Are there sweet spots for overclocking 5960x?

doublehamm wrote on 2/8/2016, 11:55 AM

Hello, I just did a complete overhaul on my PC this weekend. I have tried doing some minor overclocking to get the most out of my system. My mind is boggled with my results, as it seems the faster my system is, the slower my renders.

I have ASUS Rampage V Extreme and i7 5960x. I am in no way a great or even fair overclocker. First I tried the "EZ Tuning Wizard" just to get somewhere while I tried to educate myself on better overclocking. It simply asked what kind of system it was intended for - So I picked Gaming/Media Creation. Then it asked what kind of cooling - So i picked water (H100i). It gave me some quick results stating CPU performance would increase 32%, and DRAM performance up 14%. Alrighty, all looked good, I restarted my PC, and Windows loaded faster than I could complain.

HWiNFO64 showed I had CPU clock at 3.978Ghz, and RAM running around 2400. ASUS AI suite showed nearly identical results.

With this setup, I did a test render of a project in Vegas Pro 12. The clip was 15 seconds long with heavy noise reduction and other effects on it. Total render time was 03:41. Max Temp was 60C

Not bad for a quick start I thought, but I wanted to get my RAM up to the 3000 it is rated at and increase the CPU a bit. Here is a SS collage of what I felt was important to share from these settings:

I Semi followed the guide here: http://rog.asus.com/365052014/overclocking/rog-overclocking-guide-core-for-5960x-5930k-5820k/ to try and see where I could get. After some trial and error I was able to get my CPU to 4.375Ghz, and DRAM to 3000.

I was ecstatic when I finally saw windows load, and happy when I opened HWiNFO64, and AI Suite to check and make sure what I set was what was what was going on. All looked good I thought so I opened up the same project from Vegas and did a test render of the same 15 second clip. It looked quite a bit slower than what it was doing the previous time but I was hoping it was just my mind playing tricks. Nope!

When all was said and done, the render was 30 seconds longer than when my PC was showing slower settings (4:11 vs 3:41). Max temp was also 71C, 11C higher than the previous settings.

Here is a SS collage of the higher OC settings:

Does anyone know WHY I am getting worse results with higher OC, not to mention burning more watts and adding more heat?

I took some crappy cell phone pictures of what was going on during MY tweaking in the bios.

Thanks in advance for any help!

I am currently back in the "dummy OC mode" and things are as fast as they were the first time I used these settings.

Comments

OldSmoke wrote on 2/8/2016, 12:26 PM

A higher RAM clock then the memory controller is designed for can result in lower overall system speed especially if it's Non-ECC ram. The 5960X is rated for 2133 and I personally wouldn't go higher. Since you have ram that is spec quite a bit higher, ask the ram manufacturer if you can get better timmings for the ram when running at 2133. You are better off getting a higher CPU clock speed, 5960X should easily run at 4.3GHz. Also dont increase the FSB, it puts a lot of stress on components not designed for it.

doublehamm wrote on 2/8/2016, 1:36 PM

OldSmoke old Pal, good to see you! You helped me tremendously last summer with overclocking my old system. I promise this time around to try and not to be so handicapped.

I reset everything to default and started again. I put 1.3V on the core (like the article said) then now have it up to 4.5GHz by putting in values "per core"and running smooth. I didn't touch anything that had to do with memory. Will see how the day plays out. I got the render time down to 3:35 (4.3 was 3:37, and 4.4 was identical to 4.5 so I don't see it going much higher but I may try if I feel ambitious). Max temp 70 with this configuration.

What value did I have before that increased FSB? I don't see that term anywhere in the bios.

I may be able to just return the RAM and get something better suited if that will help. As far as total speed goes, I have a feeling my old CPU was rendering about the same speed (3930k at 4.4GHz) , which is a bit disappointing (I don't have it in another case yet to test it) But at least now eventually I should have a PC that can render while I still edit on the other.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/8/2016, 2:53 PM

I am glad I could help the last time.

Whats the brand of the RAM modules? GSkill was very helpful with my setup. I am surprised that the render times aren't much better then your 3930K. I m about to up my 3930K system too but in that case, I am thinking twice. How about 4K playback?

doublehamm wrote on 2/8/2016, 3:19 PM

Corsair Vengeance LPX. CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 64GB total (4 kits)

I will do a full out test once I move everything from my old PC to my wife's computer case. All I am saying is it "FEELS" about the same. But that was when first watching. I think it renders video with neatvid applied a bit faster, but when it came to something I had magic bullet looks effect on, I think it was a bit slower. Again, no official test. I don't use MB a whole lot, but use Neatvid a lot and that does seem faster. I will try some tests with basic CC effects on them as well once I get it up and running.

The clip in question had 2x Color Correction, Color Curves, Color Match and Neatvid applied. It was a 15 second flat clip for testing. Best render so far 3:35.

I never really had a problem playing 4K video on the last PC with regular CC effects added. I have not edited yet with this PC, just some testing. Multi camera I think will always be a b**** with 4K unless you are using proxies.

For the Record, the H110i GTX I purchased in July died in December. I put on my old H60 and cleaned it out with an air compressor, and was able to keep it in the low 60s with that running the 3930 at 4.5GHz. I am hoping it was just a fluke because I picked up a 100i GTX for this build.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/8/2016, 4:16 PM

I gave up on closed loop systems like the H100. Mine didnt die but started to make pump noises and it's just not as effective as a custom loop.

My 3930K system with the resently aquired R9 Fury X is doing ok with 4K footage, even with effects applied. Neatvideo is very compute intensive, even on 1080 60p footage I get at best 15-20fps. Another one is the latest Mercalli plugin, it is slower with GPU then without.

I was hoping that the 5960X would be a great improvment but it seems not and I may opt for the lower cost 5930K.

musicvid10 wrote on 2/8/2016, 5:37 PM

I wouldn't overclock a video encoding machine; they get plenty warm already.
Just saying.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/8/2016, 5:43 PM

I wouldn't overclock a video encoding machine; they get plenty warm already.

It's only for people with experience. I have and had mine overclocked for the past 5 years and none of my systems has died or showed any other signs of bad behavior.
Even gamers overclock their systems to a stable point and they run them much harder then any one of use will ever do, even during rendering.

doublehamm wrote on 2/8/2016, 7:36 PM

"I wouldn't overclock a video encoding machine; they get plenty warm already."

Pffffft. Well, now in our 12x13 office we have a i7 3930k PC AND i7 5960x PC both running at 4.5GHz. There will also be times when both will be doing heavy rendering.

These pale in comparison to my bitcoin setups I had a couple years ago as far as heat goes.

I also used to play World of Warcraft back in its glory days while I was rendering my weddings on the same PC. It ran fine, and was not even overclocked.

As far as my RAM goes I have not found anything yet on timings.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/8/2016, 7:50 PM

Send an email to Corsair with your motherboard model and ram model. Let them know that you intend to run it 2133 and would like know if you can have tighter timings for it. I did that with my GSkill ram and had an answer within a week with much lower and faster timing. I run 2133 ram @1600 and reduced timing wyich made the system faster then running the ram at its max; the 3930K memory controller is engineered for 1600MHz max.

musicvid10 wrote on 2/8/2016, 8:30 PM

A byproduct of overclocking is a greater number of errored bits, which get worse over time, eventually slowing down the CPU.
.
Errored bits affect video encoding more than games, where they get fudged over by the playback engine or overlooked.

That part of the technology has not changed much since I first investigated, I suspect.

doublehamm wrote on 2/8/2016, 8:41 PM

Hmmmm.... With the "EZ" overclock setting I mentioned I was able to do a full 8+ hours rendering a file with no issue overnight last night.

I have now had 3 renders in a row where Vegas has crashed on me anywhere between 20-40 minutes into the render. The rest of my PC is working like a dream, and for the most part it all looks like it is going well. I have never had Vegas crash on me during a render before - EVER. I have been using since Vegas Pro 9

First render was at 4.5Ghz, 2nd at 4.4GHz, 3rd now at 4.3GHz.

Is there something else I can tweak? Is my voltage okay? I just copied that from the article I read and have no idea why I did it, just because I was "told to". I am going to keep it where it is at and go down to 4.2GHz now, but now nearing the point where it is not really overclocking a whole lot.

Again, everything else has been running smooth as silk on this PC all day once I got the correct (or not so correct now) settings up.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/9/2016, 7:01 AM

That part of the technology has not changed much since I first investigated, I suspect.

No, that part hasnt changed but it happens bejond the point overclockers operate their systems. The K series of Intel CPUs has quite a bit of headroom to play with and that is all overclockers do.

But it seems that the latest chips, after sandybridge, arent as far overclockable as one would hope. I still feel a 5930K will be running stable at 4.5 or 4.6GHz and be on par with a 5960X runing at 4.2-4.3GHz when it comes to Vegas.

musicvid10 wrote on 2/9/2016, 7:13 AM

Yeah, but encoding slams the CPU for days at a time.
Think it's OK to drive my car for days on end at 6500-7000 rpm, in the "headroom"?
No, but sustained 4000-4500 is reasonably safe on the engine, and still way too fast!

Hobbyists love appearances: price, speed, and bragging rights.
Bigger, harder, faster.
Producers love predictable outcomes.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/9/2016, 8:34 AM

The headroom on a 5960X is close to 5GHz cooled with liquid nitrogen. The 4.2-4.3GHz when watercooled are well below that. I use my system daily between 10-14hours and it's still running. As a professional, I keep my systems about 4-5 years and the CPU will last beyond that even with overclocking. Again, the K series is meant to be pushed and it comes from a higher bin then the non K; and you pay extra for that too.
Also keep in mind that the CPU doesn't always run at 100% load and will reduce its clock automatically when ever possible thanks to Intel's Speed Step Technology.
As for your car, if the max your can run at is 10000 then yes, it will be fine to accelerate up to 7000 when ever needed, just improve your cooling and give it better oil.

