Tag Archives: baseclock

Samsung SM951 NVMe on Asus x99 Deluxe – Baseclock <> CPU strap magic

Samsung SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512
Samsung SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512

 

“I did buy a new little toy, the Samsung SM951 NVMe 512 GB M.2 SSD Drive.”

 

I tested the Samsung SM951 NVMe M.2 on Windows 7 and Windows 10 by using the M.2 slot on the motherboard and by using the M.2 addon card which comes shipped together with the Asus x99 Deluxe.

System:

  • Asus x99 Deluxe BIOS 1901 @ ~ 125.5 MHz Baseclock (while 125 MHz CPU strap)*
  • i7-5930K @ ~ 4.4 GHz, 125 MHz Strap, 1.31 Vcore, 1.24 Vcache, 1.24 Vsysagent
  • NV GTX 770
  • 16 GB Corsair DDR4 @ ~ 3 Ghz, 1.35 Vmem
  • 2x  SSD OCZ Vertex 2 (Sata2) (Raid0)
  • 2x  Seagate HDD  3 TB/HDD (Raid1)
  • PSU Corsair AX1200i (why the heck an AX1200i?)
  • Corsair Obsidian 450 D

 

*The ‘Baseclock’ and the ‘CPU strap’ will become more important over time in this SSD benchmark drama-post. I couldn’t think of the Baseclocks offset to the CPU strap affecting the benchmarks. At first i thought its overclocking on this motherboard in general, which affects the benchmarks.
Theres is an old problem known to Windows 8 respecting system timers and clocks leading to incorrect benchmarks. Seems that Windows 10 and 7 are affected too.

 

Driver

 

Asus x99 Deluxe M.2 slot populated with unrelated m.2 device. Image source: http://rog.asus.com
Asus x99 Deluxe M.2 slot populated with unrelated m.2 device. Image source: http://rog.asus.com
Asus Hyperkit M.2 Addon Card. Image source: http://rog.asus.com
Asus Hyperkit M.2 Addon Card. Image source: http://rog.asus.com

 

IMAG1047“No matter which OS or which PCIe slot i use, the SSD seems to be throttled or bottlenecked.”

 

 

 

“As soon as the Baseclock is higher than my CPU strap. The benchmarks do no longer represent the correct values!”

“Baseclock frequency below CPU strap frequency may result in the same behaviour”

“You can say that any offset between the CPU strap and Baseclock may result in “bogus” or shifted benchmarks”

 

 


The trip to find the cause for the benchmark results:

 

 

“A bad driver can also act as a bottleneck.”

 

First ATTO run on Windows 7 – smells like bottleneck.

The SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512 NVMe SSD is using the Asus x99 Deluxe onboard M.2  slot.

Some people may not be able to see the device on OS side (Win 7 !). And those people may make their way through the internet and find a “Hotfix” by Microsoft (Windows6.1-KB2990941-v3-x64). I did  install the Hotfix. It may work for you but you may not get 100% out of your device.

Because of the “bad” results i got, i did install Windows 10. I did hope that i can get the drivers off the SSD when installing a fully UEFI compatible OS. But …

 

atto_first_run_nvme_samsung_2280_951_512_GB
SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512 NVMe SSD, Baseclock @ 125.5 MHz, CPU strap 125 MHz, not system drive, connected using onboard M.2 slot

 

 

 

“There is a throttle …”

 

 

There is a throttle

Keep in mind that the SM951 NVMe model indeed is able to throttle itself to prevent overheating. What if this throttle mechanic is not working properly? Keep that in mind. It is possible …

… but it’s not  threating us here. 🙂

 

 

“Expectation”

 

First ATTO run on Windows 10 – smells like bottleneck.

…even with Windows 10 i still do seem to be using the NVMe drivers provided by Windows (or worse the previously installed Hotfix).

The SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512 NVMe SSD is using the Asus x99 Deluxe onboard M.2  slot. Comparing with other tests on the internet you expect read speeds > 2.2 GB/s.

 

atto_first_run_windows_10_nvme_samsung_2280_951_512_GB
SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512 NVMe SSD, Baseclock @ 125.5 MHz, CPU strap 125 MHz, not system drive, connected using onboard M.2 slot

 

Second ATTO run on Windows 10 – smells like bottleneck.

The SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512 NVMe SSD is using the Asus x99 Deluxe onboard M.2  slot. This time i did set x4 mode manually and did disable a couple unneccessary stuff in the BIOS to make sure nothing weird is going on there. With no reward. Same results.

 

atto_second_run_4x_mode_manually_set_windows_10_nvme_samsung_2280_951_512_GB
SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512 NVMe SSD, Baseclock @ 125.5 MHz, CPU strap 125 MHz, not system drive, connected using onboard M.2 slot

 

 

“Alternative”

 

 

Third ATTO run on Windows 10 – smells like bottleneck.

This time i did use the Hyperkit Card shipped with the Asus x99 Deluxe. Same results.

 

atto_third_run_pci_express_m.2_addon_card_manually_set_windows_10_nvme_samsung_2280_951_512_GB
SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512 NVMe SSD, Baseclock @ 125.5 MHz, CPU strap 125 MHz, not system drive, connected using M.2 addon card for PCIe

 

IMAG1047
ASUS M.2 addon card “Hyper” for PCIe 3.0

 

 

 

The drivers Windows 10

Just for the records. Unfortunately i did not make screenshots of the Windows 7 drivers. The MS drivers were mentioned already in the past when it led to problems with NVMe like this. But they do pretty well now. They improved it

Storage Controller

Windows 10 Device Manager-> Storage Controller->Standard or Basic NVM Express-Controller->Properties->Driver->Driver details

 

Image4

Storage Device

 

hw_drv_properties_nvme_drive_sm951_2280_mzvpv512_samsung

 

hw_list_properties_volume_f_nvme_samsung_2280_sm951

 

BUT

“It’s not the drivers fault”

 

But it turned out, that it is not the driver who is causing these “bad” results.

Silence.

 

“The drama …”

 

 

The relief – no bottleneck

It was the fact that the System was overclocked. As soon as i lowered the Baseclock back to 100 MHz. The results became better. The Baseclock was previously set to 125.5 Mhz. I then had read results > 2.2 GB/s and write results > 1.7 GB/s with SM951 SSD used as non-system drive. Unfortunately i did not make a screenshot of it. (What i did not think of here is, that the CPU strap also was set back to 100 MHz – the same frequency the Baseclock is running at)

Last ATTO run on Windows 10 @ 100 MHz Baseclock (system drive!)

However i then did configure the Samsung SM951 NVMe SSD as system drive. The performance results would be a bit better when it is not used as system drive.

 

samsung_sm951_nvme_2280_512_gb_windows_10_system_disk_baseclock_100_mhz_no_overclock
SM951 M.2 2280 MZVPV512 NVMe SSD, Baseclock @ 100 MHz, system drive !, connected using onboard M.2 slot

 

(I noticed the following before i finally discovered that the baseclock<>CPU strap offset is causing the shifted benchmarks, but i then ignored it because of the Anti Virust software which came out as a potential cause when configured to be super sensitive)

What’s left to say?

If you multiply the old results with (Baseclock of 125.5  MHz) with 1.255 you get results matching pretty well with the results of Baseclock of 100 MHz.

For example the 8 MB result of the first run:

1398442 Write     x     1.255 = 1755044,71
1717986 Read     x     1.255 = 2156072,43

 

  • Was the higher Baseclock really throttling or bottlenecking  the SSD?

 

  • Or is it just the benchmark not being aware of a higher Baseclock  and mucking up the results? Possible that the realtime clock is affected by Baseclock?

 

  • Will i ever be able to overclock and enjoy the Samsung SM951 NVMe performance at the same time?

 

Apart from ATTO i sure did run other benchmarks on the overclocked system and they sure came up with not the same results because they dont “measure” all the same way but they all left you thinking of either a bottleneck or throttle. I unfortunately made no screenshots of the runs before but i will present some with stock clock speeds and Samsung SM951 as system drive.

