*Official* NBR Desktop Overclocker's Lounge [laptop owners welcome, too]

Discussion in 'Desktop Hardware' started by Mr. Fox, Nov 5, 2017.

  1. rodarkone

    rodarkone Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    32
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Wrong ones from what I see online :)

    Anyway the fist stab at the build is ready

    Intel 9900k under AIO Asetek 645LT
    Asrock z390 Phantom Mini/ac
    2x8 GB Corsair Vengence LPX DDR4 3000
    Phanteks Evolv Shift
    Silverstone SFF-L 800
    Nvidia RTX Titan

    Temps are under control, noise is decent :)

    I need to chnge some things as I am not happy with the current cable management and the place where I was obligated to mount the AIO (as the tubes are short :) not bought for this case) also my goal is < 10L case ... this one is too big :))

    [​IMG]
     
    Convel and Robbo99999 like this.
  2. makina69

    makina69 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    97
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    286
    Trophy Points:
    76
  3. Robbo99999

    Robbo99999 Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    3,991
    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    5,630
    Trophy Points:
    681
    Nice main components! That orientation of the GPU looks unusual? And yeah, that's nearly a normal sized midi case (?), so I can see why you want a smaller case considering you got such a small motherboard?
     
  4. rodarkone

    rodarkone Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    32
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    41
    What do you mean normal sized midi case ? we are in the SFF territory here :)
     
  5. Robbo99999

    Robbo99999 Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    3,991
    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    5,630
    Trophy Points:
    681
    Yeah, I dunno, that's why I was asking you, to me it looked like the case was standard midi (didn't look very small!), but I wasn't sure, hence the ? mark. I also noticed the GPU is orientated unusually, not seen that before.
     
  6. rodarkone

    rodarkone Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    32
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Robbo99999 likes this.
  7. Robbo99999

    Robbo99999 Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    3,991
    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    5,630
    Trophy Points:
    681
    Oh well, this didn't work out in the end. A 3 thread load of OCCT would destabalise my 100Mhz extra overclock boost that I'd gained through Per Core overclocking. My conclusion is that Per Core overclocking is only useful if you're thermally limited rather than "silicon quality" limited - because you wouldn't have the thermal overhead to overclock all cores to their theoretical max stable value, so you'd compromise by using Per Core overclocking to reach the limits of the "silicon quality" with say 1 or 2 cores, and then you'd have to lower your All Core overclock to stay within thermal limits. As it stands though, I think Per Core overclocking is only useful if you're thermally limited, as it can't magically override the "silicon quality" aspect of overclocking.

    TLDR: Per Core overclocking has given me an extra 100Mhz in single and two thread loads vs All Core overclocking, and a corresponding small boost in performance: it could be worth your while to experiment with Per Core overclocking vs the traditional All Core overclocking.


    Ok, this might be interesting, what are your thoughts about "Per Core" overclocking in a desktop PC environment rather than using "All Core". Per Core overclocking you set different multiplier ratios depending on the number of CPU cores active in the load. So my latest All Core overclock is 4.69Ghz @1.4V (OCCT 1hr stable), but I figured I'd try "Per Core" overclocking to see if I could get one and two core loads to be a couple of multipliers higher whilst keeping 4 core loads at my previous 4.69Ghz. I'm testing it right now, I'm testing 1 thread of Prime95, and the cores are getting up to 4.9Ghz! It's not crashed or thrown errors yet, but I've only been testing it for 10 mins.

    I'm thinking it might be harder to test for proper stability if you're doing Per Core overclocking? What are you thoughts on the value of Per Core overclocking, and your thoughts on how to properly check it for stability? (I'm familiar with how to check an All Core overclock for stability).

    I've set 4.9Ghz for 1-2 Cores, 4.8Ghz for 3 cores, and 4.7Ghz (well 4.69Ghz) for 4 core load - this is all at my previous 1.4V.

    I'm thinking that we're actually leaving performance on the table by only doing All Core overclocks, your thoughts?

