i7 930 (further) overclocking help please

If it's not stable it's pushed too far.

The 'over' in Overclocking means 'too much' but people think it means 'faster'....;)

It is stable at 182, but anything above that and its not

I wouldn't have pushed it to 4ghz if it wasn't rock solid

Shortens the life of the hardware. Overclocking isn't a good idea.

That depends, kona, on cooling, how far it's pushed.  The biggest, most common mistake is pushing the overclock way too far: and the second; not providing adequate 'third party' cooling, given the chip will run that bit hotter... and it is the additional heat that'll kill an overclocked CPU faster than anything.

I had read that others had overclocked their AMD Phenom II 920's from 2.8ghz to 4.0ghz - 4.3ghz, but I just clocked mine to 3.4ghz and stopped, and with a Zalman cooler it is running very cool and stable between 40c to 45c.  In fact, the CPU is running quite a bit cooler than it was with the stock cooler at standard settings, so I'm not overly concerned about shortening its life.

Having said that, Cap'n A (from one captain to another ) I don't know that I'd be content with that 4.0ghz overclock if it weren't 100% stable.... I'd have to wind it back until it was.

The CPU, RAM and video are not the only things that can overheat with overclocking.

The northbridge and southbridge chipsets can also be suspect if they do not have extra cooling.

Yeah, that's why I invested in a new Thermaltake case situating the PSU on the bottom, thus blowing its hot air outside the case rather than inside.  Not only that, it has a 12cm rear exhaust fan, a 12cm front intake fan, and a 23cm top exhaust fan, so the case interior is well ventilated and kept reasonably cool.  I do have the option to add a side mobo fan, but I don't thinks it's necessary at this time.... though I'll  see how it goes during next Summer.

Yes, a good case is essential.

But I was pointing out that some heat sinks on other vital chips might be necessary if you want to OC to the max.

Oh, OK!  That is not necessary in my instance, then, I'm stable at 3.4ghz and intend to go no higher.

What exactly are you doing that needs to be faster than a stock 930?

Wasting money 'when' he fries his chips....;)

This is probably not the best place for OC help.....try a site like Tweaktown (recommended) or Overclockers it's their specialty.

Here are a couple of more sites for help

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/

http://forums.techpowerup.com/index.php

I run my 920 at 3.93 have since i got it last year 19*207 with Memory at about 1660 Mhz  and stock memory timings of 6 7 6 18 redline Mushkin sticks.

I have had it up to 4.0 on air cooling to go above that you should think about Water cooling the 920 on water can run stable at about 4.4 or 4.5

Just remember the following if you increase Dram voltage above 1.65

The reason being is that Intel requires you to keep the DRAM Bus voltage and the QPI/Uncore voltage with a difference no greater than .5 volts as it can damage the hardware.

Even with the proper cooling in place over clocking does shorten hardware life. You are basically making a part work harder than it was designed to do and therefore it will fail before it's time.

@Kona: I am not new to overclocking at all, I know the risks and I choose to take them. If the chip lasts 3 years instead of 6 it won't much matter because in 3 years it will be time for a new rig.

@Starkers: The 4ghz OC is completely stable, memory, proc, everything. But at a bclk of 183 (instead of 182) the system bluescreens after maybe 3 min of Prime95.

I have an Antec 1200 case and a Cogage True Spirit Cooler, the CPU cores don't go much above 70C even with hours of prime95. The NB maxes at about 65c.

The temps don't seem like the problem.

It is either the Board maxing out, or a voltage I need to tweak, anyone have any ideas?

Call me old fashioned but I keep my PC longer than 3 years. By the way higher CPU speeds mean nothing. It's all about multiple cores and more cache with the newer chips.

Ahot Cap'n! I have a batch number 3951A689 i7 930 and I can not for the life of me get this thing stable at 183 or higher. 182 is A+ at 1.3v, but all the volts and tweaking I've tried haven't given me anything stable from 183-220. I'd love to hear what batch you have and what you have tried to get some stability out of it.

Thing is, kona, my Phenom II 920 has the identical chip to the 940, 950, so in essence, I have only overclocked mine to match them, plus .2ghz..... and I don't see .2ghz dramatically shortening the life of my CPU. 

