BCLK OC i5-6400 @ 4.5Ghz, 4K gaming rig in progress.

[VirtualLarry]

Well, I've been tinkering.

I had previously built a G3900 (Yeah, Celeron) dual-core gaming rig, BCLK OCed to 4.3+Ghz, with an R7 250X 2GB DDR3 card. Not slow, but not all that impressive a gaming rig compared to other people's fire-breathing i7-6700K @ 4.7Ghz and GTX1060/1070/1080.

So, anyways, I got the i5-6400 in the mail today, and put it in. I didn't even clear CMOS (well, not right away) when I put it in. It booted OK, at around 4.1Ghz using previous BLCK settings.

I did eventually clock it too far, and it started boot-looping (uh-oh), so I had to clear CMOS to get it back in order.

So, right now, I've got it at 4.5Ghz, 167.0 BCLK, 1.400V vcore, 1.300V vDRAM. (Unsure at this point if that's also the uncore / cache voltage.)

4x4GB Geil EVO POTENZA DDR4-2400, at around 2400, 16-16-16-38-2T.

Windows 10 64-bit. Sapphire Radeon RX 460 4GB video card.

Oh yeah, mobo in this case is an ASRock B150 K4/Hyper, running the non-Killer NIC drivers.

I had an issue with the video card a few times booting, the BIOS screen was all funky. I hope that it's not defective somehow, and it was just an artifact of the BCLK OCing. Not sure.

I've got a 4K UHD HDR TV coming .

Temps aren't great, OCCT once I boosted the clock to 4.5Ghz, and the vcore to 1.400V, hits 95C and quits on me a few minutes in. Though, no BSODs or appcrashes, so that's good.

If I lower the vcore to make things a little bit cooler, though, it seems like it doesn't want to restart properly, when restarting Windows.

 

[whm1974]

And the point of this is?/

 

[VirtualLarry]

I dunno, probably should have been posted in the CPU forum, sorry.

 

[Burpo]

Drop it back to 157 bclk & lower volts. Not gonna feel any difference & will definitely lower temps.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, I thought about that, and I probably will, if I do DC on this box. But considering OCCT is pretty stressful, I don't think that my gaming will quite reach those temps, although, at 4K@60, it might. I don't know. I'll have to think about it.

RS was talking about 1.4V+ being "safe" for Skylake, but then again, I have a feeling that most of those higher-voltage OCs are on water, at least an AIO water-cooler. So, I share your concern.

I guess I just love to see CPU-Z show 4.5Ghz.

Just web browsing, though, I don't really get much above 50-55C.

 

[mnewsham]

Just web browsing, though, I don't really get much above 50-55C

Just web browsing I never get above ~40-45C. And I have two more cores!

 

[whm1974]

If I was going to overclock I'll get a K CPU and a Z170 board. That way I'll have full control over overclocking including the memory.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Just web browsing I never get above ~40-45C. And I have two more cores!

Do you have power-saving features like SpeedStep and C-states enabled? I am running at a fixed 4.51Ghz clock, and a fixed 1.410V vcore. Not much power-saving to speak of. (Since the PCU gets disabled as part of BCLK OC.)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Drop it back to 157 bclk & lower volts. Not gonna feel any difference & will definitely lower temps.

I actually dropped it down to 150 BCLK (4.05Ghz) and 1.300V vcore, 1.200V vDIMM, DDR4-2400 16-16-16-38-2T (stock RAM speeds and timings), for doing Distributed Computing work. Still, even at that low a clock and voltage, it hits 90C.

Edit: It hit 95C even at those settings. I rebooted, and I'm trying 150.0 BCLK, and 1.280V vcore. It's hitting 92C thus far.

 

[Torn Mind]

It will die suddenly for no reason.

That will then prompt Larry to buy a "ZEN" box and we members of Anandtech will benefit from the content he submits to this forum.

 

[whm1974]

That will then prompt Larry to buy a "ZEN" box and we members of Anandtech will benefit from the content he submits to this forum.

After he buys an 8 core Zen, he'll be kicking himself over all the money he wasted on buying low end hardware. Why eat a bologna sandwich when you can have a nice steak dinner with all the fixings?

 

[Shmee]

What CPU cooler are you using? It shouldn't get that hot...

 

[VirtualLarry]

What CPU cooler are you using? It shouldn't get that hot...

Copper-cored 115x stock Intel heatsink.

 

[Shmee]

Copper-cored 115x stock Intel heatsink.

Ah, ok that explains the high temps. You couldn't spend 25-30 bucks on something like a Hyper 212?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I bought some Zalman CNPS5x 92mm heatpipe coolers, but they are incompatible with the B150 K4/Hyper mobos! The mobo's chokes stick out under the heatsinks, and kind of impede the heatsink mounting area. A stock cooler fits fine, but the mounting method of the CNPS5x was a no-go.