 

Samsung SM951 NVMe M.2 SSD as system drive Windows 10 @ 100 MHz Baseclock
samsung_sm951_nvme_2280_512_gb_windows_10_system_disk_baseclock_100_mhz_no_overclock_qd32_th1 samsung_sm951_nvme_2280_512_gb_windows_10_system_disk_baseclock_100_mhz_no_overclock_qd32_th6
CrystalDiskMark: Queue depth 32 Threads 1 CrystalDiskMark: Queue depth 32 Threads 6
samsung_sm951_nvme_2280_512_gb_windows_10_system_disk_baseclock_100_mhz_no_overclock_qd64_th12 samsung_sm951_nvme_2280_512_gb_windows_10_system_disk_baseclock_100_mhz_no_overclock_qd128_th12
CrystalDiskMark: Queue depth 64 Threads 12 CrystalDiskMark: Queue depth 128 Threads 12

As system drive and some disturbing stuff going on the whole time in the background the results are OK.  But to answer the questions of “How did the Baseclock affect the benchmarks?”  or “Will i ever be able to overclock and enjoy the Samsung SM951 NVMe performance at the same time?” we would’ve to pick another route.

 



As soon as the Baseclock is higher than my CPU strap. The benchmarks do no longer represent the correct values!

No matter if the ‘useplatformclock’ is enabled or not. The benchmark results do look like the SSD was throttled or bottlenecked as soon as the ‘Baseclock’ is higher than the ‘CPU strap’. I thought i revealed my Anti Virus software to be the root of al evil but it was not.

The realtimeclock RTC

Just for the records:
The value for useplatformclock was initially set to Yes on Win 10
The default value on Win 7 may be unset or No

This fact was one thing that concerned me that i was right following the Baseclock- / hwclock- / timer-way

 

bcdedit_useplatformclock_yes_windows_10_cmd_shell
‘bcdedit’ output while not a single parameter was handed over

I did play with this setting with overclocked and non overclocked system. But it took some days to finally notice that it has something to do with the ‘Baseclock’ and ‘CPU strap’. I did step away from this setting, when i thought it had something to do with the Anti Virus software. However this setting does not help to solve the problem on systems with not equal Baseclocks and CPU straps.

 

“Finally i could narrow down the cause but i couldn’t solve it yet.”

 

 



 

 

What i thought and wrote, when it seemed to be the Anti Virus software compromising the benchmark results. I trapped myself when i quick-overclocked the system again (by leaving Baseclock and CPU strap the same) to test different situations:

OK folks.. scratch all that

i tend to play now with “useplatformclock” (bcdedit) and overclock the system again. But guess what. Neither overclocking nor playing with useplatformclock variable did make any difference to the benchmarks.

 
But i think i revealed who was in charge for the performance trouble in the beginning …

 

… it was …

… my freaking Anti Virus software!

 

I did compare the useplatformclock setting of a Windows 7 system to my Windows 10 system to make sure that this could be a true reason for the mucked up results and it turned out to really be a root for the mess. You now need to know that i went from Windows 7 to Windows 10, just because of this performance mess, by upgrading Windows 7 to Windows 10. There was a chance that some important settings wern’t migrated or merged correctly. Upgrading does leave room for a lot of mistakes at this level. Later on i made a complete fresh install of Windows 10 and this time i installed it directly on the SM951 NVMe SSD, but as i already mentioned, the results didnt change anymore no matter what i touched.

  • Because the Baseclock and CPU strap are equal during this period i never had any shifted benchmark results again

I was freaking out because i really need to know the cause for the performance drama at the beginning to wipe out any missconfigurations and make sure every component is running fine and smooth and then when i was almost giving up i took the Anti Virus software into account.

It’s not that i never was thinking about it but i did underestimate it and i also wasn’t aware anymore of the configuration of my Anti Virus software.

  • Apart from the Baseclock and CPU strap there was only one more thing that could form a bridge  between all these odd things.

As tired as i might be the Anti Virus software was the only thing that could “transport” or “connect” the performance mess from one OS to another – if you are changing the OS by upgrading it. The complete fresh install i mentioned earlier wasn’t affected by the Anti Virus software, because i didn’t install it, but the old Windows 7 and the upgraded Windows 10 installations both had the same Anti Virus installation running.

  • But they also had a Baseclock CPU strap offset

So i went ahead and installed the Anti Virus software. With said software running in the background i still did get normal results. Again that did hit me hard. I thought i got it. But in the same moment, i realized that i didn’t change it’s configuration.