Me too!  I intend to keep this rig for a few more years yet.  Again, the heat factor/taking an overclock too far is the major cause of chip degradation, and I have neither concern there..

Overclocking on such a small scale may be OK. My point is mainly that the i7 wasn't designed to be running at 4.3 GHz.

That was my point, taking an overclock to extremes will more than likely shorten a CPU's lifespan, even with liquid cooling.  Like you said, they were never designed to run at near twice the speed.... and to do so may involve risk. which is why I stopped at a .4ghz increase.

I originally wanted the AMD Phenom II 940 when I was looking to upgrade, but they were rare as hens teeth and an extra $240 AUD at the time, so my PC guy suggested I get a 920 and overclock it to the 940, being they have identical chips and that it could safely be done.  So now I have the equivalent of a 940 and better for a 920 price.

Your both off base. The chips have designed voltage ranges, bclks, and thermal loads. Staying in those won't affect the life of the chip. i7's have a voltage range of .85-1.35, a bclk range of 50(I think) and 400, and a thermal load of 85c staying in those specs has no effect outside what the retail specs would have. About the only thing you can do that would have a negative long term affect would be overvolting underwater to maintain stability at the high end of those specs.

I'm off base? Push that chip beyond those limits and watch the smoke coming from the case. It only takes one time with the wrong settings...

Which limits? (Aside from the voltage; which I mentioned is dangerous to your hardware.)

Edit: Typed on a PhenomIIx4 965 running 4.2GHz 1.4875v at 31C stable since March while looking at the screen of a i7 930 running folding at home on 8 threads at 3.85GHz 1.30v 69c running 100 percent load since Saturday night

Do what you like with yur own stuff. I'm simply stating that overclocking the CPU to such a degree will shorten the CPU's life and hurt other hardware as well. You may not see it right away but you'll see it in time. Just because it's stable now does not mean it will not fail quickly and when you least expect it.

Besides for everyday use and even gaming overclocking is overkill with today's hardware.

I didn't mean to come off like a jerk, you just didn't seem to have the proper perspective and I was trying to add some. Overclocking within spec is perfectly safe. Retail clocks are the lowest clocks that every CPU in a batch has been binned at and will run stable at in all circumstances. Aftermarket cooler or decent AM case = changed circumstances, better clock speeds open to you. Additionally with the i7 920s and 930s they sell so effectively that chips binned as 975X are sold as i7 920 (i.e. week 45-49 2009). The stock clock speeds are just the absolute bare minimum. Why not get your money's worth if you know what you are doing?

Looking forward to the Cap'n showing up so we can find out batch number, since, I believe, I've ruled out his mobo as the stability issue as I have a MSI X58 Pro-E (stop laughing) with the same sticking point.

Rothdave1, I have no great experience with overclocking myself, but much discussion was held with my local tech when we upped my Phenom II 920.  I wanted only to go as far to bring me up to a 940 or a little better, but I did ask about the 4.0ghz and above extremes I had read about.  It was Darren's opinion that going that far would involve the risk of CPU and other hardware damage... that while it may run okay for a while, it would eventually implode. 

He likened it to a human heart beating at 140 beats per minute and being forced to beat at 240 beats per minute... eventually it'll run out of beats and go into cardiac arrest.  Now Darren has been a PC tech for 10 years or more, and if he believes extreme overclocking will shorten the life of a CPU by 12 to 18 months or more, I'm more likely going to listen to him and not risk my equipment.  As he said to me, most of the PC meltdowns he'd seen (salvaged/repaired) over the years were due to extreme overclocking... people trying to double their clock speeds, etc

And with good reason... safe and stable operating speeds in all circumstances. While 'some' overclocking can be considered safe, factory settings were never intended to be near doubled because, in essence, the CPU is then running at near 200%, twice that the manufacturer intended.  That kind of duress has to have a detrimental effect over time... too many 'heartbeats', etc, and anybody who does video rendering/editing at 80% - 100% CPU for a living/hobby, for example, should probably not overclock to any great degree.