Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3 Overclocking

Note: Ivy Bridge does not overclock like Sandy Bridge.  For a detailed report on the effect of voltage on Ivy Bridge (and thus temperatures and power draw), please read Undervolting and Overclocking on Ivy Bridge.

Experience with Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3

Overclocking on the G1.Sniper 3 was a lot like the experiences we had with the Z77X-UD5H.  Automatic overclocking had its issues depending on the memory kit used, whereas manual overclocking was easy to do and hit some good speeds.

Automatic overclocking is performed through the EasyTune6 software, and offers three levels depending on how adventurous a user you are.  There is also an additional option called ‘Auto Tuning’, which uses a stress test program in order to find a good overclock given a users cooling and case situation.

Manual overclocking was performed entirely in the BIOS.  Gigabyte still needs to refine this part of the overclocking procedure, as CPU voltages, speeds and load line calibration settings all in different menus (with up to four button presses to get between them).  However, given the maturity of the 3D BIOS now, it was relatively quick and painless to navigate between them, if a bit slower than optimal for an enthusiastic well trained overclocker.

Methodology:

Our standard overclocking methodology is as follows.  We select the automatic overclock options and test for stability with PovRay and OCCT to simulate high-end workloads.  These stability tests aim to catch any immediate causes for memory or CPU errors.

For manual overclocks, based on the information gathered from previous testing, starts off at a nominal voltage and CPU multiplier, and the multiplier is increased until the stability tests are failed.  The CPU voltage is increased gradually until the stability tests are passed, and the process repeated until the motherboard reduces the multiplier automatically (due to safety protocol) or the CPU temperature reaches a stupidly high level (100ºC+).

Our test bed is not in a case, which should push overclocks higher with fresher (cooler) air.  We also are using Intel's All-in-one Liquid Cooler with its stock fan.  This is a 120mm radiator liquid cooler, designed to mimic a medium-to-high end air cooler.

Automatic Overclock:

Using Gigabyte’s EasyTune6 software in the operating system, we applied the various overclock options it presents.  These are in the form of three levels, each more aggressive than the last.  The final option is an Auto Tuning, which applies a stress test to the CPU and gradually raises the voltages and CPU speed until a maximum given the cooling and the quality of the CPU is reached.

For the three EasyTune6 levels, the overclock is easy to understand – a new multiplier and BCLK is applied to achieve the relevant speed, and a voltage offset is used to keep it stable.  The memory is also adjusted, to one strap below XMP.  This is so the memory is not pushed above XMP due to the BCLK adjustment.

The issue we found with the ET6 overclock levels is the memory adjustment – the memory kit we use for our testing is very sensitive to adjustments, and would not work with any of the ET6 levels but did work at XMP.  However a slower kit from Patriot did work with EasyTune on some of the levels.

Here are our results:

At Level 1, ET6 gave the CPU a 41x multiplier and 102.3 MHz BCLK, to give 4194.3 MHz total.  A +0.110 volt offset on the CPU was also applied, as well as a memory adjustment to XMP minus one strap.  However, this setting gave constant memory errors during PovRay.

At Level 2, ET6 gave the CPU a 43x multiplier and 103.3 MHz BCLK, to give 4441.9 MHz total.  A +0.150 volt offset on the CPU was also applied, as well as a memory adjustment to XMP minus one strap.  This was stable and gave peak temperatures of 85°C during PovRay and 89°C during OCCT.

At Level 3, ET6 gave the CPU a 45x multiplier and a 103.3 MHz BCLK, to give 4693.5 MHz total.  A +0.150 volt offset on the CPU was also applied, as well as a memory adjustment to XMP minus one strap.  This was stable and gave peak temperatures of 98°C during PovRay and 102°C during OCCT.

The Auto Tuning option resulted in giving the CPU a 47x multiplier and a 104.3 MHz BCLK, to give 4916 MHz total.  The normal turbo bin procedure was also applied, giving 47x/47x/46x/45x for 1/2/3/4 threaded load, meaning 4707 MHz at full load.  This setting showed 1.200 volts at load, and gave 90°C during OCCT but memory errors during PovRay.