With the configuration window infront of me the settings, i usually made, came into my mind and i set them according previous installations of this Anti Virus software. And guess what. I finally could reproduce the ‘BAD RESULTS’. With its settings set back to defaults, everything is fine. No performance issues.

THE END

samsung_sm951_nvme_2280_512_gb_windows_10_system_disk_baseclock_125_mhz_no_overclock_qd32_th4
CrystalDiskMark: Samsung SM951 NVMe M.2, Queue depth 32 Threads 4, Baseclock 125 MHz, system drive !, onboard M.2 (Baseclock and CPU strap are equal here!)

 

 

I know what some people will say. 🙂 All i can respond is, that i am aware of Anti * ware digging into things and some other things. My problem in this case relies more in the experience i had with this Anti Virus software. I’m using it for years now and never had any issues like denied or failed or interrupted installations due to scanning attempts or  or any kind of interruption that would ask for my attention or a closer look. It always had been the perfect Anti Virus software for me. “Install it and forget it”. Now it got its revenge for all the years not paying attention, not treating it like a tamagotchi and not taking care of it.

I promise i will treat you better now, dear Anti Virus.

But i can say now that i was right not believing my Anti Virus software to be the one compromising the results.

Asus x99 Deluxe, i7-5930K overclock – don’t use prime95 on Haswell-E and 2011-v3

Update: 12. March 2015

This post becomes old, however, even when it may have been stupid to call prime95 a bad choice to test overclocks it somehow may have saved peoples wallet. In the beginning when x99 was thrown onto the market, things were very new and everyone had to get closer to the new design step by step, carefully. As you have to admit, there were many articles about mainboards that were catching fire, go up in smoke, or break in any other possible way. Things are getting more stable and people are making their  way through the jungle of architechture. Today i still would recommend people to be careful with prime95 but i would no longer discourage people from using it.

Update: 06. October 2014

Well i can not completely revise this.. when i started to think that prime95 doesn’t go well with Haswell-E i did run future tests with other tools like cinebench, sisoftware sandra, aida64 and had no problems even with lower voltages (1.28 V). Rendering videos, playing games and whatever you do with your computer also did work quite well. Today i tested with OCCT and it goes the same direction (1.35 V stable).  With prime95 i ended at 1.37 V or even 1.39 V . So prime95 still does require lot more voltage to run stable than for example OCCT does, so im not sure yet where this journey is gonna end. I can not recommend using prime95.

 

Hellow peeps. The long journey comes to an end now. [Due to Update on 06. October i have to  over-think this] I finally or accidently came to the “conclusion” that prime95 isn’t the right choice to test the Haswell-E processor series, like the i7-5930K to run any sort of stresstests.

In the end of the day this processor, the i7-5930K will be running at 4.5 Ghz  with everything else overclocked at reasonable temperatures and stable. Well, not prime95-stable but Aida64-Cinebench-and-SiSoftware-Sandra-stable. Prime is just no longer an option or relevant for 2011 and x99.

 

So this is going to be a big round-up confusing

The truth is, that i stumbled over a forum thread, while i was searching for wprime95, saying that prime95 doesn’t go well with Haswell-E. So, while it’s still saturday night/sunday in the very morning and i was about to leave the system for today as it is, i decided to repeat some steps on the Asus x99 Deluxe, i did in the past weeks. In the beginning of the OC-adventure, i started with prime95 only and later took SiSoftware Sandra into the boat.

 

Quick Overview of the System (or have a quick look at previous posts):

  • Asus X99 Deluxe (white/black) Motherboard
  • Intel i7-5930K  at 3.5 GHz (will use MX-4 paste)
  • Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4, 16 GB, 2800MHz  4-Modules-Memory-Kit
  • Corsair RM1000 Power Supply
  • Kraken X60 Watercooling
  • 4x Corsair 140mm Fans (purple/violet)
  • Corsair Obsidian 450D Case

 

 

Replacing prime95

Now prime95 has been replaced by Aida64 and Cinebench, while SiSoftware Sandra stays in the club. Benchmarks and graphs are always nice, but i intentionally use the software to make sure components are working fine together in harmony.

