# Dynamic VS Static OverClocking



## jonathan1107 (Oct 30, 2014)

Hi, I've been trying to figure out which one would be best for my new i5 4690k with msi z97 gaming 5 mobo and kraken x61 280mm rad...

I've read about the pros and cons of both... Honestly, all I care about is performance, BUT I'm aware that a "cool" CPU will perform better than a "warm" CPU ... which is why I'm opened to the idea of a dynamic OC since the Cores can be clocked down when not needed or when idling... you name it.

And yet, I've read a lot about the benefits of a STATIC OC because of the stability it brings... less frame drops etc...

What are your thoughts?


----------



## DayKnight (Oct 30, 2014)

Daily use and static?. No.


----------



## Kursah (Oct 30, 2014)

I use dynamic, that way I can use stock and idle clocks, and turbo is my max OC instead of my constant OC rate. Sure it doesn't hurt to find stability with the static overclock first, and then work it back into a dynamic mode. I believe in using the power savers, idle clocks and voltages with my overclocked rigs...why run OC'd all the time on a daily driver in 2014? Sure maybe 10 years ago it made sense to do it that way...when clocks only dropped 100-200MHz in the first place. Now when clocks can go frum 4-5GHz to 800Mhz for instance, my idle temps look much nicer, and when I'm web browsing, word processing, etc...basics, I find no need for running max clocks.

Plus CPU's switch clocks so fast...as a gamer I still wouldn't leave it at max OC, neither do I want my graphics card doing the same. The idle technology is good and it's there for a reason, why not use it? When the OEM's are with their stock overclocking (read: turbo) profiles, why shouldn't we? I have no issue finding stability...sure it might take a little more work but it's totally worth it imho.

Dynamic clocks and Adaptive voltage FTW!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 30, 2014)

High performance mode in os holds the cpu at max in my pc so I don't get issues but I have the option to easily and quickly turn down the power and noise by picking balanced or power saving mode but this stops  24/7 5ghz clocks , I am forced to run a lowely 4.9 max damnit


----------



## m&m's (Oct 30, 2014)

jonathan1107 said:


> I'm aware that a "cool" CPU will perform better than a "warm" CPU



A CPU is not an engine, a 4GHz i5 4690k at 60°C wont give you better performances than one running at 70°C. Lower the temperature is, better the longevity of the CPU will be (Lower VCORE will have the same effect). Running too hot would also make it unstable, but that's it.

And dynamic would be my choice.


----------



## erocker (Oct 30, 2014)

jonathan1107 said:


> And yet, I've read a lot about the benefits of a STATIC OC because of the stability it brings... less frame drops etc...


If done properly a dynamic OC is just as stable. So, there's no benefit to a static OC.


----------



## FireFox (Oct 30, 2014)

Definitely dynamic OC.

Agree with erocker
no benefit to a static OC.

Static OC = Cores in full loaded and a lot of heat even when no needed..

How long can a Cpu handle it?


----------



## OneMoar (Oct 30, 2014)

dynamic is a bit of a pain but totally worth it in my book
took me a few days of experimenting to get this locked in so it was rock-stable


----------



## jonathan1107 (Oct 30, 2014)

Ok thanks a lot guys. I've heard of how it's nos possible to assign different mhz speeds for different votes which I think is awesome. Because some applications don't even use 4 threads. It's fun to know that I can set core number one to hit a certain max speed and a bit less when all cores are running. 

I'll be trying to see what kind of OC I can get out of my chip tonight.


----------



## FireFox (Oct 30, 2014)

jonathan1107 said:


> Ok thanks a lot guys. I've heard of how it's nos possible to assign different mhz speeds for different votes which I think is awesome. Because some applications don't even use 4 threads. It's fun to know that I can set core number one to hit a certain max speed and a bit less when all cores are running.
> 
> I'll be trying to see what kind of OC I can get out of my chip tonight.


good luck and keep us updated


----------



## jonathan1107 (Oct 31, 2014)

Alright so I reached 4.4ghz stable with my setup but my temps at load hover around 55-60 degrees max which means I still have headroom... 

Problem is I'm having a hard time making 4.6ghz stable. Here are my settings:

CPU ratio mode = dynamic 
Intel turbo enabled
Ring ratio at 41 
XML profile for the ram
VCCIN voltage = 1.800v
Adaptive + offset de for core voltage=1.250v
Offset = 0.005v
Cpu ring voltage = 1.095v
Ring offset =0.05v
Pch voltage 1.05 voltage = 1.070
Pch 1.5 voltage = 1.520
Active processor cores = all
C1e = disabled 
Cstates = auto

In order to stabilize my 4.6ghz I did the following :

- increased vring voltage to 1.135v
- increased VCCIN voltage to 1.820v
- increased ring ratio to 43 (from 41)

Any tips as to other ways to reach higher clocks? As my temps are well within safe range plus my cooler was only running at 50% fan speed. 

Oh and I should probably mention I'm using anmsi  gaming5 mobo and a i5 4690k along with a kraken x61 aio 280mm rad

Now I know I should probably increase my cousin core voltage to something like 1.27
But before I try that I wanted to know if there are other settings in the bios that can be tweaked to stabilize the OC to achieve a good OC with lowest voltage possible


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 1, 2014)

moar vcore
but seriously 1.35v is already pushing your luck
beyond 1.35 the chip rapidly will degrade
you can try going to 1.9@load on the VCCIN and see if that cuts the voltage requirements I have a feeling you are hitting the wall of your chip tho
mine doesn't do 4.4 Without ~1.25v


----------



## FireFox (Nov 1, 2014)

jonathan1107 said:


> Alright so I reached 4.4ghz stable with my setup but my temps at load hover around 55-60 degrees max which means I still have headroom...
> 
> Problem is I'm having a hard time making 4.6ghz stable. Here are my settings:
> 
> ...


As onemoar said chip will rapidly degrade, 1.35 it's a bit overkill, mine is 4.5 1.27v, once i used 1.35v to see how far i could push mine and i got a nice 5.0 stable and no crash...


Edit: 5.0 dynamic OC.
Forgot to mention, my CPU is delidded


----------



## jonathan1107 (Nov 2, 2014)

Alright so I managed to boot with 4.6ghz but I only last 45 seconds with prime 95 running small ffts...

Settings used:
- 1.285v vcore
- 1.220v vring
- 2.050v vccin
- dram XML disabled and manually set to 1333mhz for stability
- cpu ratio mode = fixed
- ring ratio set to 33
-cpu pour pll set to Sb pll
- analog, sa, ioa, iod voltages set to auto
- c-state disabled (until I get stable)
- temps at load =64-66 degrees while stressing with ffts

*** EDIT *** : I just left all those settings like they were and decided in a fool's hope to try and raise the VCCIN one last time and set it to 2.10v and I just started
a x264 loop (30 runs) and it looks VERY much more stable. I didn't last 15 seconds with the last settings I posted above. And at the time of writing this (right now) x264 just crashed after about 5mins...

Crap... lol. Well I'm gonna go try some more VCCIN voltage (2.15v this time i guess)

Brb

EDIT 2: upped the VCCIN to 2.15v and vring to 1.235v and have been stable for 15mins in x264.

So apparently the voltages I needed for stability were vccin and vring. Vcore is presently at 1.304v with vid at 1.281v


----------