Edit: I gave it another try, and I WAS able to get it to work, using the off-axis mounting prongs on the ring base. Temps are 84-85C @ 4.51Ghz, 167.0 BCLK, 1.410V vcore, 1.300V vDIMM.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I thought there would be some comparison benchmarks in this thread.

 

[whm1974]

Ah, ok that explains the high temps. You couldn't spend 25-30 bucks on something like a Hyper 212?

We all know that he is cheap.

I thought there would be some comparison benchmarks in this thread.

Indeed, where are the benchmarks Larry?

 

[MadOver]

Get urself the Hyper from CM, its really good. The stock cooler is crap, its barely ok to run stock clocks

 

[VirtualLarry]

Indeed, where are the benchmarks Larry?

Ok, what benchmarks do you want to see, and what do you want to see compared? Stock (2.7) / 4.05 / 4.51 Ghz?

Free benchmarks, and the only game I own is Skyrim vanilla, no mods.

 

[whm1974]

Ok, what benchmarks do you want to see, and what do you want to see compared? Stock (2.7) / 4.05 / 4.51 Ghz?

Free benchmarks, and the only game I own is Skyrim vanilla, no mods.

Only one game and an old one at that? No wonder you only build low end crippled systems.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Only one game and an old one at that? No wonder you only build low end crippled systems.

I've never claimed to be a PCMR / High-end gamer. And by crippled systems, are you referring to the inexpensive Facebook-type boxes I build for clients, or my own personal rigs with the overclocked Skylake dual-cores? I mostly web-browse, and as I showed in the other thread in CPUs & Overclocking, I wasn't missing out on anything, by buying dual-cores for Waterfox rather than quad-cores.

Edit: And I take offense at the "crippled" comment. Even the PCs I'm donating (for free, even!), I'm putting an SSD in. I don't build "crippled" PCs.

 

[jcwagers]

I'm going to take a stab at this but as I'm sure you're aware Larry, this is a topic that has been beaten to death. I would not have put it in such a way as the person that used the "crippled" comment. What he and the others have tried to say over and over is that you've spent so much money on lower end hardware that is "good enough" for now, that you could have built a system that will be "good enough" for several years without having to tinker or mess with it.

If that's not your style, that's cool. But I can see their point in building higher end and having it stay relevant to both normal tasks and gaming far longer than a cheaper built system. Ultimately, it's your decision but I do see that you are coming along some as you did buy a 6400 to overclock on a gaming rig. That may not be considered progress to others but it sounds to me like you are starting to listen to them a bit.

I'm not here to jump your case or insult you. I think it's cool that you try to help people and fix inexpensive systems for them. I personally suspect that you get taken advantage of a lot, but that's between them and you and frankly none of my business. I do hope that one of these days you will try a higher end system, just to see what it's like. However, if you don't, that's ok. Everybody's computing experience is different and if you're ok with what you have, that's ok too.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm going to take a stab at this but as I'm sure you're aware Larry, this is a topic that has been beaten to death. I would not have put it in such a way as the person that used the "crippled" comment. What he and the others have tried to say over and over is that you've spent so much money on lower end hardware that is "good enough" for now, that you could have built a system that will be "good enough" for several years without having to tinker or mess with it.

I admit, I don't like to pay over $100 for a CPU, and I tend to take a slightly minimalist approach to building systems, rather than "overkill". For example, some people here seem to think that you need to use a 6700K for a Facebook box. Nonsense. Sure, maybe it's more future-proof (Facebook 2020? LOL), but for today, it's an unnecessary expense.

And as I finally showed, objectively through a PeaceKeeper benchmark, these last year or two that I've been running overclocked dual-cores for Waterfox / Firefox, I haven't been missing out on any performance, unlike what everyone was telling me to buy a quad for web-browsing.

When I bought a quad Skylake, I thought that it was faster, subjectively, but that was deceiving, it really wasn't, when benchmarked.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ster-with-a-quad-core-caveats-inside.2492523/

 

[Torn Mind]

SSDs improve interfacing responsiveness. They don't do crap for actual page rendering. When the browser is opened, the SSD's benefits don't come into play until many tabs are opened and you start hitting the pagefile.

 

[VirtualLarry]

SSDs improve interfacing responsiveness. They don't do crap for actual page rendering. When the browser is opened, the SSD's benefits don't come into play until many tabs are opened and you start hitting the pagefile.

Not true at all. All browsers cache page elements to disk. Faster, more responsive disk, means faster, more responsive downloads and rendering.