It’s already a month now since x99 and friends have been thrown on the market. A lot of you guys were sure smarter than i am/was and already knew that prime95 is a bad idea – when it comes to Haswell-E. While the hole world already OC’ed their CPUs with success i will just stick to some pictures. After i decided to no longer use prime95, i  revoked / undid most of the changes i made there, to start from zero.

Quick overview:

CPU i7-5930K in GHz: Corsair LPX DDR4 in MHz: Asus x99 Deluxe Baseclock in MHz:
3,7 @ base values, unknown voltage (release BIOS 0505) 2166 @ base values, unknown voltage (release BIOS 0505) 100 @ base (BIOS 0505)
2800 @ 1.5 V or 1.35 V (XMP didn’t work and Memory was very unstable at higher frequencies – or let’s say, with prime95 it was)
4,1 @ 1,23 V (release BIOS to BIOS 0801) 2800 @ 1.35 V (release BIOS + BIOS 0701, XMP started to work with 0701) 100 (BIOS 0505 – 0701)
4,2 @ 1,25 V (BIOS 0701 + BIOS 0801) 2800 @ 1.2 V (BIOS 0701 + 0801) 127,5 (BIOS 0801)
4,25 @ 1,25 V (BIOS 0801) 3000 @ 1.35 V (BIOS 0801) 125 (BIOS 0801)
4,375 @ 1,265 V (BIOS 0801) 3000 @ 1.35 V (BIOS 0801) + (BIOS 0904) 125 (BIOS 0801)
4,427 @ 1,31 V (BIOS 0904) 3034 @ 1.35 V / 3416 MHz Cache (BIOS 0904) 126,5 (BIOS 0904)
4,462 @ 1,276 V (BIOS 0904) 3000 @ 1.35 V (BIOS 0904) 127,5 (BIOS 0904)
4,5 @ 1,276 V (BIOS 0904) 3088 @ 1.35 V (BIOS 0904) 128,7 (BIOS 0904)
4,5 @ 1,35 V OCCT stable 128,7 (BIOS 0904)
4,5 @ 1,37 – 1,39 V prime95 stable, requires extreme² cooling 128,7 (BIOS 0904)

Some values were tested on different BIOS versions, some were stable some were not, some or many of them don’t even show up here. The table doesn’t show all  combinations. In all cases you can say, that the newer setting also did run at least 1 BIOS version behind. For example 4.5 GHz was also tested on 0801 with Vcore from 1.27 to 1.390  and a lot of changes in voltages for other parts like Input Voltage or Agent Voltage or Cache Voltage or Changes in the DIGI Tab. But i do not recommend this especially because this happend in the prime95 period. In a previous post i said that XMP with BIOS 0701 was unstable. Thats not correct. This was also affected by prime95.

 

Intel i7-5930K now finally at 4.5 GHz with peacful 1.27 V vcore
Intel i7-5930K now finally at 4.5 GHz with peacful 1.27 V Vcore

 

To the edge 4.6 GHz but prime95

As i mentioned already in a previous post, i could easily clock that Haswell-E jewel to 4.6 GHz. Problem had been, that it just didn’t pass the prime95 tests and that i found myself increasing and increasing over and over again the Vcore. At this moment i was noticing something weird with prime95 the first time, but i didn’t know about that bad relationship between prime95 and Haswell before, so i kept using it. What in the end led to a super hot CPU and with a crying Kraken X60 with stock fans. I made a short clip to demonstrate the Kraken stock fans at 1000% load (yes, that extra zero was intended). [Video quick link].

CPU – i7-5930K DRAM – Corsair LPX 2800 DDR4 Cache Baseclock
4.5 GHz 3088 MHz 3860 MHz 128.7 MHz
1.276 V 1.35 V 1.2 V
1.29 V
On 30. Sept. 2014 (2 days after publishing this post) - got a bluescreen 0x3B occasionally  during SiSoftware Sandra Multicore Efficiency Test (this test did already run a few times with no error or bluescreen); will increase Vcore slightly from 1.276 to 1.29. This update doesn't show up in the BIOS screenshots below!!!

 

Now starting from zero with default settings and new crew

So starting from zero with some basic settings (CPU, DRAM, Cache and Baseclock will be set), and some of them are the result of the past few weeks. Initially will reset all voltage values and any performance related values to “Auto”  again and boot the system.

 

 

Corsairs LPX Vengeance DDR4 2800 MHz Memory Kit at 3088 MHz and a cache speed at 3861 MHz
Corsairs LPX Vengeance DDR4 2800 MHz Memory Kit at 3088 MHz and a cache speed at 3861 MHz

 

Not that surprising but defaults deliver

And find myself happy with it. Now where the Vcore is back to normal and due to the absence of prime95 the temperatures during stress tests are lovely ( the funny thing here is, they never were bad, just prime95 made appear everything worse ). And more important the Kraken X60 stock fans do not  have to go crazy anymore. Win-Win situation for me and the computer parts. Maybe i can get back to my Corsairs purple fans? When i run prime95 now with these settings, the system instantly goes down, but on the other hand i can normally use it. Can run any (non-prime95)benchmark, can render videos etc, can play any game … etc. somethign weird is burrowed in prime95.

 

Aida64 Benchmark

The Aida64 Report has been uploaded to let you guys and girls see some graphs. If that’s not enough, i would like you to visit the SiSoftware Sandra Result / Ranking Page. No graphs but benchmaaaarks. SiSoftware Link 2

 

Cinebench Results

 

cinebench3 cinebench2

 

Temperature peak during tests 69 °C

the temperatures are very good in my opinion and the Kraken fans aren’t even close to the speed they were running when i used prime95 in previous overclocking attempts and tests.

 

Temperature results after Cinebench and Aida64 test runs
Temperature results after Cinebench and Aida64 test runs

 

 

Since all changes i made in the BIOS during the overclocking-journey are no longer necessary, it remains pretty much basic. Just for you, the…

Asus x99 Deluxe BIOS settings, i currently, 28. September 2014, run my system with.

.. meanwhile will run another SiSoftware Sandra Overall Bench.

 

Asus x99 BIOS - Startscreen
Asus x99 BIOS – Startscreen

 

Asus x99 BIOS - Main Page
Asus x99 BIOS – Main Page

 

Asus x99 BIOS - AI Tweak Pages
Asus x99 BIOS – AI Tweak Pages – The Voltage update (1.29) doesn’t show up here.

 

Asus x99 BIOS - DIGI Pages
Asus x99 BIOS – DIGI Pages

 

Asus x99 - Internal CPU Power Management Page
Asus x99 BIOS – Internal CPU Power Management Page

 

Asus x99 BIOS - CPU Power Management Configuration
Asus x99 BIOS – CPU Power Management Configuration

 

 

 

SiSoftware Sandra Lite i7-5930K benchmark

Overclock with no bluescreen is no serious overclock

Now, 2 weeks after purchasing this new RIG i went a step forward and decided to consult SiSoftware Sandra Lite to get some more details and i7-5930K benchmark. After playing with it in the first 1-2 hours i got the 5th bluescreen during the overclocking evolution period, which may hopefully end today. I received my 5th bluescreen during SiSoftware Sandra tests/Benchmarks. You may have a look at the Hardware / Computer section for upcoming posts and updates.

 

Quick Overview of the System (or have a quick look at previous posts):

  • Asus X99 Deluxe (white/black) Motherboard
  • Intel i7-5930K  at 3.5 GHz (will use MX-4 paste)
  • Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4, 16 GB, 2800MHz  4-Modules-Memory-Kit
  • Corsair RM1000 Power Supply
  • Kraken X60 Watercooling
  • 4x Corsair 140mm Fans (purple/violet)
  • Corsair Obsidian 450D Case

 

History settings

History settings (i will skip experiments that weren’t tested in longterm view, for example playing with Vcore for the CPU or when i switched back to basic settings when trying to figure things out/ bluescreens) from oldest -> to newest Setting(s):

 

CPU i7-5930K (including Turbo)in GHz: Corsair LPX DDR4 RAM in MHz: Asus x99 Deluxe Baseclock in MHz:
3,7 @ base values, unknown voltage (release BIOS 0505) 2166 @ base values, unknown voltage (release BIOS 0505) 100 @ base (BIOS 0505)
4,1 @ 1,23 V (release BIOS to BIOS 0801) 2800 @ 1.35 V (release BIOS + BIOS 0701, XMP Profiles values didn’t work) 100 (BIOS 0505 – 0701)
4,2 @ 1,25 V (BIOS 0701 + BIOS 0801) 2800 @ 1.2 V (BIOS 0701 + 0801, XMP values started to work with 0801, 0701 was still unstable) 127,5 (BIOS 0801)
4,25 @ 1,25 V (BIOS 0801) – current 3000 @ 1.35 V (BIOS 0801) – current 125 (BIOS 0801) – current
4,375 @ 1,265 V (BIOS 0801) 3000 @ 1.35 V (BIOS 0801) 125 (BIOS 0801)
4,425 + 4,5 @ 1,276 V (BIOS 0904) 3088 @ 1.35 V 128,7 (BIOS 0904)

These current settings values (antepenultimate row) are valid until 26. September 2014 – for further information please read this post (most recent at this moment) or  this one. The penultimate row in the table are values tested after publishing this post. Final or most recent settings you can find in the most recent link above. Some values were tested on different BIOS versions, some were stable some were not. The table doesn’t show all these combinations. In all cases you can say, that the newer setting also did run at BIOS version 1 behind. For example 4.5 GHz was also tested on 0801.

 

The i7-5930K benchmark

Update 28. September 2014: Unfortunately i didn't write down the PW for SiSoftware Ranker. The links now point to the new account.

With a baseclock slightly decreased from 127.5 to 125 MHz and RAM voltage, now again, at 1.35 V – but this time with 3000 MHz clockspeed – i hope to get closer to a smooth running System. Check it out directly: SiSoftware Sandra Ranking Page of tatoismus.net >>

This one has a better overview: Another Ranking Page of SiSoftware

After these little changes were made, all tests did pass with no further problems. The screenshots show the rank from 15. Sept. to 16. Sept 2014. Ranked #123. (Just 8 hours later im ranked #326 🙂 they’re all cheating)

 

i7-5930K benchmark SiSoftware Ranker
i7-5930K benchmark SiSoftware Ranker

 

i7-5930K benchmark SiSoftware Ranker
i7-5930K benchmark SiSoftware Ranker

 

Cooling the i7-5930K

Additionally i installed a 120mm fan in the rear of the case just to get the warm air a little bit faster out. When i was facing 90 °C and more in the past at full load with the 127.5 baseclock setup, i now still reach 90 °C and more but it takes a tiny bit longer to get there 😉

Just to make sure: temperature was never the issue, i was always monitoring temps when i did any sort/kind of benchmarks. During benchmarks the CPU cores sure get to their limits but never on a timeperiod long enough cause any heatdamage or impact results or cause bluescreens. Well, i talk about SiSoftware Sandra. — Armed with prime95, things become different.

 

Sorry Sandra

Few words about Sandra SiSoftware. I hate it. Or lets say it was frustrating me in the beginning. Its okay for a wide range of tests, but i will never use it again i think, untill my computer produces another bluescreen.

 

Uploading the i7-5930K benchmark with a certain user name to SiSoftware Ranker
Uploading the i7-5930K benchmark with a certain user name to SiSoftware Ranker

 

I can haz user account?

You have to run it as admin. I mean you have to login as admin. “Run as Admin” isn’t enough. And then you can/are able connect to “Local Computer”. Don’t ask how you can upload results to their Ranking-Website using a specific username. I managed it but it hurts explaining it. In the end it is simple but i expect things do work different. You don’t register or create an account in a way you would expect. You simple put a name and email address and password in the fields and fires return key until a picked account name is being accepted. Not talking about the bad named and bad placed module “Top Results”. Who expects that you enter your account information in here? And why locate it in Benchmarks? And you should really not use their FAQ or you will find yourself smashing your head on the desk.

 

ram3000

 

Recognize my RAM correctly pls

By the way: SiSoftware Sandra doesn’t know that my RAM is running at 3000 MHz. It always says for whatever reason “2133 MHz”. You have to look at DRAM Frequency and multiply it by 2 “DDR = Double Data Rate”. Seems that Sandra is only reading some vendor model strings and thats it.

 

bahuett