Solved Overclocking on Asus M4A79XTD EVO

Asus M4a79xtd evo desktop motherboard -...
June 7, 2011 at 01:00:44
Specs: Windows 7 Ultimate x64, AMD Phenom II x4 965 BE 3.4GHz; G.Skill 2x2GB DDR3 1333Mhz
This BIOS is just about the most confusing monster that I have ever had the displeasure of navigating. does everything mean? And what does it do? And how does it effect overclocking? What should stay on auto or locked to a certain voltage, etc? I am currently not overclocking at all because I'm so perplexed by the plethora of confusing technical acronyms. And I'm tech savvy, this is unnecessary lol.

The main part of the BIOS that is confusing is the JumperFree Configuration.

They have like twenty different voltages and I'm afraid to touch anything lol.

So far I have:

CPU base clock set to 200 default

VCore set to 1.4v per specs

VDDNB set to auto, I now know that it is for the On-die Memory Controller/Bridge voltage, but do I set it to? I don't want to mess something up.

NB Freq set to 2000mhz
NB set to 1.1v, per specs for all 7xx chipsets if I'm not mistaken

HT set to 2000MHz
HT Voltage set to Auto, not sure what it should be but changing this and the VDDNB to the "standard" option (I forget the recommended voltages) led to a 4 degree temperature spike in my idle temps, so I set them both back to auto.
HT width set to 16 bit

DRAM set to 1333mhz @ 7-7-7-21, 1.5v

Some weird setting with 1.2v in the title, and another with 1.8v, I set them to what their names are, figured that was obvious.

C1E disabled
PCIE Spread Spectrum Disabled
Cool N Quiet Enabled
ACC disabled

There are more settings I'm sure I'm missing but that isn't bad from memory after setting the settings last week and not looking at them since..

Anyways, does anyone have this board and processor and is overclocking on it? If so, suggestions are more than welcome, they're a must. :)

See More: Overclocking on Asus M4A79XTD EVO

Report •

June 7, 2011 at 06:33:31
"But since you apparently have a Black Edition CPU, overclocking should be done via the multiplier anyway & that has no effect on memory speed"

We can not fight new wars with old weapons, let he who desires peace prepare for war - PROPHET.

Report •

June 7, 2011 at 07:41:38
✔ Best Answer
You have a Black Edition CPU so all you need to do is increase the multiplier & possibly the CPU voltage to stabilize the overclock. That's the whole idea behind the BE CPUs. There's really no need to mess with any of the other settings.

AMD systems have no FSB. The CPU & memory controller communicate at full processor speed, so the higher you clock the CPU, the faster the CPU-memory communication. Increasing the RAM speed will have very little effect on performance. In the Tom's article I linked to in your other thread, it mentions that an overclocked CPU with DDR3-800 will perform better than a non-overclocked CPU with DDR3-1333. The key is to run the CPU as fast as possible, while keeping the HT & memory buses at their defaults speeds. Even so, the X4 965 BE is already near the upper limit of what the X4 is capable of. You'll be lucky if you can hit 3.8GHz & remain stable. Hopefully you have a decent PSU because your CPU is rated at 140W. Overclocking will increase the wattage.

Report •

June 7, 2011 at 12:59:31
Yeah I know, I wouldn't overclock the BUS anyway, that's only feasible with the non BE cpus, and especially Intel CPUs, since they don't focus on multipliers nearly as much and are all about the high FSB's. Plus I don't have memory that is going to allow for a whole lot of BUS overclocking anyway. On my last mobo I was able to get the CPU to run @ 3.8 with only a very small voltage change to the VCore and a small jump in temps, but the mobo was a cheaper ASRock with NB 770 and SB 710, so I didn't get much of a performance gain if any. Now that I have this mobo which is a much more solid platform for a Phenom II, I am sure that I will be able to OC to the same level with a much bigger improvement in performance overall. I just wanted to make sure that I should only be modifying the basic settings, because I don't want to change, for instance, the VDDNB voltage and end up frying the on-die memory controller because I set it too high. Thanks for the input, I will try to overclock my setup tonight, will run some stability tests and benchmarks, and post the results.

Report •

Related Solutions

June 7, 2011 at 14:29:12
Also, my CPU is NOT rated for 140W, I have the 965 BE Revision C3, which is rated @ 125W TDP. I do believe that the same clock limitation applies though, as many people are unable to hit anything above 3.8GHz without overclocking the BUS or modifying a lot of voltage settings.

Report •

June 7, 2011 at 15:11:47
"I wouldn't overclock the BUS anyway, that's only feasible with the non BE cpus"

Incorrect. You can overclock via the CPU reference clock if you want to. And if you had gotten DDR3-1600 RAM, that's what you would've had to do to take full advantage of it.

"and especially Intel CPUs, since they don't focus on multipliers nearly as much and are all about the high FSB's"

Intel systems no longer use a FSB either. The Core i3, i5 & i7 all have an integrated memory controller. The new bus is called QPI (Quick Path Interconnect). The Core 2 Duo & Core 2 Quad with their "outdated" FSB are already old news.

