Adaptive vs Manual

Me again,

Playing with OCing my system using the Adaptive option as apposed too setting voltages to Manual.

Image show setting that I manually entered in the BIOS (only using this for sake of ease)


below is a small run of IBT to test setting (will run Prime 95 again later to test fully)


These setting at first glance give me lower max temps than setting the voltages in manually which were lower than they are now.

Going to test now with prime, back in about 1 hour or so.

Please guild / advice

cheers

Just noticed when running Prime 95 that my CPU is only running at 4.2GHz and not 4.7GHz...... Back to manual settings now

I have seen way too many "answers" in the internet, specially in different Overclockers forums, on what exactly Adaptive, Adaptive + offset does, and how to use it correctly, I gave up looking.

I have my 4.9 set to Adaptive with 1.45 max voltage, and noticed that it only uses the voltage needed(and when using balanced power option, the multiplier changes around too) and have seen my 49x use the 1.45v, but also as little as 1.20v(for a very short moment anyhow, no way I could boot using 1.20v).

Some have said Adaptive is actually for Auto voltage mode, adding a voltage number automatically changes it to Override + offset, which is what it looks like to me

By the way, I tried setting my OC down, getting ready for the summer, when the ambient temperatures will be higher, but it seems my system likes my 4.9 and actually runs cooler with it, than 45x @ 1.20 or 46x & 47x @ 1.35, go figure.

If it likes it, I might have to seriously think of getting an AIO for the CPU, even though it idles at high 20's/low 30's, and goes up to the mid to high 60's under benchmarking load, maybe a single core might spike to 80-82 for a split second(remember under stress test's I down clock so it will be cooler any how).

Cliff S said:

I have seen way too many "answers" in the internet, specially in different Overclockers forums, on what exactly Adaptive, Adaptive + offset does, and how to use it correctly, I gave up looking.

I have my 4.9 set to Adaptive with 1.45 max voltage, and noticed that it only uses the voltage needed(and when using balanced power option, the multiplier changes around too) and have seen my 49x use the 1.45v, but also as little as 1.20v(for a very short moment anyhow, no way I could boot using 1.20v).

Some have said Adaptive is actually for Auto voltage mode, adding a voltage number automatically changes it to Override + offset, which is what it looks like to me

By the way, I tried setting my OC down, getting ready for the summer, when the ambient temperatures will be higher, but it seems my system likes my 4.9 and actually runs cooler with it, than 45x @ 1.20 or 46x & 47x @ 1.35, go figure.

If it likes it, I might have to seriously think of getting an AIO for the CPU, even though it idles at high 20's/low 30's, and goes up to the mid to high 60's under benchmarking load, maybe a single core might spike to 80-82 for a split second(remember under stress test's I down clock so it will be cooler any how).

Thanks Cliff S for your reply.

I need 1.46v to run at 4.9GHz stable but the temps shoot up to 96+/- but at 1.5v+ I can run 5.0GHz at the same temps lol

Delid it and get a good AIO water cooler

With 4.9 @ 1.45, power option set to High Performance/core parking off, running ONLY the CPU stress test in AIDA64 Engineer8latest version) I get only 70-71°C at 25°C ambient(room temperature).
Note if I stress with just the CPU option in AIDA64 it does not down clock and stay at about the 49GHZ point. It's when I stress FPU(floating point units), and/or cache and/or RAM too, that the down clocking begins, as my VRMs warm up

Hell, Not just a de-lid and AIO, I'll need a better MOBO If I want to seriously OC, but I don't "need" to. My current OC runs my virtual machines very well indeed now. In fact they are faster with their eight virtual processors(core threads) and 8GB RAM then my HOST, as they have less overhead of their own, and much less software at their boot time.

In case you haven't seen it, here is a video I posted back in January, when I was still running at 4.925GHz:

Cliff S said:

With 4.9 @ 1.45, power option set to High Performance/core parking off, running ONLY the CPU stress test in AIDA64 Engineer8latest version) I get only 70-71°C at 25°C ambient(room temperature).
Note if I stress with just the CPU option in AIDA64 it does not down clock and stay at about the 49GHZ point. It's when I stress FPU(floating point units), and/or cache and/or RAM too, that the down clocking begins, as my VRMs warm up

Hell, Not just a de-lid and AIO, I'll need a better MOBO If I want to seriously OC, but I don't "need" to. My current OC runs my virtual machines very well indeed now. In fact they are faster with their eight virtual processors(core threads) and 8GB RAM then my HOST, as they have less overhead of their own, and much less software at their boot time.

In case you haven't seen it, here is a video I posted back in January, when I was still running at 4.925GHz:

Just watched, May have a go at running a VM on my system

worf105 said:

Just watched, May have a go at running a VM on my system

It's a good idea from a security point of view, as there is malware out there that will not infect VM's or sandboxed systems, because it makes no sense, and because you can send the infected VM to anti malware specialists for further forensics.

New approach is to find the highest OC at 1.35volts (manual) and test with Cinebench and RealBanch as Prime 95 @ IBT are unrealistic for what i've been reading so far. Once stable overclock is found with acceptable temps with my fans all on low (very quiet system) I will change to adaptive mode and retest with the same again. If stable will keep.

worf105 said:

New approach is to find the highest OC at 1.35volts (manual) and test with Cinebench and RealBanch as Prime 95 @ IBT are unrealistic for what i've been reading so far. Once stable overclock is found with acceptable temps with my fans all on low (very quiet system) I will change to adaptive mode and retest with the same again. If stable will keep.

I can not use Realbench on my system, as it screws it royally up. It messes up all three internal clocks(HPET, chipset system timer and so on) and puts them so out of whack, that Intel(R) Integrated Clock Controller Service(Intel(R) ICCS) runs at 100% ALL the time and I need to reimage my system. As far as my system is concerned, Realbench is Benchmalware