Definitely is, the whole purpose of the game here    We're not looking for that single 2% performance increase as a single, but as a whole. 2% here with that 100mhz, 2°C here with that additional fan, 2fps there with that specific nvidia driver, and so on !

A daisy chain where we drop weak links one after another.

 

 

 

 

:smile: Would have to disagree with you there. That's not in the context we were discussing. He has his rig set up, his cooling is configured. Obviously if he spends money he could, theoretically, benefit from a cumulative effect. But as it stands the variable he can alter without spending money is his overclocking, and for a mere 0.6 of a frame per second clearly that is pointless. Especially as his temps are currently at at a level that "perhaps" it would be better not to exceed.

 

To be honest, even if we consider your cumulative scenario, 2% from overclocking, 2% from a fan, and lets say another 2% from taking a Dremel to the rear fan grill, that's still only 6%. So at 30 frames per second, less than two frames per second. You would have to stack up many variables to gain a worthwhile increase in frame rate that way.

 

 

 

PS: Do you really think that the Corsair H110 is so much better? I wouldn't have expected that.

 

 

The Arctic liquid cooler has a 240 radiator. The Corsiar H110 has a 280 radiator so more surface area. The Arctic cooler also has 4 fans as opposed to the H110's two, so if you were to compare them like for like, with the same type and number of fans, I would expect the Corsair H110 to be ahead quite a bit

 

Not surprised it's noisy though with four fans. I'm used to very quiet coolers, namely Noctua NH-D14/15S.

 

Here...

 

http://hardocp.com/article/2016/03/09/arctic_cooling_liquid_freezer_240_aio_cpu_cooler_review/3#.VzSQZ4QrKUk

 

The Freezer 240 is at 69.7. The Corsair H105 is at 70.9. But the Corsair has only two 120 fans and the Freezer 4 120 fans. Both with two, Corsair would probably nudge ahead. So I would have to conclude that the H110 with a larger rad and bigger fans would be significantly ahead.

 

Cant be too definitive as the reviews are weird, very contradictory. Also I can't find a Freezer 240, H110 comparison.

 

P.S Don't forget Stefan, if you are concerned about noise, do try your Freezer 240 with only two fans. You will only see about two to four degrees difference. Airflow is the key. Four fans as opposed to two, doesn't increase airflow through the rad, all it will do is increase static pressure slightly, hence only a slight difference in CPU temp.... but two will be quieter of course!

Thanks again. I thought the H110 is also a 240.

 

All in all I can say: I am very glad to have gone for the Arctic freezer. It is a real good product for a very fair price.

I am not the "high end overclocker" so this is enough for me :-)

Do try just two fans though, pretty sure you won't see much difference in temp but it will be quieter. Worth a try.

75 degrees in your everyday applications or during a stress test? If you are at 75 degrees at 4.6 GHz while running your day to day software, then personally I wouldn't go higher. 

 

Personally, I like to be a bit conservative and not exceed 70C or so in normal use. That way, if the weather goes bonkers and we get a heat wave [like last week in the UK, no air con in the UK] and the ambient temp shoots up 10 degrees, I'm still not exceeding my preferred CPU max temp for day to day use of 80 degrees.

 

Not sure what the weathers like in Florida, I know it's damn hot, but what about consistency? Is the ambient temp consistent, or do you get significant fluctuations in ambient temperature. Worth considering these things. We don't want to be fine in the winter, but then above our preferred CPU max in a summer heatwave. Or does your homes air con keep the ambient nice and stable?

 

The other point to consider before you decide to up the frequency to 4.7, is what will that achieve? 4.6GHz to 4.7GHz will give you bugger all in terms of frame rate. Don't forget, overclocking is linear in a properly balanced system. 4.6 to 4.7 is a minuscule 2%. in terms of frame rate, at 30 frames per second, that's a meaningless 0.6 frames per second. 

 

Is it worth it? You decide!

 

 

 

Higher temps while running a stress test are acceptable, the important thing is the temp when running your everyday applications. In my opinion 80 in stress test = acceptable. 80 in P3D = a bit too high for my preference. 

 

ROG RealBench is a great choice. As you read, both Westamn and I favour it. And Westman is far more of an expert at this stuff than me. 

 

As I mentioned to Brett above, I prefer not to exceed 70 degrees or so in normal use. But that's my preference for the reasons stated. It was unusually hot here in the UK last week. Heat waves are something we experience from time to time and I like to consider that in terms of thermals, so as not to exceed 80 degrees in normal use even in a heat wave.

 

Many don't consider that. They are comfortable with 80 degrees but they forget the impact a higher ambient will have in the summer. As I said though, most of us in residential homes here in the UK don't have air con, we just have central heating for the winter. So in the summer, heat waves do impact us in therms of room temperature, so it's common sense to consider that.

 

The bottom line when overclocking is to determine the delta temp, and then consider what that CPU temp would be if the ambient in a summer heat wave shoots up.

 

The Arctic Liquid Freezer is a reasonable 240 AIO. But of course, if you wanted to stick to 4.6Ghz but improve thermals, a Corsair H110 would drop the temp to [i'm guessing] about 70 degrees.

 

The bottom line though is that both you and Brett are experiencing overclocks within the norm for Skylake. Skylake yields have been remarkably consistant. 4.6 to 4.8GHz for most.

thanks for all the advise,i decided to stay at the 4.6ghz at 1.375,under aide64 i max at about 76c, the temp doesn't change much in the house, it's at a constant 75F, here where i live the air runs 9 months a year, so thats why the air is never below 75F, it is flat out miserable june, july, august in this state to the point you don't want to go outside accept to get to your car where the air is again.so i am very happy with the 4.6ghz.we also have extremely high humidity most of the year as well as dust problems, i would say the majority of central and southern florida people don't have carpet, so in exchange the computer has to be cleaned weekly and monthly at the most.when i can afford it i am going back north where it's cooler lol.thanks again.

Good grief, I like the warm weather but I don't think I could cope with that all the time.

 

It's a temperate climate here in the UK of course. We get it all, wind, snow, rain, occasional heat waves, all the seasons. All though we are seeing a lot of flooding these days and a lot less snow, and the seasons have shifted somewhat, spring is arriving sooner and autumn is late. Climate change implicated of course.

Now that I've been home for a couple days, I took a look at adaptive mode on the BIOS and I have a trial OC. This is just what I've tried at first and it's stable, but if I should tweak the values in one direction or another please don't hesitate to let me know.

 

x46 multiplier for 4.6ghz

offset = +0.090v

additional turbo mode core voltage = 1.20v

 

When in "High Performance" power plan in Windows it will hold 1.296v stable constantly. When I go to "Balanced" the minimum in HWmonitor is 0.368v, it idles at 0.736v, and under load it holds 1.296v, all stable. Is that about right for what I should set in BIOS? Or:

 

I know that when I do manual voltage at stock 3.5ghz it needs 1.088v under load, and 1.160v when it's in Auto (with the turbo up to 3.9ghz). Should I have something more like an offset of +0.200v and additional voltage of 1.090v? Or set the 1.296v in additional turbo mode core voltage and have no offset?

I tested a little more by trial and error. I found that the 1.1/0.2 combination gave me higher voltage during load than expected, near 1.36v. It appears that a 1.29 additional voltage and +0.01 offset gives me the same results as 1.2 with +0.09. Not sure which one to stick with however