1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Intel Talks About CPU overclocking software and is to release new Core X CPUs

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 28, 2019.

  1. barbacot

    barbacot Member Guru

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    44
    GPU:
    RTX 2080Ti MSI
    A lot of talk here but none on the subject.
    I am curios: did anyone here tried the software - how does it behave???
    I know that for a lot of people here intel is the worst thing that happened to this planet while amd is the white knight coming to rescue but again on topic: did anyone tried it?

    And off topic: I still remember the days when amd was the king (athlon64/x2) and intel down (prescott anyone???) and the reviews then were like this: "another overpriced cpu from amd". I want AMD to succeed but I don't want Intel to be in disarray because guess what: AMD is also a capitalist corporation interested in profit and they will have no hesitation in increasing the prices for their cpu's if intel is weak.
     
  2. ladcrooks

    ladcrooks Master Guru

    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    40
    GPU:
    DECIDING
    This had me grinning from ear to ear and chuckling whilst typing this :):p:D
     
    Venix likes this.
  3. Nymbryxion

    Nymbryxion Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2080TI FE
    Yes, trying the software now. 1.5 GB download. Then, you have to allocate 16gb of Disk Space in a separate partition during the install (software does it for you) then reboot.

    Then you start the softeware, it tells you that it will need to reboot to perform the tests.

    I am about 20mins into the Test (Does this in a UEFI enviroment/pre windows mode) and its on 48x ratio, tests 2 of 15...

    At this rate, it will be done in about 6 hours. So far, no way to customize the actual testing or the time it is taking. Already starting to feel its not worth it at all.
     
  4. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    212
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    I almost didn't believe you when you said it wanted to create a seperate 16GB partition, I thought you were joking! But then I checked the Release Notes here, and yes that's true! https://downloadmirror.intel.com/28772/eng/Intel(R)_Performance_Maximizer_1.0.1_Release_Notes.pdf

    God knows why it needs that much space to run some overclocking tests, and also why it needs to be a 1.5GB download - all very excessive, better produce some good results!
     
    airbud7 likes this.

  5. Nymbryxion

    Nymbryxion Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2080TI FE
    Yes, its odd because all the testing is in a UEFI mode. No GUI or anything. Just your basic Black and White DOS Style screen
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  6. Nymbryxion

    Nymbryxion Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2080TI FE
  7. Nymbryxion

    Nymbryxion Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2080TI FE
    So in 22mins, I went from Test 3 of 15 to Test 7 of 15. Still at the 48 Ratio.
     
    airbud7 and Robbo9999 like this.
  8. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    212
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    Let us know how it goes. One of the interesting things about this software is that in the Guru3d article it says the software is "able to auto-overclock individual cores" - to me that sounds like each individual CPU core is gonna be allocated it's own max stable overclock, so different cores are gonna be running with different overclocks. I may have misinterpreted this, because that's very different to the capabilities I know of these CPUs, in terms of how they're overclocked and how they run - so I'm thinking I've misinterpreted this or there's an error in the article. Ha, if your overclocking process ever finishes, let us know if it's overclocked your individual cores to different max frequencies, which would clear up what I was talking about in the last 2 sentences?
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  9. Nymbryxion

    Nymbryxion Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2080TI FE
    Sure! Will Do! Maybe this is why its talking so long on the testing. Tested each core, one by one, at X ratio and X voltage per test.

    Update - 1 hour later - Testing Ratio 50 (5ghz) , test 3 of 15
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
    airbud7 and Robbo9999 like this.
  10. Nymbryxion

    Nymbryxion Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2080TI FE
    So final update. Just got done with test. I think this needs to be performed on a default settings BIOS. Mine was set to a custom core voltage and ration prior. Said I could only get to 4.8ghz all core. But, the voltage was still the same when I was checking in windows and in the BIOS. It was still set to 1.12v

    I really do not like this process and feel, while being easy and a single process, just not very rewarding. Unless you do not like to overclock or dont have the experience in it.

    And it did this as an all core boost. Not by core by core.
     
    fantaskarsef and waltc3 like this.

  11. ZXRaziel

    ZXRaziel Active Member

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    32
    GPU:
    Nvidia
    I am glad the they have finally fixed all the known vulnerabilities so we can buy Intel again .... wait a minute ..... sorry my bad I get my coat and see my self out ;-)
     
  12. waltc3

    waltc3 Master Guru

    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    294
    GPU:
    XFX 590 8GB XFire
    Yes, be interesting to see if Intel is going to unlock everything on the consumer side! Somehow, I doubt it...;)

    I would imagine that 8-channels would beat a 4-channel system, otherwise, why offer it? As to whether you will get a price break on your hypothetical 12/14 core Intel cpu, it will be interesting to see if Intel's prices are so much higher because of yields being poor or because of price-gouging their customers prior to Ryzen setting things on their ear, so to speak. If the prices don't come down significantly on these cpus then it's certainly yield problems--which seems logical.

