Why an Overclockable Core i3 Might Not Exist: The Supermicro C7H170-M and Intel Core i3-6100TE Review
by Ian Cutress on March 17, 2016 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Motherboards
- Core i3
- Supermicro
- Overclocking
Base Clock Overclocking the Core i3-6100TE: Scaling
As mentioned at several points in this overall piece, overclocking using the Supermicro C7H170-M was actually really easy. There is a single option in the BIOS under ‘Extra Performance’ where you can change the base frequency from 100 MHz to 150 MHz in 5 MHz increments. This doesn’t adjust the processor voltage, and we have no load line calibrations, but that didn’t seem to matter much.
There is an option for Core Voltage Offset, although I’m not so much a fan of offsets when I saw a motherboard a couple of years ago apply a double offset, and I freaked out in case it burned out that $999 CPU. In this case though, we did not have much trouble.
Adjusting the base frequency will adjust the memory speed as well, so the two main limitations will be the processor itself (either physical limits, temperature or voltage) and the memory (also limits, temperature and voltage). This can become tricky to manage as a 35% overclock on DDR4-2133 memory can instantly push it to DDR4-2880. There is an option to reduce the memory multiplier if needed in the BIOS.
As for testing the limits of overclocking, we employed our regular methodology. Increase the frequency, run a pass of our POV-Ray benchmark followed by five minutes of OCCT, noting the voltage, temperature and power where possible. If it passes these two tests, we reboot into the BIOS and increase the frequency. If we fail the test, we would typically go back and reduce the voltage, however this wasn’t needed here. Our results are as follows:
In this case our CPU worked well all through our tests until 145 MHz, or 3.915 GHz for the processor that starts as a 2.7 GHz part. Here when we applied a strong load, it caused the system to blue screen. We tried with other benchmarks, and confirmed that the system was sort of stable, except for gaming and video editing. So as a result we moved back down the scale and found 135 MHz a reasonable compromise for the testing for the full benchmark suite.
But for testing the scaling of the overclock we did our short form benchmark suite on 100, 130, 135 and 140 MHz do see if performance in these benchmarks can accurately scale. As one of the bigger questions, we of course also did some gaming benchmark testing, using our GTX 980 at each of the points. For users interested in R9 285, R9 290 and GTX 770 data at 135 MHz, please look at our benchmark database.
Testing the Scaling – CPU Short Form
In all of our short form tests, the scaling from 2.7 GHz to 3.78 GHz was near perfect, particularly in 3DPM single threaded. The more you put in, the proportional you get out.
Testing the Scaling – CPU Extra
We also had some extra testing on hand. A few benchmarks showed an odd jump between 135 MHz and 140 MHz, such as Agisoft and Cinebench 10 single thread. Dolphin saw some odd regression at 140 MHz, but the general trend still stood.
Testing the Scaling – GTX 980 Gaming
![Grand Theft Auto V on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Under 60 FPS]](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph10127/80757.png)
![GRID: Autosport on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Minimum FPS]](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph10127/80759.png)
![Shadow of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Minimum FPS]](https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph10127/80763.png)
In our gaming tests, every title showed proportional gains such that moving from 130 to 135 MHz did the same increase as moving from 135 to 140 MHz, although in some cases it was really, really minor. The best way to look at it is to plot a graph of frame rate against CPU frequency, and find where the frequency = 0 cuts the line and note the gradient. What matters here is two points. If the intercept (frequency = 0) value is high, then it offers a good performance no matter what. If the gradient is high, then you get a better response per adjustment in frequency.
| Benchmark (1080p Ultra) | Intercept | Gradient |
| Alien Isolation, Average FPS | 86.59 FPS | 24.1 FPS per GHz |
| Total War: Attila, Average FPS | 10.86 FPS | 6.1 FPS per GHz |
| Grand Theft Auto, Average FPS | 33.11 FPS | 8.6 FPS per GHz |
| Grand Theft Auto, % Frames >16.6ms | -20.4% per GHz | |
| GRID, Average FPS | 67.71 FPS | 24.9 FPS per GHz |
| GRID, Minimum FPS | 28.00 FPS | 26.0 FPS per GHz |
| Shadow of Mordor 4K, Average FPS | 39.31 FPS | 0.3 FPS per GHz |
| Shadow of Mordor 4K, Minimum FPS | 16.18 FPS | 3.2 FPS per GHz |
From these results, essentially everything except Mordor seems to get really nice gains (proportionally) from increasing the frequency.
As an exercise in stupid numbers, here’s a calculation. Using the intercept and gradient, and assuming a perpetual linear relationship, calculate the frequency needed for 60, 120 or 240 FPS average. The results are:
| Benchmark (1080p Ultra) | Frequency Needed for 60 FPS |
Frequency Needed for 120 FPS |
Frequency Needed for 240 FPS |
| Alien Isolation, Average FPS | Always | 1.38 GHz | 6.37 GHz |
| Total War: Attila, Average FPS | 8.06 GHz | Stupid | Even more stupid |
| Grand Theft Auto, Average FPS | 3.13 GHz | 10.10 GHz | Stupid |
| Grand Theft Auto, % Frames >16.6ms |
For all frames below 16.6ms: 5.98 GHz | ||
| GRID, Average FPS | Always | 2.10 GHz | 6.92 GHz |
| GRID, Minimum FPS | 1.23 GHz | 3.54 GHz | 8.15 GHz |
| Shadow of Mordor 4K Average FPS |
69.67 GHz | Stupid | Even more stupid |
| Shadow of Mordor 4K Minimum FPS |
13.69 GHz | Stupid | Even more stupid |
Because of the titles that scale, I’m inclined to believe some of these numbers, such as Alien Isolation and GRID, but Mordor is just amusing as the minimum scales faster than the average in our small test. Give me a ring if we ever hit 70 GHz.