    *EDIT: When looking in HWInfo Sensors whilst I'm doing the 1 thread load stability testing I can see that the 1 thread load jumps from one CPU core to another - cycles through them. So average CPU load is balanced out throughout the cores to about 25% load each. That's on Prime95 non AVX, but on OCCT it seems to be intelligently focussing the load on the coldest CPU cores. Hmm, that means the OCCT load testing is ignoring the other CPU cores effectively, so they're not being stability checked - I think this makes the OCCT testing invalid for stability testing because it's ignoring the hotter cores. I'll try Prime95 AVX to see if it shows the same behaviour - I need the load to cycle through all the cores, otherwise it's not testing the stability of each physical CPU core. Either way, I think truly testing stability will take longer when Per Core overclocking because the load is only about 25% per core on average, so I think it's gonna take 4 times longer to thoroughly check for stability of an overclock - my thoughts anyway.

    **EDIT#2: Well 4.9Ghz for 1-2 cores wasn't stable, Prime95 threw an error. I'm thinking that perhaps there isn't any more performance left on the table by just using an All Core overclock - it might just be it takes longer to find errors when stability checking Per Core overclocks. So, I've backed it down to 4.8Ghz for 1-3 cores, whilst keeping 4.7Ghz for 4 cores. I'm testing it again now, so even if it passes a stability check it's only an extra 100Mhz gained by using Per Core overclocking. LOL, there's probably a high chance I'm corrupting my OS with this testing!

    ***EDIT#3: I've tested stability of the Per Core overclock overnight with Prime95 AVX running on two threads and it's stable, with an average CPU clock of 4.76Ghz per core as measured in HWInfo Sensors. This is at 1, 2, & 3 Core at 48 multiplier, while 4 Core is at 47 multiplier. I also validated with CPUz, and single core performance has increased in line with the extra 100Mhz I was able to attain through Per Core overclocking as opposed to All Core overclocking, I've extended my lead at the top of the table! ;-) https://valid.x86.fr/t02hmr
    4.79Ghz Per Core.jpg

    TLDR: Per Core overclocking has given me an extra 100Mhz in single and two thread loads vs All Core overclocking, and a corresponding small boost in performance: it could be worth your while to experiment with Per Core overclocking vs the traditional All Core overclocking.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  8. Talon

    Talon Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,172
    Messages:
    3,205
    Likes Received:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    331
    Just picked up this bad boy off Amazon "Renewed" for $1545 out the door. Just got it about 1 hour ago, testing things out and I must say I am grinning from ear to ear. :D This little device is amazing for the power it packs.

    1080p 144hz 3ms with MUX -- Optimus and G-Sync available via the software and restart. God I hate Optimus so much, the difference just browsing the web and tooling around on the desktop is so much smoother and responsive.
    8750H -- sure last gen but honestly tiny difference
    RTX 2080 Max-Q
    16gb in dual channel
    512gb NVME
    Super thin and light weight to carry around with me through airports

    https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/40356996 -- 80w vBIOS with +800Mhz memory and +125mhz core. Will flash the 90w TDP later. Also need to flash the BIOS with unlocked to get access to memory so I can install my 3000Mhz CL16 stuff. Unbelievably this thing doesn't throttle the CPU down under load in Cinebench. It ran 3.9Ghz all day with the -150mV undervolt I applied to it. Temps with max fans were 70-80s. Will be doing a LM repaste to CPU and Gelid Extreme to the GPU eventually.

    https://imgur.com/a/KI5dHlw
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
  9. ssj92

    ssj92 Neutron Star

    Reputations:
    1,912
    Messages:
    3,842
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    Trophy Points:
    331
    Alienware m15 R2 after undervolt and some airflow under the chassis:

    [​IMG]

    "Out of the box" :
    [​IMG]

    Honestly I am not sure what else to try. You can try the XtremeG drivers as well, there's a thread here in the graphics card section.
     
    Talon likes this.
  10. Talon

    Talon Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,172
    Messages:
    3,205
    Likes Received:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    331
    Mr. Fox and electrosoft like this.
Loading...

Share This Page