z420/z620 overcklock

[OmTatSat]

---

@SDH wrote:
If you have optimized and balanced your hardware then 1866 is the way to go.  I loaded my 8 slots with 4GB sticks, HP used, bought at excellent prices from eBay. 

---

Are you doing some tests to see 1866MHz vs 1600MHz difference, or see visual advantage??

[SDH]

Brian..... thank you very much for that How-To!  That is exactly what I needed.

OmTatSat.... when a single link in the chain is weak the whole chain is also.  These highly tuned systems that Bambi and Brian have built up, and the one I am building, are optimized, and small benefits can be perceived.  The higher speed 1866 memory benefits all parts of the system.  There is an extra "snap" in responsiveness of the video card, faster load of programs, faster searchng on the SSD, overall perceived performance.  This is a small but definite benefit.

Remember that my source was used ZX20 1866 HP RAM off eBay, and the cost was even better than usual by my choice of 4GB sticks and very careful eBay searching.... much lower than new slower RAM that would have worked.  The cost/GB for a 4GB stick is lower than for a 8GB stick, and I want to fill all memory slots as discussed below.  This was a build targeted to our needs, with the highest performance possible for lowest reasonable cost.  We don't do the type of rendering and 3-D design work here like Bambi and Brian, and for us a single processor was sufficient.  I could have kept the cost even lower if I choose a Z420 v2, but had a spare old slow v1 Z620 box to start with.

EDIT:  Om....   Of interest, only the some of the newer v2 processors can run at 1866... that info is easy to find from Intel.  Going to 1866 memory would not be needed for a tight budget, but a tip that our forum's favorite HP engineer gave some time ago is that loading all the slots with identical memory gives the very best performance (for each memory speed category).

He stated that this gives more than just a minor benefit.  If that is done the HP/Intel memory controllers can all work in full synchrony.  I choose to use the same HP part number 4GB sticks from the same OEM vendor (you can see that on the label) when I buy off eBay, but mixing of vendors just as long as the sticks have the same HP part number is probably fine too.

[Brian1965]

One point I forgot to mention in my previous posts, and one which is commonly overlooked, is the importance of using a high quality thermal grease/paste for the CPU, especially if you want to overclock. Most of the 'CPU grade' thermal pastes available on the likes of Amazon and eBay have a thermal conductivity of between 4 and 6W/m/K, (e.g. Cooler Master = 4.5W/m/K). And by 'most', I mean about 99.5% of the thermal pastes on the market. In comparison, the Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut thermal paste has a thermal conductivity of 12.5W/m/K, effectively removing heat from the CPU at a much faster rate, more than double the rate in fact. Ironically, the Grizzly thermal paste is not that expensive, less than half the price of some of the pastes that only have a 4W/m/K rating. Most of the 'so-called' silver thermal pastes only have about a 3 - 5% silver content, the rest is made up of aluminium oxide, zinc oxide and boron nitride. which all have significantly poorer thermal conductivities. e.g.

Please note the table above only lists the filler properties, NOT the thermal paste/grease properties.

More recently, liquid-metal thermal compounds, (based on gallium), are appearing on the market which have thermal conductivities around the 80+W/m/K but these are definitely not for the novice PC enthusiast. To begin with, they are not compatible with aluminium heatsinks and are generally used where absolute extreme thermal performance is necessary. They also cost about 10 times the price of regular thermal compounds.

In summary,

1. Not all thermal pastes are the same in terms of thermal conductivity or quality

2. Expensive doesn't always mean the best quality or performance

3. In terms of thermal conductivity (W/m/K), higher is always better - check before you buy!

4. Higher quality thermal paste will reduce the CPU temperature = reduced fan noise

5. Higher quality thermal paste will reduce the CPU power consumption = higher clock speeds

[OmTatSat]

I have overcklock 1650v2 to 4.3 GHz all threads without increase CPU voltage.

With 4.4GHz i have reboot during XTU benchmark even with +100mV, but CPU pass other cpu test programs, but also reboot during default win7 performance test)

To have auto overcklock after boot i needed got last version XTU with ...\Client\XtuCLI.exe

i use .cmd file wich have:

sc start "XTU3SERVICE"
timeout 3
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Intel(R) Extreme Tuning Utility\Client\XtuCLI.exe" -i
timeout 2
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Intel(R) Extreme Tuning Utility\Client\XtuCLI.exe" -t -id 29 -v 33
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Intel(R) Extreme Tuning Utility\Client\XtuCLI.exe" -t -id 29 -v 43

sc start "XTU3SERVICE"
timeout 3
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Intel(R) Extreme Tuning Utility\Client\XtuCLI.exe" -i
timeout 2
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Intel(R) Extreme Tuning Utility\Client\XtuCLI.exe" -t -id 29 -v 33
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\Intel(R) Extreme Tuning Utility\Client\XtuCLI.exe" -t -id 29 -v 43

 some comands seems to be unnecessary but only in that way i achive 100% worked overclock after each PC start

Also i use shortcut linked with my .cmd file, in this way i am hide cmd window

Also i need to say, that when i jumped from v5 XTU to last one, i have problem with not stable overcklock even at 3.7GHz. And deleting reinstalling old versions, cleaneng with Ccleaner not helped((

Somehow i get it back to normal work after numerous installing and uninstalling throw Revo Uninstaller Pro, but without working watchdog. To get watchdog back i tried again instal uninstall different versions without luck, but installing intel WDT driver solve the problem.

Forgot to mention that, at beginning v5.2 XTU have strange bug, it is seems overcklocked fine, but when i run Aida64 - FPU Julia test i have reboot even at 4.0GHz, and stable test pass at 3.9GHz. XTU 5.2 have been installed at fresh installed windows7x64.

[Naveediftikhar]

Not to revive an old thread but i recently got hold of. 420 1650v2 version. My boot block date is 3.6.13..

Now m facing the same issue aa the op..till 3.9 in xth its all fine..but for some reason the system wont hit 4.0.. no matter what i do. .itll auto xlock back to 3.9.. when i go 4.1 itll stay there for like seconds and then clock back again. .. the tdp limit is not even being reached as m always near 110 w. .i dont knw which version of xtu m using but any help here would be helpful. Ty. 

[OmTatSat]

I use XTU with ThrottleStop 8.70. Only in this case I can reach more then 3.9GHz per core.

With this settings:

C1E disabled because i have high-frequency squeak from the motherboard with it enabled.

[Naveediftikhar]

Perfect..ill try ..which version of xtu?..and are therr any sub settings in throttlestop u changed..?thx man .

[OmTatSat]

xtu 6.4.1.25 but I downloaded just last version at that time.

I think there are not neccesery settings needed to change

My settings looks like:

[Naveediftikhar]

Perfect. .ill report back. .ty mate. 

[Naveediftikhar]

UPDATE

**bleep** omtatsat..ur the man..that actually works..although m having trouble keeping the values at start of windows..xtu and TS both report 4.3 but at stress test on reboot the pc doesnt recognize it..so have to manuay set it again from 4.3 to 4.2 to 4.3 again to get it to recognize the change. .however. .thx man. .!!