Underclocked CPU?

Got the best performer PC around? post your config here.

Moderators: rd, mel wilson, gbesoain, Cat1, ricktobin, groundsquirrel, Insured Disaster

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Underclocked CPU?

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:20 pm

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? 8O


Captain El
Attachments
underclocked CPU.jpg
Why is my CPU underclocked according to these stats??
sensors temp.jpg
CPU.jpg
motherboard.jpg
overclock.jpg
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

ricktobin
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:29 am

Post by ricktobin » Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:30 pm


viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:40 pm

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.
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:44 am

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/ ... cking-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?
Attachments
stress-test.jpg
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

User avatar
rd
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 6868
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: COMFORTABLY NUMB, in U.S.A. *** KOFF ***

Post by rd » Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:09 am

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
RD


"shhh.... I'm going undercover. "

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:54 am

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
Attachments
core when turture test.jpg
core when idle.jpg
overclock stats.jpg
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

User avatar
rd
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 6868
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: COMFORTABLY NUMB, in U.S.A. *** KOFF ***

Post by rd » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:13 am

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
Attachments
Toms.JPG
RD


"shhh.... I'm going undercover. "

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:15 am

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.
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:18 am

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 :)


Captain El
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:08 pm

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!
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:15 pm

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?
Attachments
OC motherboard.jpg
OC current.jpg
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:13 am

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.
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

User avatar
rd
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 6868
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: COMFORTABLY NUMB, in U.S.A. *** KOFF ***

Post by rd » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:10 am

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
RD


"shhh.... I'm going undercover. "

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:36 am

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
Attachments
OC memory with 2.66D 400HMz Strapping.jpg
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:07 pm

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
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:50 pm

Wait...did you just say any voltage under 1.524V will cause BSOD?

Remember, an increase in voltage will heat up the processor rather quickly. I would always increase the FSB.
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:08 pm

I'm saying it takes 1.52V to run at 3.51GHz. Is it safe to keep my voltage at this level? Is it safe to keep my voltage at 1.520V? Intel stated the highest voltage recommended is 0.89V to 1.5V. So I'm just a little concerned, lol.


Captain El :P :) :(
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:25 am

Your current voltage is at 1.3V. Try 1.4 and increase the FSB to 353 MHz (this was your initial desire, stated way back in the beginning of this topic). This will yield 353*9 = 3177 potential MHz. Tell us what happens.

When overclocking, always increase any number by a very small factor. Then do a stress test. This will guarantee stability. While your processor may tolerate 1.5V and a clock speed of 3.51GHz, you are pushing the limit and may risk a sudden lock-up. Obviously, you don't want to be playing a game or editing an HD movie then have the processor fail on you.

EDIT: I suggest you look up this product on Newegg.com and check out the user reviews. I bet there will be a person who achieved a massive overclock.
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:18 am

I did that. I am now at 9x 390MHz -> 3510MHz (3.51GHz), but I require a voltage of 1.520V in order not to get a BSoD after running Prime 95 with small FFTs for an hour or so. I'm running my Q6600 at 3.51GHz rock-stable at this 1.52V. But my question is... is it safe to run my CPU at this voltage in terms of everyday usage?


Captain El
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:28 pm

Keep running stress tests, maybe once a day for an entire week. Then you can slow down that rate. This ensures stability for a long period of time.

This is interesting stuff, El. You said you had to increase the voltage to 1.52V in order to achieve 390MHz FSB. How did you figure out the optimum voltage?
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:45 pm

I ran a test in Prime for 16hours 37minutes hours last night, no problems :D .

It's perfectly stable at 3.51GHz at 1.520V. I got this optimum by raising the voltage one tiny step each time I got a BSoD while running Prime. It's a painstaking process... but I now have the optimum :) .

But I am still wondering if 1.52V is a safe margin to run a Q6600? I do not want to slowly damage my processor due to slight overvoltage :?


Captain El
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:28 pm

OK. Correct me if I am wrong. I am going to decipher the process:
1. Increase FSB to desired value
2. Bump up voltage slightly.
3. Do stress test
4. If BSOD occurs, go back to Step 2. Repeat process until system is stable.

