G'Day,The last few days I have been scanning through the forums to try and find what the most used AM value used for the 2600K, in my case overclocked to 4.6Ghz with HT on... During this research I have found numerous posts, most of which I have just lost complete knowledge on what the heck they are talking about.. cores on here, cores off here, numbers from 43 to 255 here, there and everywhere!So here is my question.. what would be the best AM for me?... As I said above I am running a 2600K @ 4.6 with HT enabled, and use numerous other programs at the same time (ActiveSky, FSinn, VatSPY, Skype etc.).. Right now I have mine set at 84, which to tell you the truth, have no idea what difference it does in comparison to if I set it to 255..If some people could give me some values to play around with and compare performance, it would be greatly appreciated! :Party:

Edited February 21, 201214 yr by machine2035

If you want to OC as high as possible, turn HT off (only 4 CPU cores "used"). Then use AF to only use cores 1, 2 and 3 for FSX, so core 0 is left free for windows and other programs and utilities.If you list the cores from highest to lowest and from right to left you get "3210". Now rather than the core number, instead place a 1 if the core will be used and a 0 if not, then "FSX using all cores except core 0" would be "1110". Well, binary 1110 = decimal 14 (you can easily convert between decimal and binary in the Calculator app that comes with Windows, try it!) So that's why you're supposed to use AF = 14 for FSX.With HT turned on your CPU gets 4 "new" virtual cores, so you now have a total of 8, so your cores are 76543210, thus if you wanted to exclude FSX from running on core 0 you would use an affinity mask of 11111110, which in decimal is 255.But as I said, don't run FSX with HT on as it will perform better with HT off.Cheers,- jahman.

With HT turned on your CPU gets 4 "new" virtual cores, so you now have a total of 8, so your cores are 76543210, thus if you wanted to exclude FSX from running on core 0 you would use an affinity mask of 11111110, which in decimal is 255.

To leave core 0 out, 84 is the right AF jahman (01010100), it's the one Bojote's tool suggest for 4C/8T processors168 (10101000) would have the same effect.The thing is that you don't get 4 true cores and 4 virtual cores with HT on, all 8 cores are virtual, and every pair of virtual cores now share a true core so that two threads can run on the same core "simultaneously".Using 84 or 168 you ensure only one thread is running on each true core except for core 0, just like you would with AF=14 without HTSo the alternatives would be:84: cores 1, 2 & 385: cores 0, 1, 2 & 3252: cores 1, 2 & 3 (two threads per core, assuming HT helps)255: cores 0, 1, 2 & 3 (two threads per core, assuming HT helps)84 recommended

If you want to OC as high as possible, turn HT off (only 4 CPU cores "used"). Then use AF to only use cores 1, 2 and 3 for FSX, so core 0 is left free for windows and other programs and utilities.If you list the cores from highest to lowest and from right to left you get "3210". Now rather than the core number, instead place a 1 if the core will be used and a 0 if not, then "FSX using all cores except core 0" would be "1110". Well, binary 1110 = decimal 14 (you can easily convert between decimal and binary in the Calculator app that comes with Windows, try it!) So that's why you're supposed to use AF = 14 for FSX.With HT turned on your CPU gets 4 "new" virtual cores, so you now have a total of 8, so your cores are 76543210, thus if you wanted to exclude FSX from running on core 0 you would use an affinity mask of 11111110, which in decimal is 255.But as I said, don't run FSX with HT on as it will perform better with HT off.Cheers,- jahman.

Okay awesome.So just to confirm, I should turn HT off and then use a AffinityMask=14 in the cfg?Ta.

84: cores 1, 2 & 3

Seems you posted just as I posted the above message.Is this AF=84 with HT off or on?Thanks!

AF=84 only with HT onWith HT on, 84 is the same as 14 with HT off

AF=84 only with HT onWith HT on, 84 is the same as 14 with HT off

Okay thanks!.. While on the subject of CPU's, can I have some help on LLC. So far for my OC I have been using [Auto] Load Line Calibration option, but I hear using LLC I may be able to get a stabler overclock at a lower voltage with less droop. Do you use LLC and is it worth turning on? If So, which option/setting should I have it on for an overclock in the 4.5-4.7Ghz region.Thanks for all your help, its appreciated!

Yeah, LLC is there to mitigate or cancel Vdroop. It boils down to personal preference, how much Vdrop/Vdroop you've got and the overclock - Vcore in place.Without LLC you may need to run pretty high idle Vcore to compensate for the droop when the load increases.In my case for example, I run 1.36V for 4.8GHz at full load. Without LLC my idle Vcore shoots up to some 1.39V, so I cranked my LLC up to keep my idle volts as low as possible.I don't know if it helps with full load Vcore or not

So just to confirm, I should turn HT off and then use a AffinityMask=14 in the cfg?

Yes!Cheers,- jahman.

Yeah, LLC is there to mitigate or cancel Vdroop. It boils down to personal preference, how much Vdrop/Vdroop you've got and the overclock - Vcore in place.Without LLC you may need to run pretty high idle Vcore to compensate for the droop when the load increases.In my case for example, I run 1.36V for 4.8GHz at full load. Without LLC my idle Vcore shoots up to some 1.39V, so I cranked my LLC up to keep my idle volts as low as possible.I don't know if it helps with full load Vcore or not

Ok awesome! Thanks for all the help.Also do you change your QVI/VTT? I am trying to get a new stable o/c and having some troubles with a x124 BSOD, and I have read up it might have to do with my QVI/VTT voltage (it is currently at 1.050, suggested to go 1.12)

Ok awesome! Thanks for all the help.Also do you change your QVI/VTT? I am trying to get a new stable o/c and having some troubles with a x124 BSOD, and I have read up it might have to do with my QVI/VTT voltage (it is currently at 1.050, suggested to go 1.12)

You could try up to 1.2V for Vccio / Vtt but most of the times with these chips it's Vcore what matters. What your full load Vcore & freq now?

Edited February 22, 201214 yr by dazz

You could try up to 1.2V for Vccio / Vtt but most of the times with these chips it's Vcore what matters. What your full load Vcore & freq now?

I am at 4.6 running at 1.335.. It used to run through IBT fine for an odd 3 hours or so, now it can't even get past 3 runs without BSOD'ing.I might try bumping up the vcore to a max of 1.375 (seems to be average high for 4.6Ghz) and see if I have any luck.

1.335V in BIOS or full load Core Voltage reading in CPU-Z?

1.335V in BIOS or full load Core Voltage reading in CPU-Z?

In the BIOS. CPU-Z doesn't work properly with my mobo (always gives a vcore of 1.056), so I use the GB Easytune utility which was advising me 1.308, so I then enabled LLC, but it was still drooping down to 1.320 under load. WIth my current BIOS I don't have levels of LLC to choose from (Only Enable, Disable and Auto), and I don't feel like flashing my BIOS is a good idea (I hear its a high risk procedure?)