    Actually, sometimes you will have a choice to disable the security patching--but sometimes a bios and/or a Windows version will come with them pre-applied, and new customers, especially, will have them applied from day 1 by the system OEM. People who deliberately work around the security updates as you suggest will be far less common than you might think. I actually agree with you that some of the security issues are way overblown; however slight a chance it may be, customers will not wish to take that chance, though, if they don't have to. As the AMD cpu designs are much newer, ground up, than the current Intel legacy designs and manufacturing processes, the AMD cpus are far less prone to the kind of vulnerabilities currently infesting the Intel architectures. Most consumers are not going to look at a cpu vulnerability that Intel officially admits to and decide to throw caution to the winds. It remains to be seen how many of these vulnerabilities are actually "trivial" in terms of Intel's cpu performance--as it would seem Intel would have corrected these very old architectural deficiencies years ago if it could have done so easily. Just a guess on my part, but seems logical.

    Yes, pretty much every one of the so-called comparisons Intel has published lately either apply only to Ryzen 1st or 2nd gen, or involve non-shipping, unavailable Intel products, or are conducted with other fairly significant detriments to the AMD builds compared (like giving a Ryzen iGPU a huge shared-memory clock deficit), or some combination thereof....These latest ads from Intel remind me of Apple's Mac comparison ads, especially under Jobs!

    I think it would be a stretch to call this "overclocking software"...it sounds positively ghastly...;) It's like the software takes over the platform (unlocks the cpu if needed?) and runs a bunch of cpu verification tests at one speed, and keeps ratcheting up the GHz until the tests begin to fail, whereupon it then reaches some arbitrary conclusions and sets the cpu clock accordingly. Intel is doing it all--the end user is left out of the equation, it looks like. It will be interesting to see if the overclocked GHz speeds set automatically by this software hold up in all software--like Prime 95 or a cpu-limited game here and there, 3d rendering programs, etc. As a rule, software-set auto-overclocking programs generally leave much to be desired, imo.
     
    patteSatan likes this.
  13. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    212
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    Are you gonna try the overclocking software again, but this time at all the recommended BIOS defaults that Intel say you need? That way we'll be able to see what this overclocking software can do. (read the release notes that come with the overclocking software, it lists the BIOS requirements there.)
     
  14. nizzen

    nizzen Master Guru

    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    104
    GPU:
    2x1080ti /1080/1060
    Bios was not compatible.

    Using Asus z390 Apex. Bios 0903. And binned 9900k.

    5.3ghz @ 1.35v.

    So I don't care :p
     
  15. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    212
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    @Hilbert Hagedoorn , would it be worth doing your own review on this overclocking software to see what it can achieve, there's a lot of interest in this thread and I think enthusiasts would be curious to see what this software can offer & achieve - especially as it sounds like this software has the ability to overclock each individual core differently to different levels, which is totally different to any current overclocking possibilities? (could include comparisons to manual overclocking efforts in terms of max overclock frequency achievable & some short performance testing)
     

  16. neikosr0x

    neikosr0x Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    11
    GPU:
    Corsair 8GB DDR3 1333mhz
    wait, what? I don't think you know how Ryzen XFR&PBO works. Second, according to AMD the 3900 runs some of the games at better frame rates than the 9900k. The 3700x 3800x gives you almost the same performance without PBO being enabled. We have 1 more week to go, for reviews to start popping on the internet. So, we just have to wait and see, but i think you are going to be very very surprised expect Better single core performance on the 3900x than what you get on the 9900k.
     
  17. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    34
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    well just look at the branded PC, dell-hp-asus including apple(imac), their lineup still not ditching intel
     
  18. barbacot

    barbacot Member Guru

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    44
    GPU:
    RTX 2080Ti MSI
    Thank you.
    Also tom's hardware tested this. For those interested: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-cpu-auto-overclock-performance-maximizer,6179.html
     
  19. las

    las Master Guru

    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    30
    GPU:
    1080 Ti @ 2+ GHz
    Manual OC is better anyway I'm also using 9900K at 5.2 GHz, I have no interrest in this software but it's good for people with lacking hardware knowledge / OC experience I guess
     
  20. las

    las Master Guru

    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    30
    GPU:
    1080 Ti @ 2+ GHz
    No it won't. Zen 2 won't even beat 8700K in gaming, which closes in on 2 year old by now, especially not when all the CPU's are maxed out with manual OC. My old 8700K did 5.3 GHz, good luck matching 230+ CB ST perf and THAT gaming perf when CPU bound, which is what 99% of high fps / high refresh gamers are. This is why competitive and serious gamers uses Intel CPU's. Fact.

    Zen 2 will get only get 13% CB ST bump compared to Zen+ it will still be subpar for CPU bound gaming

    Not to mention that X570 will require active cooling and cost 200+ bucks for the cheapest entry level boards, PCI-E 4.0 will do nothing. NVME SSDs are not hold back by seq. read/write and only Radeon VII and upcoming Navi supports 4.0 (and does not perform better than 3.0).

    PCI-E 5.0 is finalized anyway and 6.0 will hit in 2021 - No rush to get 4.0 over 3.0 at all.

    Might as well go X470 or B450 with Zen 2 ... Unless memory will fail again


    Seriously funny that people expect Zen 2 to beat 9900K in gaming :) Lower your expectations people...

    Price/perf is going down the drain with X570 and 3900X, especially with gaming in mind and 3950X will be 750 bucks and release late Q4 so
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2019

Share This Page