Any type of CPU overclocking is pushing the limits, so you are decreasing the life of the processor. Eventually, the processor's gonna die. It also depends on the processor you received (some receive defective processors, while some receive highly overclockable and robust processors). We can't make any final judgments. Just know that your task will decrease the life of the processor.

Hope that all makes sense.
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:58 am

Yes. Except I would add another step to your method :wink: .

I'd start from my original clock and start with +5 FSB increments increase each time. Keep your voltage where it is. Run Prime for 16 minutes or so (small FFT's!) is sufficient to simulate for most daily tasks (unless your running superheavy games). And keep adding +5 MHz until you get an error in Prime before 16 minutes or BSoD before 16 minutes. Then it's time to raise the voltage one increment. To make it simple:

1. Increase FSB +5 MHz increments from your original speed
2. Stress Test 16mins small FFT's in Prime
3. If no problems occur, go back to Step 1. If BSoD or problem occur, continue to step 4.
4. Bump up voltage slightly.
5. If no problems occur, go back to Step 1 (or step 6).
6. If at desired speed and no problems after 16mins. Continue Prime test small FFT's for 3 hours.
7. If no problems occur, continue to run for Prime for 10 hours (you might want to leave it on overnight)
8. If BSoD, bump up voltage slightly, and repeat for 10 hours.
If no problems after 10 hours, continue run 16 hours.
9. If BSoD, go back to step 8.
10. If no problems after 16 hours. CONGRATULATIONS! You have a stable overclocked computer :)

It is a painstaking process, take my word for it.. lol, it took me about a week to find out what my stable speed should be. But the results are worth it :wink: . I run my Q6600 at 3.51GHz without problems. I am aware that it decreases CPU lifetime, but I am just wondering if enduring operations above 1.520V will cause premature burnout?


Captain El
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:33 am

El,
Thanks so much for the process! It all makes sense now!

"Premature" is a bit broad. It could be tomorrow, or it could be 15 years. We will never know the expected life of a single processor, thus it is futile to think about when the processsor will die. FYI, generally, the processor WILL burnout prematurely, only because you have overclocked it. Just my $.02
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:00 am

I know that overclocking will decrease CPU lifetime overall just for doing it. But I am still wondering if there will be any particular danger in overvoltaging the CPU above 1.52V?


Captain El
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

User avatar
rd
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 6868
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: COMFORTABLY NUMB, in U.S.A. *** KOFF ***

Post by rd » Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:47 am

As long as it is stable at 1.52v, for lets say 2 hours of working it hard, and no BSOD's, then you should be OK.

Just remember, it will take away time. Instead of being good for 3 years, it could be good for only 3 weeks, or 3 months.

RD
RD


"shhh.... I'm going undercover. "

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:23 am

3 weeks to 3 months? Are you sure?


I ran mine already for a long time... and no problems.
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

User avatar
rd
Forum Moderator - Master member
Forum Moderator - Master member
Posts: 6868
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: COMFORTABLY NUMB, in U.S.A. *** KOFF ***

Post by rd » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:37 am

It really depends on alot of factors, and how good the components are.

So yeah, it could last 3 weeks or 3 months. If your lucky to get a good one, it could last 3 years. There's alot involved, that you and I can't see. And that is stability and quality.

RD
RD


"shhh.... I'm going undercover. "

viche12345
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:44 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by viche12345 » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:48 am

rd wrote:It really depends on alot of factors, and how good the components are.

So yeah, it could last 3 weeks or 3 months. If your lucky to get a good one, it could last 3 years. There's alot involved, that you and I can't see. And that is stability and quality.

RD
RD's right. Not all processors are identical. Some die "prematurely" and some last for several generations.
There is no place like 127.0.0.1

09El_Boissevain
Addict to SurClaro
Addict to SurClaro
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by 09El_Boissevain » Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:02 pm

Hmm, I agree. But maybe 3 weeks or 3 months is a bit exaggeratedly short. Maybe 1.5 to 3 years seems more reasonable, because if my CPU is in use, it'll run at 3.51GHz.. but when its idle, it'll 'throttle' down to 2.3GHz (from 9x multiplier to 6x, as of why I thought mine was underclocked to 1.6GHz in the beginning :lol: ).

So what'll happen to my CPU if I ran it at 4.01GHz at 1.76V?


Captain El :P
Image Image Image
Protect your PC against security threats with industry leading software from Kaspersky!

Post Reply