I am having hard time understanding people on network even hardcore overclocking people who attempt to push clocks insane mount or push memory up. Now I do understand the concept why people say things like "CPU clock speed should always be priority 1 when comparing to memory" like in this one page where fellow had half a brain to back his concepts up, but I do not understand doesn't high end hardware owning people have any concept of real overclocking now days and only video we get on youtube is by a fellow who starts the session with "I have never done overclocking before, but...".
Now, things I wanna ask:
* With any Intel CPU chip why would you ever consider raising DDR3 speed over 1866Mhz ? (unless you can change so called Uncore speeds)
Why: I am asking: Doesn't people have decent Elpida Hypers to get Latencies to CL7-7-7-21 or 8-8-8-24 and not ever go tRCD over tCL just to patch few Mhz which in the end is faster than even your high end 2400Mhz DDR3's in action. why do we even consider buying anything like tCL9-tCL10 memory or even accept the idea of countering speed over latencies? (Saying this understanding latency drops over speed of course)
* Why is CPU clock speed more important ? (in 9/10 review, OCing forums, at pretty near anywhere I keep hearing this)
Why: If I would losen up DDR3 latencies and push CPU to 5ghz with reasonable temperatures at OS which is I would say pretty ok, OC you would lose the DDR3 speed up gain by low latencies which is 10 times the speed than 300-400Mhz push to CPU in any real life application or even on OS level, so, I am having hard time understand why would anyone really do this unless they own some Intel backyard last cold bug chip which IMC can't handle decent speeds at CPU.
* PCH voltages: Why is everyone stating "You do not need to higher PCH voltages" this is almost 9/10 cases also.
Why: In my point of view this is the damn only voltage you wanna raise if you actually wanna have DDR/FSB stabilized at edge of performance something VCCSA of course gives Intel CPU IMC better tolerant for high speed low latency RAM modules, but the whole idea of tweaking the FSB up a notch to find the highest FSB/IMC tolerant speed for RAM at low latencies this voltage seems to start working only after you push it higher than 1.140v (X79) maxing out around 1,3v(Intel Documentation of PCH voltage) or even higher no matter what Intel documentations say when doing absolute edge of OC for boards.
Just saying any idiot can push their memory to 2400Mhz with high latencies and then losen up their CPU to run at extreme high speed just because there's less stress to the point of CPU where your actual real life speed for any application/working/OS is, but as far I tested like in hundreds of scenarios this is 100% sure slower concept to have as an overclock than running exactly at point DDR low latencies to edge what Intel CPU IMC can do in really lucky case of 1 of the cores I tested IMC was at, ok, level at X79 and even in that case raising the FSB clock (or what ever the CPU<->memory clock now days is called calling it FSB) so ram gets to the edge of 1866Mhz as low latencies as it goes CPU speed being higher by board FSB it's still the best case scenario than losing the RAM/DDR latencies against higher speed of RAM(lowering latencies by speed) and pushing CPU higher.
Of course this all disregard the Gigabyte Module stability for PCie 3.0, virtualizations bad CPU microcode patch and of course other screw ups that has nothing to do with actual overclocking their boards.
Just weird concept I keep seeing, Sorry for my bad english and the novel above.
-edit-
Heck, just got to reading GA-X79-UP4 with I7-4820K Uncore / QPI dual speeds. Speed is 3,2Ghz x2 where dual doesn't do damn thing only controls 2 different channels separately not increasing the actual speed needed, so, I wonder where the hell did Intel pull their specification for even 1866Mhz support when QPI is not at least 3,7Ghz since board supports 1600Mhz max it seems unless my HWINFO32-64 and AIDA64 are both wrong of reading it (no wonder the damn RAM OC seemed a bit slow on this board).
Now, things I wanna ask:
* With any Intel CPU chip why would you ever consider raising DDR3 speed over 1866Mhz ? (unless you can change so called Uncore speeds)
Why: I am asking: Doesn't people have decent Elpida Hypers to get Latencies to CL7-7-7-21 or 8-8-8-24 and not ever go tRCD over tCL just to patch few Mhz which in the end is faster than even your high end 2400Mhz DDR3's in action. why do we even consider buying anything like tCL9-tCL10 memory or even accept the idea of countering speed over latencies? (Saying this understanding latency drops over speed of course)
* Why is CPU clock speed more important ? (in 9/10 review, OCing forums, at pretty near anywhere I keep hearing this)
Why: If I would losen up DDR3 latencies and push CPU to 5ghz with reasonable temperatures at OS which is I would say pretty ok, OC you would lose the DDR3 speed up gain by low latencies which is 10 times the speed than 300-400Mhz push to CPU in any real life application or even on OS level, so, I am having hard time understand why would anyone really do this unless they own some Intel backyard last cold bug chip which IMC can't handle decent speeds at CPU.
* PCH voltages: Why is everyone stating "You do not need to higher PCH voltages" this is almost 9/10 cases also.
Why: In my point of view this is the damn only voltage you wanna raise if you actually wanna have DDR/FSB stabilized at edge of performance something VCCSA of course gives Intel CPU IMC better tolerant for high speed low latency RAM modules, but the whole idea of tweaking the FSB up a notch to find the highest FSB/IMC tolerant speed for RAM at low latencies this voltage seems to start working only after you push it higher than 1.140v (X79) maxing out around 1,3v(Intel Documentation of PCH voltage) or even higher no matter what Intel documentations say when doing absolute edge of OC for boards.
Just saying any idiot can push their memory to 2400Mhz with high latencies and then losen up their CPU to run at extreme high speed just because there's less stress to the point of CPU where your actual real life speed for any application/working/OS is, but as far I tested like in hundreds of scenarios this is 100% sure slower concept to have as an overclock than running exactly at point DDR low latencies to edge what Intel CPU IMC can do in really lucky case of 1 of the cores I tested IMC was at, ok, level at X79 and even in that case raising the FSB clock (or what ever the CPU<->memory clock now days is called calling it FSB) so ram gets to the edge of 1866Mhz as low latencies as it goes CPU speed being higher by board FSB it's still the best case scenario than losing the RAM/DDR latencies against higher speed of RAM(lowering latencies by speed) and pushing CPU higher.
Of course this all disregard the Gigabyte Module stability for PCie 3.0, virtualizations bad CPU microcode patch and of course other screw ups that has nothing to do with actual overclocking their boards.
Just weird concept I keep seeing, Sorry for my bad english and the novel above.
-edit-
Heck, just got to reading GA-X79-UP4 with I7-4820K Uncore / QPI dual speeds. Speed is 3,2Ghz x2 where dual doesn't do damn thing only controls 2 different channels separately not increasing the actual speed needed, so, I wonder where the hell did Intel pull their specification for even 1866Mhz support when QPI is not at least 3,7Ghz since board supports 1600Mhz max it seems unless my HWINFO32-64 and AIDA64 are both wrong of reading it (no wonder the damn RAM OC seemed a bit slow on this board).
Comment