A Word on Power Consumption
It turns out that power consumption numbers becomes a byline in this test. At stock frequencies and at +35% overclock, the power consumption of this 35W part moved from 32W to 38W, which is pretty much what was to be expected.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
Tunrip - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link
I began reading Anandtech long before I actually had a PC, let alone began overclocking.What was that Celeron everyone raved about back in the day? Celeron 200A or something?
I remember Anand used to make reference to it. These overclockable i3s remind me of that. A budget chip that could blow away the higher-performing (and costing) chips of the day when overclocked.
Simpler times... :)
ses1984 - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link
So Why Do We Not See an Overclockable i3 CPU? No competition from AMD.Macpoedel - Saturday, March 19, 2016 - link
Zo SuperMicro seeded you a slow Core i3 that you only got as vast as a regular Core i3. Basically what you showed Here is that a regular Core i3 6100 isn't !much slower than a regular Core i5 6500 but it is over $50 cheaper. Could it have hurt to mention that a Core IE 6100 runs at 3,7GHz?Couldn't you just get the Core i3 6100 yourself or is Anandtech not allowed to buy hardware? I get that you can't just go out and buy a Core i7 5960x or a GTX Titan X, but the company couldn't pay a $100 CPU? Funds can't be that tight. The only conclusion I can make is that you have some deal to only use seeded parts.
Honestly what is the point of this 15 page article if you don't get the relevant parts? Are you yourself satisfied about these results? I think you've done a lot of work completely in vain. It's good that you try to be a little more than just another promotion channel for Intel/SuperMicro/etc but you should have been a little more critical to yourself when reviewing the results and considering the parts you're using.
Macpoedel - Saturday, March 19, 2016 - link
Oops some words got autocorrected to Dutch in the first paragraph, but I guess it's clear what I'm saying, can't edit apparently.stardude82 - Saturday, March 19, 2016 - link
I don't see the value here when you are spending such a premium for a budget board. Just looking at Newegg, there is only a $10 savings going from an i3-6100 with this board to an i5-6500 with a H110 board.lagittaja - Monday, March 21, 2016 - link
What a pointless article. A 15 page long article which is completely pointless.Are you yourself satisfied with your article Ian?
What did this tell us consumers?
That if you take an unobtanium slow arse i3 and OC it, it performs about the same as the regular i3's which are widely available?
Great scott! I did not expect that! Mind blown!
Now run along to the store and grab a 6100/6300/6320 and do proper testing. We want to see that 4.5-5Ghz i3 go head to head against the OC'd i5..
LuxZg - Monday, March 21, 2016 - link
I'd like to say that part about BIOS obviously isn't true, as people have tried and succeeded to revert back to older versions. Example:"Assuming you can get your hands on the OC BIOS it is possible to flash back to the previous version to regain the base clock overclocking ability. Again the microcode isn’t written to the CPU and is kept at the BIOS level so rolling back isn’t a problem.
To confirm this, I updated my Z170 Extreme7+ motherboard to version 2.60 and sure enough the overclock no longer worked. After rolling back to version 2.16 the ability to overclock my non-K processors returned."
source: http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/current-state-of-in...
StrangerGuy - Monday, March 21, 2016 - link
Free lunch is: Abit BH6 + 300A, nForce 2 + unlocked Athlon XP, P35 + <$200 ConroeNot free lunch: Anything today thanks to incredibly restrictive CPU/chipsets lockdowns. With my 4790K already stock at 4.2GHz I'm not going to bother with OC. I'm not even going to mention the absurdity of pairing $100+ mobo just to hack-OC a $100 already at 3.7GHz CPU that would probably get locked down by Intel with a stealth microcode update.
Rob27shred - Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - link
Great read! Definitely gives a very clear explanation of why Intel has denied us a K SKUed i3. I was very excited when I first heard of being able to OC non K SKUed Skylake chips. I have an extra GB Z170XP-SLI mobo & was planning on getting an i3 6XXX to have a little fun with. Now I have to look into it further as I don't want to buy an i3 & not be able to OC it.It's a shame that Intel pulled the rug out from under this so quickly but I from a business point of view you really can't blame them. I got hopes that other ways around Intel's micro code update will be seen though. I heard ASrock released a mobo aimed squarely at getting around the new restrictions.
yhselp - Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - link
Sheeeit! That's the best damn AnandTech article in a long, long time. God bless you, Ian! Fantastic. Quintessential AnandTech! I'm thirsty for more.Maybe a super in-depth article on the effects of faster RAM on modern games? DDR4@3200 seems essential for a new build nowadays, and a DDR3@2133/2400 upgrade could potentially be a great upgrade for gamers stuck on 1333/1600. 16GB a must for Windows 10 gaming? Maybe an article on GPU overclocking, AMD GPUs driver overhead, achieving minimum frame-rates, etc.