Sounds like you've got it dialed in well enough. I'd still make the other changes to EIST and Speed shift. You can also test with Speed shift on and off with EIST enabled AND on and off with EIST disabled. It may work fine on your board. It has never worked right for the most part on the majority of boards and CPUs I've attempted to use it on. Aside from one or maybe two occasions, it has refused to allow a variable fluctuating CPU frequency.
5% is fine, nothing wrong with it, I like 8% because it's what many of Windows power plans have used for years and there is a very nominal decrease in the amount of time it takes to react to full speed which can make things feel a bit snappier if you are sensitive to that sort of thing. Many overclockers in fact that use the power saving modes do in fact set the min to 10%. 8% also seems a happy medium. 5% is fine.
Do you have an AVX offset configured in the BIOS, because if you do then testing with AVX or AVX2 instructions should be a later detail, for fine tuning. OCCT is great, has it's uses, but I'd highly recommend using Prime95 Small FFT for thermal testing with AVX and AVX2 disabled, at least initially, and then later you can enable AVX and AVX2 and retest while tweaking the offset in the BIOS if desired. If you don't KNOW you run AVX specific games or applications then it's probably not terribly important to test using AVX instructions. You are likely to seriously limit your overhead that way and while that can be a useful tweaking tool it's also a good way to see unrealistic temperatures and instability for many people. If you do use AVX or AVX2 programs or games, then it's definitely an essential part of your process but it shouldn't be part of the baseline in my opinion.
Honestly, if you don't have the time to do these types of things then overclocking is often a bad idea because attempts at high overclock goals using quick methods generally results in problems or complications, if not outright catastrophe in some cases.
I agree, you are on the right track and what you've done looks good so far, but it's hard for me to say because until I see baseline validation which I tend to believe is gained by 15 minutes of thermal testing using Small FFT and 8 hours of Realbench. That's my baseline.
For the vcore, the Intel specification lists 1.5v, which we know is grossly high and could never be maintained without sub-zero cooling regardless of multiplier and would likely lead quickly to electromigration and VT shift, as per the Intel temperature guide found here:
Update: February 9th, 2025 Preface The topic of processor temperatures can be very confusing. Conflicting opinions based on misconceptions concerning terminology, specifications and testing leaves users uncertain of how to properly check cooling performance. This Guide provides an...
forums.tomshardware.com
In truth, an absolute maximum of 1.45v should be considered and only in pretty extreme circumstances for very high or temporary overclocking conditions. In reality, for a daily driver, in my opinion and on this architecture, anything up to and including 1.35v is probably safe assuming you have cooling capable of keeping it thermally compliant. I'd like to see things stay much closer to 1.3v if possible but obviously there are various ways of doing this including setting adaptive, offset and fixed voltages and each will require a fundamentally different approach and voltage. So if you NEED to go higher than 1.29v and you can keep thermals in check with your cooling, and have a board that is capable enough, and most especially, if you are not running four DIMMs, then it does at least offer you some room for experimentation.
But it sounds like you might already be where you need to be, and perhaps just need a bit more testing to validate the stability of the overclock.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram