Gumbi wrote: » Haswell is so funky. Having messed around with the settings for quite some time, I managed to get 4.5ghz stable, HT off, with a relatively low 1.25v. What voltages are others needing to maintain similar overclocks? Does anyone else have a Gigabyte board? Is the BIOS update necessary to implement adaptive voltages? When I set a manual voltage, it doesn't down volt as it should during normal/idle usage. Anyways, must sleep!
game4it70 wrote: » I need just over 1.25v for 4.5ghz and i think its just about average and nothing special Have you enabled C3 power state and EIST? Far as i know that should drop volts and multi when idle. I dont have a giga board to test though.
Gumbi wrote: » I'll check. I'm pretty sure I do. My friend has a decent chip, stable at 4.6ghz with 1.24v
game4it70 wrote: » Lucky fecker :P I think if that doesn't work you have to use offset.
Gumbi wrote: » Offset isn't as stable as manual/adaptive as it is based off a predefined curve AFAIK. It should work though, no reason it shouldn't :P
game4it70 wrote: » Maybe try LLC when using offset to bring the volts up to where you know is stable.
Gumbi wrote: » I'll mess around with it after work. I want to get 4.7ghz without hyperthreading on. Sc2 loves that single threaded performance.
game4it70 wrote: » How much extra vcore do you need from 4.5 to 4.6? It should give you a decent indication of how much you will need at 4.7. What are you using to stress test?
Gumbi wrote: » Quite a bit. Not the most optimised 4.6, but I needed 1.32v for it.
game4it70 wrote: » I dont think you will make 4.7 on air and not delidded tbh. The chip you have is better than mine but i'd guess you would still need around 1.4v (i'm almost stable @1.43v) which will be to hot imo.
Gumbi wrote: » Perhaps, not while gaming though And no HT cuts off ~10 degrees. If I can do it under 1.4 (1.38 or something) I might just stick with it. The IMC on Haswell is far superior to the one on IB and people are managing to clock their RAM a lot higher on it. I'm goin to try my hand at overclocking my RAM too
Sarz91 wrote: » Just as a matter of interest, is anyone getting a next gen console? Or are you guys just saving and upgrading your pc's?
raymix wrote: » Nah, Consoles are way too limited. I see them as little, expensive and weak casual gaming devices. You can get spoiled by PC so easy once you see good framerates and high resolution. Got PS3 since it's release, plugged in while bored on my crappy 480p TV, with 30 frames and no AA my eyes started bleeding. But I like to use it as an expensive Netflix machine :rolleyes:
FlyingIrishMan wrote: » A PS3/PS4 is worth getting for Sony exclusives alone. Missing out on too many great games without one, graphics aren't everything.
SickBoy wrote: » Then get a Wii :P
Sarz91 wrote: » I enjoy PC gaming a lot more but having mates online does sound good.
Although both upcoming game consoles Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are based on AMD hardware, only PlayStation 4 incorporates hUMA [Heterogeneous Uniform Memory Access] for supporting a shared memory space. This was explained by AMD's Senior Product Marketing Manager Marc Diana to c't [big German IT magazine] at gamescom. This should put the 3D-performance of PlayStation 4 much farther ahead of Xbox One than many have expected so far. AMD sees hUMA as a key element for drastic performance improvements in combined processors. AMD's upcoming Kaveri desktop processors support hUMA as well. Behind the scenes, c't could hear from developers that the 3D-performance of PlayStation 4 is very far ahead of Xbox One.