Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Damn I need a Micro Center.4 hours from Houston and 3 from Dallas.
![]()
underwhelmed...
2016: Haswell-E Overclocked Benchmarks - Core i7-5960X 5930K 5820K Overclocking & Performance
2011: 3D Rendering - Intel Core i7-3960X - Sandy Bridge E Processor Review
Unless I am missing something; Seems some of the numbers (wPrime & Hiper Pi) are SLOWER than they were 5 years ago?!
I am contemplating going down the road of X99 and maybe with a 5960X when prices come down but in general how is the stability of the platform especially with a Rampage V Extreme and how well does DDR4 memory work in comparison to DDR3? I don't have any experience with DDR4 or X99 so I am curious to see whether perhaps a year or two when more X99 motherboards and CPUs how much they will be.
Also reading the newegg Rampage V Extreme reviews is the Rampage V Extreme suffering quality control or production issues? It seems like there is 33% of the total reviews with one egg and only 47% with 4-5 eggs (USB3.1 version).
I am contemplating this as well and waiting for 5960X's to listed second-hand before I really look at it. If I could get a 5960X and a Rampage V Extreme and even DDR4 memory second hand for a bargain or a good price I wouldn't pass it up. I would of course have to get new memory as well so I am not sure how much DDR4 would set me back in Canadian dollars.
I am happy to read that X99 is very stable as a platform but what happens after Broadwell-E? Are we looking at another LGA-2011/LGA2011-3 socket or will LGA2011-3 be used for even after Broadwell-E. I don't generally upgrade often (not as much as I used to many years ago) so I like to get a good use out of my hardware before I have to.
Just bought myself new parts for a 5820k rig. Makes me laugh reading you kids and being disappointed with just a 1Ghz OC on a multi core CPU. I remember the days when a 16-33Mhz OC with a dip switch on a single core was considered a huge bonus.
Hell.... Dipswitches were a luxury. Using jumpers(like those for shorting out the bios), or having to solder in different clock crystals, or solder in jumper wires after scraping on the protective "paint" over the tin traces, hacking the BIOS using 3rd party apps, etc, etc.
Kids these days don't know how good they have it when it comes to overclocking.
I'm a bit stunned by the cost increase over the 5960 to the 6950. Glad I'm happy with my 5820.
Perhaps Intel understands this and is pricing it this way to take advantage before the release of Zen in October?
I don't think Intel is thinking when they priced the 6950X. That comes as a lack of competition and an attempt to introduce a Xeon part (if it is indeed Xeon based with cores disabled like the SB-E 3960X) for a prosumer segment with little competition. I agree that $1750 is just too high to expect even enthusiasts to commit to such a price. $1000 was already the uppermost limit for a flagship processor and they are asking for almost double the price (~75% more approximately). When Zen is available it should hopefully challenge Broadwell-E and force Intel to re-evaluate it's position and pricing on it's X99 offerings. Perhaps Intel understands this and is pricing it this way to take advantage before the release of Zen in October?
Tried 1.32 and 1.92 input and real bench failed at 4.7. Does it matter to do 125 bclk and 38 multi instead of the 100 and 47 that I used?
I've been adjusting the input as vcore. Is the vcore perhaps CPU I/O in the bios?
I've tested allot of X99 boards from just about every company that made one. You usually need 1.9v for the CPU input voltage. Although, I have seen a range of 1.85 to 1.95 work depending on the board. That said, this is somewhat counterintuitive as the default settings on boards range from 1.75v to 1.91v. later BIOS releases tended to range between 1.85v to 1.90v, with many just going for 1.90v at a certain point in their BIOS revisions.
ASUS often did 1.90v on later BIOS releases, but ASRock's X99-WS defaults to 1.75v, which isn't sufficient for stability on any CPU I've seen on the platform.
However, I've seen it take 1.95v to stabilize some systems.
CPU I/O can usually be set at 1.05v without issue but some boards and CPUs need 1.1v when overclocking. It's safe to go to 1.1v if you aren't sure. You can always back it down later.
And yes, you should run a manual override and set your voltage. Once you dial that in you can figure out an offset.
I can't speak to most of these chips, but all the 5960's I've tested used between 1.28v and 1.35v to hit 4.4GHz to 4.5GHz.
I've seen boards that wouldn't run stable at stock CPU settings without taking the CPU input voltage to 1.9v. As I said, there is a reason why a lot of manufacturers started making that the default voltage in later BIOS releases.I should have mentioned that the ideal input voltage is going to depend on how aggressive the OC is (and what LLC is chosen). He was trying for 4GHz, so it really doesn't matter much at that level, but lower is actually better for stability, something like 1.85 would be good for 4.0.
