOS, why utilities with heavier workloads crash. The vast majority of users don't specify exactly which test(s) they ran, nor do they typically mention ambient room temperature (normal is 22°C), which can as well be a HUGE variable.

Concerning LLC (Load Line Calibration); the purpose is to compensate for the difference between the "set" no load Core voltage in BIOS and the actual Core voltage when under a 100% workload. For example, if a wall socket in your house is probed with a voltmeter, then a very high load such as air conditioning switches on, you'll see the voltage "sag" by a volt or two, which is normal and expected. The same applies to processors, which is know as "Vdroop". Even the highest quality PSUs and efficient motherboard VRMs are affected.

When adjusting LLC, the goal is to find a setting which allows the Core voltage in Windows during a steady-state 100% workload to match the Core voltage set in BIOS. Intel intends that there should be at least a minimal sag or "undershoot", but any surge or "overshoot" is not recommended for CPU longevity. Motherboards with tight VRM regulation may vary by as little as 16 to 24mv, which, for example, means if BIOS is set for 1.260, then 100% workload in Windows should ideally vary from ~ 1.244 to 1.236. Keep in mind that since Vcore settings are in 5mv (.005) increments, but the resulting values are in 8mv (.008) increments, you will find that certain settings will cause the values in Windows to "toggle" between voltages more than others.

When workloads spike higher due to processing dense segments of code, power consumption also spikes higher which causes Core voltage to momentarily spike lower or "sag". It's during these moments of lower Vcore when the processor is most vulnerable to BSOD crashes. Therefore, when adjusting Core voltage and LLC in BIOS, it's critical to closely observe Core voltage behavior in Windows. A better method to successfully accomplish this task with the least amount of frustration is to run a steady-state 100% workload, which refers back to Prime95 v29.8 Small FFTs with all AVX test selections disabled.

When used in conjunction with HWiNFO, if you right-click on parameters such as Vcore, Package Power and Package Temperature (typically the hottest Core), it will open a graph for each, which will allow you to expand your view beyond the blinders of numerical values and take advantage of "the big picture". You can't expect to make these critical adjustments accurately when running fluctuating workloads that look like a bad day on the stock market. After you've found the most ideal LLC setting, you can then move on to stability testing with fluctuating workloads.

Here's how different workloads look on a graph:



Shown above from left to right: Small FFTs, Blend, Linpack and IntelBurn Test.​

Note the steady-state signature of Small FFTs, which allows accurate measurements of power consumption, Core voltage and Core temperatures. A steady 100% workload is key for testing so the CPU, cooler, socket, motherboard and voltage regulator modules can thermally stabilize.

Being fully aware of your test conditions and minimizing the variables involved will help you to achieve stability. As Phaaze88 has already been pointed out, although Silicon Lottery provides examples of various Core voltages used for different overclocking combinations, they're also specific regarding their QVL and test conditions. They also state that beyond Core voltage, LLC and AVX offsets, other BIOS adjustments such as PLL, SA and I/O voltages, Uncore or Ring ratio are typically unnecessary. To experienced overclockers, this suggests that for your overclock, which is not unreasonable, higher Vcore should be all that's needed.

As Unolocogringo and Karadjgne have corroborated, we know that since your RAM is somewhat less than a matched set, it introduces yet another set of variables. So to rule out RAM stability issues, while testing CPU overclock stability it's standard procedure to approach CPU overclocking and RAM overclocking separately; not simultaneously. I suggest that you run your RAM at stock settings, not XMP. After you achieve a stable CPU overclock, you can later tweak RAM settings, but beware that unstable RAM is the most expedient way to corrupt your software, which my esteemed colleague, Darkbreeze, has very clearly and adamantly emphasized. As such, since BSOD crashes are an inevitable part of the overclocking process, always perform a full system backup prior to conducting any overclocking endeavors.

Although you're running the latest version of IETU, here's a link to the latest version of its successor, Intel® Performance Maximizer for 10th Generation Intel® Core™ Processors. Not to introduce further variables, but you might want to give it a try instead of IETU.

You might also want to read my Intel Temperature Guide. Section 8 covers Overclocking and Voltage. Just click on the link in my signature.

CT :sol:
 
Reactions: Maikurosofuto

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS