SurClaro Flight Simulator Resources

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: Underclocked CPU?

Good day,

Here, again, I come before you with a question regarding my Q6600 CPU.

The other day my friend talked about overclocking his P4 to 4.0GHz and told me to see if my Q6600 is worth overclocking.

Here is the data I've gathered. Temperatures, clocks measured using Everest Ultimate Edition and CPU-Z.

What would be an optimal overclock for this rating? And what's with my CPU being underclocked in CPU-Z instead of 2.4GHz only 1.6GHz? Shocked

Captain El

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject:

Have you seen this article?

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject:

Intel's Core 2 processors decrease clock speed to keep temperatures low, only when idle. Try running a stress test and tell us what you observe.

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:44 am Post subject:

Your right. It does go up to 2.4GHz.

But now the question is... I want to overclock that to 3.4GHz with 1.28V to 1.4V with the Bus speed 426.0MHz and Rated FSB 1704.2MHz.

I have read a few overclocking tips as follows:
http://www.tweak3d.net/joomla/features/hardware/overclocking-tips
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1804

But the programs they recommend to overclock don't even run!

But when I overclock the system in my BIOS, it doesn't seem to work. Any ideas?

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:09 am Post subject:

Recheck your version.

As thiers is 1.41, and yours is 1.44. So there may be a problem with your abilities, that relate to yours and thier version.

RD

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:54 am Post subject:

No mate, theirs is also 1.44. I checked it and confirmed.

Well, I managed to get this baby up to 3.0GHz.

333MHz Bus speed with 9x multiplier. Rated FSB 1332.1MHz
core #1 temperature of my Q6600 reached up to 82 degrees C. The rest were lower at about 60 - 68 oC.

Is this a withstandable temperature for the Q6600??? It was measured during a Torture Test using Prime95. So its probably when the CPU is hard at work.
When I stopped the test, the highest core temperature dropped to 65oC.

Captain El

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:13 am Post subject:

Check it again. Theirs is 1.41, and yours is 1.44.

If your temps are in the 80's celsius, then you have major problems.

RD

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:15 am Post subject:

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA
DO NOT OC ANY FURTHER

Are you sure these temps are in centigrade? I'm surprised the processor didn't activate the throttle and drop the clock speed. One time I oc'ed my Pentium D without aftermarket cooling and the CPU temp soared up to 85 centigrade. I was surprised to see the clock speed plummet from 3.8 GHz to about 1.1 GHz. I then learned many processors do this to save itself from incinerating.

It would probably make more sense if these temps were in Fahrenheit. But if my notion is incorrect, then, like RD said, you will have major problems. If this is the case, drop your clock speed (drastically) or use aftermarket cooling.

EDIT: Never mind, I just saw your screenshot of the temps at original clock speed. If that screenshot was taken when the CPU was idle, then you may have major cooling issues. I suggest using aftermarket cooling.

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:18 am Post subject:

While playing Crysis at stock cooling at this 2.99GHz after an hour or so.. my BIOS alarmed telling me the core has exceeded 70oC. But surprisingly, the system was very stable and nothing seemed to be wrong! (besides the beeping noise from my BIOS). I'm not sure, but I think the Q6600 could handle extreme temperatures, because it should have that throttle kick in if it were overheating.

I installed a new cooling system which allows me to OC my Q6600 to 3.2GHz rock stable at max 50oC.

I'll post up pics when I get home Smile

Captain El

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject:

Well, it seems the quad-core is literally a frying pan. Now I can understand why this processor gets so hot.

A peak temperature at 50 centigrade is adequate for a Core 2.

Now, have fun gaming!

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject:

I have posted my current OC rating of my computer below.

I have one question regarding memory multipliers in the BIOS.

I have the option of setting the memory in the following settings which OC my RAM to the exact same speed: 950MHz. I am confused with a few settings that I can set in my BIOS:

Memory Multiplier:

(G)MCH Strapping
x.xxA --> 266MHz
x.xxB --> 333MHz
x.xxC --> 200MHz
x.xxD --> 400MHz

I want to OC my memory from 800MHz to 950MHz, and BOTH these below settings clock it exactly at 950MHz:

2.66D
2.66C

But the thing I am confused with is.. which one should is better? Which one is faster? Currently I use the 2.66C, and get memory timings of 5-6-6-22 as in my pic below. Ratio is 8:6. But what do these "strappings" mean, and what difference would it make if I use 200MHz (C) strapping or 400MHz strapping (D)??

When I used the 2.66D, I got a ratio of 12:10. Which is better?

Captain El

P.S. What does it mean when my DRAM ratio is higher than the FSB ratio? Any recommendations?

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:13 am Post subject:

El,

I apologize. I have no experience in overclocking memory. I would wait for someone else to buzz in, or I suggest taking a look at your motherboard's manual to find out what those terms actually mean.

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:10 am Post subject:

Sorry, but I have never done it with memory either.

But, as a guess, I would try the 2.66D. You have to remember, that the output should double. So the 2.66D at 400, in use, should be 800.

If your DRAM ratio is higher than your FSB, then something is not set up right, to get all of what you want out of it. If I remember right, you always want your FSB ratio higher than your DRAM. Its complicated, and I am just blank, to remember. Sorry.

Try doing a search on it, and let us know what you find.

RD

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:36 am Post subject:

Ok, I have now used the 2.66D --> 400MHz strapping to OC my memory from 800 to 950MHz. System running stable. Below is a pic of what it now looks like. But I am a little concerned about the memory having more bandwidth than the Front Side Bus. Would you recommend going form 9x 357MHz FSB to 8x 402MHz FSB?

Captain El

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject:

Is it safe to take the Q6600 to 1.524V? I am a little worried because I can run my Q6600 perfectly stable 3.51GHz at 1.524V.. lower and I get BSoD's.

Captain El