Wolfgang S. wrote on 2/9/2016, 9:00 AM

My 5960X runs very stable at 4.2 Ghz. And this clocking is not used all the time, but only if applications require the higher clocking. For me that is fine and I am not afraid to use the system at all.

musicvid10 wrote on 2/9/2016, 9:05 AM

"... when ever needed."

Says it all. One man's excess is another man's need.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/9/2016, 9:38 AM

Says it all. One man's excess is another man's need.

One mans misunderstanding is another mans gain.

riredale wrote on 2/9/2016, 9:42 AM

I had a new motorcycle years ago when I was living in LA. After a year or so, I installed a turbocharger system (my bike was the guinea pig for the kit for that model). What a pain in the neck to get everything right--plug temperature, mixture settings, and so on. But after that it ran great and was quite remarkable in its acceleration. Oh, and the engine needed an overhaul after a few more years. But man, it was fun.

My PC is overclocked also. Intel makes a lot of a particular processor chip, then tests each one at different clock speeds. The ones that can take a high speed go into one bin, the ones that can't go into another and are sold at a lower price point. Same chips, just that some can run faster than others. All I did was to goose my chip until it wouldn't run any more. It doesn't "break," it just won't run until I back off a bit. And it also puts out far more heat, so a better sink is needed, but with that better sink the temps are back in the nominal range.

As for the OP issue, I have no experience with his system. Could the CPU be throttling itself back somehow? Or could there be a mismatch between CPU speed and, say, bus speeds? My own experience teaches me to keep things simple; in fact I might be inclined to not let the motherboard decide to mess with multiple settings simultaneously, and rather just tweak one thing at a time, starting with CPU clock. I've never fooled around with memory settings because I've read it's complicated with little improvement to show for it.

NickHope wrote on 2/9/2016, 10:50 PM

doublehamm, I have an i7 5960x with an ASUS X99 Deluxe motherboard. As I don't really know what I'm doing with regard to overclocking, I use ASUS' own 5-Way Optimization routine in their Dual Intelligent Processors 5 program. My PC spec and my initial experiences with overclocking can be seen in this thread. The overclocking routine doesn't fully work as it should because of the frequency of my RAM, as explained in that thread. But I still trust the results more than if I was doing it manually.

Now with more mature BIOS and chipset drivers etc., and the update to Windows 10, it's not giving me as much overclocking as it used to. But it's absolutely rock solid stable and everything CPU-related just seems to fly. Personally I'm very happy to take the extra 33% CPU speed thank you very much. Feels a bit of a waste not to IMHO.

You could always use that routine, to see what it gives you, then turn all that off and copy the same settings manually.

doublehamm wrote on 2/9/2016, 11:53 PM

I tried that with minimal increases, and my PC won't boot. I take that back. When I try to go to 4.2 in the 5 way, it starts loading, and before Windows fully loads it BSODs me with "WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR". Any other settings I try It wont even boot, and I have to turn the PC off and on a couple times before I even get the option for the bios menu.

For now I am just dealing with the "EZ Tuning" I got in the bios which raised my CPU 34%. Supposedly raised my RAM 14%, but that's assuming it is 2133 going to 2400. My RAM is rated 3000, but that's a whole other story and I am not holding my breath.

I am happy I am rendering faster than my old PC, but my OCD eventually wants me to push this to where it should be able to get.

NickHope wrote on 2/10/2016, 2:44 AM

5-way Optimization is supposed to cycle through until your computer crashes, including potential BSOD, then wind the overclocking back a cycle or two from the setting that made it crash.

As explained in that other thread, I have to break into the BIOS on each cycle of the 5-way Optmization to change a couple of settings, and I think that is partly or completely because I have 2400MHz RAM rather than the officially-supported 2133MHz.

Not saying there aren't equally good or better ways to do it. Just saying what worked for me.

doublehamm wrote on 2/10/2016, 8:07 AM

Hmmmm... I just watched 7 BSODs in a row with the "WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR" before freaking out and going back into the bios. A couple of times I actually made it into Windows for a bit. The last time almost 10 minutes before the BSOD of same error popped up.

How many times am I supposed to let it do this?

I think I was very close when I simply added 1.3V to the core, and set the cores (by core) to 45 for 4.5 GHz. I did a lot of things on the PC, pushing it and the PC itself worked fine for 15 hours straight. Then I started to do some rendering and Vegas was crashing 20-40 minutes in for about half a dozen attempts. Windows was still running everything else like a champ. I gradually reduced that to 4.1 GHz with the same results before giving up.

If there is just something I could do to fix that little hiccup with Vegas, all would be great in the world.

musicvid10 wrote on 2/10/2016, 8:26 AM

" Then I started to do some rendering and Vegas was crashing 20-40 minutes in for about half a dozen attempts."
That certainly is a mystery, but Vegas encoding still works fine on a stable system, right?

doublehamm wrote on 2/10/2016, 8:40 AM

Yes. When I set to 3.978GHz from the EZ Tuning in the Bios, I have rendered for 8+ hour projects with no issue. Tempted to try VP 13, although I have been trying to hold out to see IF there will ever be a 14, or if Catalyst is taking over. I wish Sony would speak up on the matter. They would get my money sooner if they just said VP 13 was the last.