"I don't have memory that is going to allow for a whole lot of BUS overclocking anyway"

The RAM doesn't need to be overclocked. When overclocking via the CPU reference clock, the RAM speed setting is usually lowered, then the reference clock can be increased, hopefully high enough to bring the RAM back up to it's default speed again. As far as the communication between the CPU & memory controller is concerned, it doesn't matter if the CPU clock settings are 19 x 200MHz or 15 x 254MHz. Both will run the CPU at approx 3.8GHz meaning that bus speed between the CPU & memory controller will be 3.8GHz.

"Now that I have this mobo which is a much more solid platform for a Phenom II, I am sure that I will be able to OC to the same level with a much bigger improvement in performance overall"

If you already had a decent AMD 770/710 board that allowed you to overclock to 3.8GHz, why did you "upgrade"? You should have at least moved on to a 800 series board. At best, you took a baby step forward with your new board, at worst, a side step. Personally, I think you should have stood pat with the ASRock. Do you really think the performance difference between AMD 770 vs 790 is that significant as to warrant spending $100 (or whatever you paid) on a board with a chipset that's one generation behind? Any performance gains you see will most likely be due to adding more RAM, not the board swap.

Report •

June 7, 2011 at 19:31:20
LOL well then I guess I'm wrong on almost all points. I haven't been building my own pc's for very long and this is my first run with AMD so forgive me if I'm misinformed or a little behind on the times. I knew that AMD hasn't used FSB's for awhile but I thought Intel still did. I thought they just renamed it to QPI lol, but I'm obviously wrong. As far as "upgrading" my motherboard, I didn't upgrade, the board that I used that got this Phenom up to 3.8 was a $50 ASRock board that failed within three months (bad memory slots, could not get it to POST at all with RAM in the Channel A slots). I only "upgraded" because I didn't want to bother with an RMA. I knew it was a cheap board going into it and I figured when it failed so soon after buying it that I'd probably end up paying just as much in shipping to do RMA's as I paid for it in the first place, so I cut my losses and got this board to replace it. So I didn't "upgrade" so much as replace a board that I knew was going to be trouble. Anyway, I am typing this while running at 3.8ghz, getting ready to do some tests, I'll post my results soon.

Report •

June 7, 2011 at 20:51:27
BTW I am really confused by all of this so I'm sorry if I'm mistaken about the things that I post. I had just started getting used to how my Intel e6750 worked and how to push it as far as it would go (got it up to 3.4GHz stable and could run it at 3.8GHz, but it was too hot to run with air cooling), and now it's like I have to start over and learn everything from scratch again.

Report •

June 7, 2011 at 20:51:27
removed double post

Report •

June 7, 2011 at 22:17:28
So far so good. I've been running it at 3.8 for a few hours now, it made it through 5 passes of IBT Maximum with a 44.11646 G flop average. Max temp was 50 degrees Celsius with the stock AMD heatsink lol.

Ran thirty minutes of Prime95 Small FFTs, no errors, max temp of 49.

Made it through two passes in Heaven Benchmark with a max temp of 48.

I'm only running the VCore at 1.425 in the BIOS, but HWMonitor reports 1.45 under full load. False reporting?

Also, since that's such a small jump in VCore, should I bump it up to 1.45 in BIOS anyway?

Report •

June 8, 2011 at 13:39:24
Ran Prime all night, test went continuous for 12 hours and 53 minutes with zero errors, zero warnings for the small ffts test. Max temp for the entire 13 hours was 48 C. Booyah.

All with the stock heatsink which surprised me, I figured that it would get closer to 55 C

Report •

June 8, 2011 at 20:26:50
Higher Vcore will give you higher temperatures so increase it only if you need to for stability and then only just enough. Some overclockers find stability and then lower voltages to see how low is still stable, find a minimum and then up a little bit again.

You have to be a little bit crazy to keep you from going insane.

Report •

June 10, 2011 at 18:17:10
Yeah I knew that the VCore played the biggest part in raising temps. I don't know how I did it on stock cooling, but I am running @ 4.0GHz right now. I'm obviously testing for stability issues, but as we speak the max temp that I have hit is 56 C (per core, calculated temps) / 48 C (external CPU diode) running an Intel Burn Test through 5 passes on "High".

I'm running this all at a VCore of ~1.5v in HWMonitor under the heaviest load possible (1.45v is the BIOS setting). Not bad I would say, for using the stock heatsink/fan combo. Proof that while Intel's chips may be faster, AMDs catch up with being able to keep prices low while creating awesome chips like mine that can hit 4GHz without breaking a sweat. I could push higher, but why?

Antec Three Hundred Mid Tower

AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4GHz @ 3.8GHz stock heatsink

2x2GB G.Skill DDR3 1333MHz @ 7-7-7-21 tRC 28 2T

Nvidia GTX 460 1GB MF'd by Nvidia @ 805MHz Core / 1.61GHz Shader

Report •

Ask Question