I have 3 profiles saved on my board.
My 24/7 settings,
4.2GHz @ 1.17, VCCIN 1.89, LLC 3. That's Prime 95 stable, any version, any settings, and it can be 90+ degrees in my room and it'll stay under 80C no matter what.
Then I have second profile if I really need the speed for a newer game or something, but it's only, how shall I say, "new-school stable." In other words, it can do just about anything, but it can't handle AVX Prime or newer versions of OCCT. That one is:
4.5GHz @ 1.26, VCCIN 1.93, LLC 5.
Then if I want to run a benchmark, I have:
4.7GHz @ 1.35, VCCIN 1.95, LLC 7
I've seen boards that wouldn't run stable at stock CPU settings without taking the CPU input voltage to 1.9v. As I said, there is a reason why a lot of manufacturers started making that the default voltage in later BIOS releases.
I've seen boards that wouldn't run stable at stock CPU settings without taking the CPU input voltage to 1.9v. As I said, there is a reason why a lot of manufacturers started making that the default voltage in later BIOS releases.
Oh man, I love old X99 threads!I've tested allot of X99 boards from just about every company that made one. You usually need 1.9v for the CPU input voltage. Although, I have seen a range of 1.85 to 1.95 work depending on the board. That said, this is somewhat counterintuitive as the default settings on boards range from 1.75v to 1.91v. later BIOS releases tended to range between 1.85v to 1.90v, with many just going for 1.90v at a certain point in their BIOS revisions.
ASUS often did 1.90v on later BIOS releases, but ASRock's X99-WS defaults to 1.75v, which isn't sufficient for stability on any CPU I've seen on the platform.
However, I've seen it take 1.95v to stabilize some systems.
CPU I/O can usually be set at 1.05v without issue but some boards and CPUs need 1.1v when overclocking. It's safe to go to 1.1v if you aren't sure. You can always back it down later.
And yes, you should run a manual override and set your voltage. Once you dial that in you can figure out an offset.
I can't speak to most of these chips, but all the 5960's I've tested used between 1.28v and 1.35v to hit 4.4GHz to 4.5GHz.
Hopefully last issue.
What did ya'll do to fix the "ITBM driver. . ." error on boot?
If I disable Intel Turbo boost in the BIOS the multiplier resets to AUTO. Uninstalling the software is a useless endeavor as that sucker comes right back like a bad case of the clap.
It is quite unusual to be able to run that low a CPU input voltage. We tested a few different CPU's at HardOCP which all needed more input voltage than that. Not only that, but we had several conversations with ASUS and MSI regarding X99 and they all stated that we would need to increase the CPU input voltage over whatever the defaults were any time we had issues with a board. Only one motherboard ever had a default CPU input voltage as low as 1.78v and that was the ASRock X99-WS. That board wouldn't run stable at stock settings with less than 1.9v if I recall correctly.Oh man, I love old X99 threads!
FWIW, I still have a 5960X running on an AsRock OC Formula as my media PC and I run that CPU at 4.63Ghz w/ 125Mhz BCLK and it is 100% stable only using 1.78V Input Voltage and a VCore of 1.32V. VCCIO is 1.05V, SA was around 1.10~1.15V effective if I recall (id have to look again), Ram is running at 3000Mhz Quad Channel 32GB CAS 14 with 1.31V on the sticks (they are B-Die).
That 5960X I have was a golden sample or something... lol. It was a J-Batch.
Oh man, I love old X99 threads!
FWIW, I still have a 5960X running on an AsRock OC Formula as my media PC and I run that CPU at 4.63Ghz w/ 125Mhz BCLK and it is 100% stable only using 1.78V Input Voltage and a VCore of 1.32V. VCCIO is 1.05V, SA was around 1.10~1.15V effective if I recall (id have to look again), Ram is running at 3000Mhz Quad Channel 32GB CAS 14 with 1.31V on the sticks (they are B-Die).
That 5960X I have was a golden sample or something... lol. It was a J-Batch.
It's because it's enabled in the BIOS. If you set the CPU multiplier to anything but auto you cannot disable it. Does not hurt anything.. just get an annoying pop-up at launch.That's for Turbo Boost Max 3.0, which came out with Broadwell-E so your CPU doesn't support it. I would check Windows Update, Services, and Task scheduler in that order for why it keeps reinstalling.