Manual Overclock:

With our manual overclocking, we very early switched CPU Load Line Calibration to Extreme to improve stability and remove VDroop.  On an LLC setting of automatic and a fixed CPU voltage of 1.100 volts, in the OS at load this dropped down to 1.068 volts.  Changing LLC to extreme gave an OS reading of 1.104 volts, which usually results in a little extra temperature but improved stability all around.  Here are our results:

Starting at 44x multiplier and 1.100 volts, the system was stable with LLC on automatic and showed an OS load voltage of 1.068 volts.  This gave peak temperatures of 69°C during PovRay and 72°C during OCCT.

The 45x multiplier was stable at 1.100 volts, but with the CPU LLC set to Extreme.  This showed an OS load voltage of 1.104 volts.  This also gave peak temperatures of 74°C during PovRay and 76°C during OCCT.

The 46x multiplier was stable at a minimum of 1.150 volts, with LLC set to Extreme and an OS load voltage of 1.152 volts.  This gave peak temperatures of 79°C during PovRay and 78°C during OCCT.

The 47x multiplier was stable at a minimum of 1.200 volts, with LLC set to Extreme and an OS load voltage of 1.200 volts.  This gave peak temperatures of 85°C during PovRay and 88°C during OCCT.

The 48x multiplier was stable at a minimum of 1.275 volts, with LLC set to Extreme and an OS load voltage of 1.272 volts.  This gave peak temperatures of 97°C during PovRay and 102°C during OCCT.

Understandably we did not try higher speeds or voltages due to the load temperatures already being reached.

Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3 In The Box, Voltage Readings ASRock Z77 Extreme9 Overview, Visual Inspection, Board Features
POST A COMMENT

23 Comments

View All Comments

  • ultimatex - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    I got this MOBO from Newegg the first day they had it available , I couldn't believe the price since it offered 8x8x8x8x , Picked it up the first day and havent looked back. Doesnt look as cool as the Asrock extreme9 but it still looks good. Awesome Job Gygabyte , Anandtech should have given them a Gold not bronze though since the fan issue is a minor issue. Reply
  • Arbie - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    For gaming, at least, how many people are really going to build a 2xGPU system? Let alone 3x or 4x. The are so few PC games that can use anything more than one strong card AND are worth playing for more than 10 minutes. I actually don't know of any such games, but tastes differ. And some folks will have multi-monitor setups, and possibly need two cards. But overall I'd think the target audience for these mobos is extremely small.

    Maybe for scientific computing?
    Reply
  • Belard - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    Yep.... considering that most AAA PC games are just ports from consoles... having 3-4 GPUs is pointless. The returns get worse after the first 2 cards.

    Only those with 2~6 monitors can benefit with 2-3 cards.

    Also, even $80 Gigabyte boards will do 8x x 8x SLI/CF just fine.

    But hey, someone wants to spend $300 on a board... more power to them.
    Reply
  • cmdrdredd - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    "Only those with 2~6 monitors can benefit with 2-3 cards."

    Oh really? 2560x1440 on a single card is garbage in my view. I am not happy with 50fps average.
    Reply
  • rarson - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    If you're going multi-GPU on a single monitor, you're wasting money. Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    Because everyone should build to your standards, O god of all things computer.

    Do some reading; get a clue.
    Reply
  • Steveymoo - Thursday, August 23, 2012 - link

    Incorrect.

    If you have a 120hz monitor, 2 GPUs make a tonne of difference. Before you come back with a "no one can see 120hz" jibe. That is also incorrect.... My eyes have orgasms every once in a while when you get those ultra detail 100+ fps moments in battlefield, that look great!
    Reply
  • von Krupp - Friday, August 24, 2012 - link

    No. Metro 2033 is not happy at 2560x1440 with just a single HD 7970, and neither are Battlefield 3 or Crysis. The Total War series also crawls at maximum settings.

    I bought the U2711 specifically to take advantage of two cards (and for accurate colours, mind you). I have a distaste for multi-monitor gaming and will continue to have such as long as they keep making bezels on monitors.

    So please, don't go claiming that multi-card is useless on a single monitor because that just isn't true.
    Reply
  • swing848 - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    At this date, December 2014, with maximum eye candy turned on, there are games that drop a refrence AMD R9 290 below 60 fps on a single monitor at 1920x1080 [using an Intel i5-3570K at 4GHz to 4.2GHz] Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    This is not 1998, there are many games built for the PC only, and even previously console-oriented publishers aren't just making ports for the PC, they are developing their games to take advantage of the goodness only PCs can bring to the table. Despite what console fanboys continue to spew, PC gaming is on the rise, and console gaming is on the relative decline. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now