What Core 2 To Buy Now?

Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> It would indeed. However, I'm stuck with an 11x multiplier (running
>> 300FSB). Perhaps someone with a good E4300?
>
> Oh, didn't you know? The multipliers are now adjustable downwards on
> most motherboards!

Ha! Of course I knew! I was just having fun with you! <cough>

Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031 seconds.

Hehee! I thought I'd read somewhere that FSB was adjustable downwards within
the limits of the CPUs presets, I just didn't know whow to actually adjust
it in my BIOS as hitting up/down/page up/page down made no difference. I
just found out you have to type it in. With this CPU I can have anything
between 6 and 11.

So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm running 300 x
11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412 x 8? 471 x 7 or
even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I already know the
CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable temp/vcore. Would I be better off
with a faster FSB and lower multi?

>>> I didn't increase the voltage as much as I thought since the
>>> Gigabyte board undervolts by .06v and there is a fairly large vDroop
>>> with
>>> this board. I think that the newer proceesors don't like the higher FSB
>>> speeds for some reason. My E6400 is stable to 1760 FSB with the
>>> SuperTalent DDR-667 (Micron D9, no heat spreaders, 2.1v). Since
>>> the G0 Q6600 doesn't run free either, I'm thinking maybe Intel did
>>> something to choke them.
>>
>> Or perhaps there's a bigger market for the faster CPUs now and intel
>> is grading more thoroughly? (Which amounts to the same thing
>> essentially)
>
> Well, the Allendale at least is an entirely different core, right?

I don't know about entirely different. I thought that it just had a smaller
L2, lower FSB and a feature (virtualisation?) was either not supported or
disabled. However, I've just spectacularly proved that I don't know my arse
from my elbow when it comes to C2Ds so who knows? <g>

I might play with my FSB/ratio a bit now. I would appreciate suggestions
(other than anatomically difficult ones).
--
TTFN,

Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

Somewhere on teh interweb ~misfit~ typed:
> Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>>> It would indeed. However, I'm stuck with an 11x multiplier (running
>>> 300FSB). Perhaps someone with a good E4300?
>>
>> Oh, didn't you know? The multipliers are now adjustable downwards on
>> most motherboards!
>
> Ha! Of course I knew! I was just having fun with you! <cough>
>
> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
> seconds.
> Hehee! I thought I'd read somewhere that FSB was adjustable downwards
> within the limits of the CPUs presets, I just didn't know whow to
> actually adjust it in my BIOS as hitting up/down/page up/page down
> made no difference. I just found out you have to type it in. With
> this CPU I can have anything between 6 and 11.
>
> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm running
> 300 x 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412 x 8? 471
> x
> 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I already
> know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable temp/vcore. Would I
> be better off with a faster FSB and lower multi?
>
>>>> I didn't increase the voltage as much as I thought since the
>>>> Gigabyte board undervolts by .06v and there is a fairly large
>>>> vDroop with
>>>> this board. I think that the newer proceesors don't like the
>>>> higher FSB speeds for some reason. My E6400 is stable to 1760 FSB
>>>> with the SuperTalent DDR-667 (Micron D9, no heat spreaders, 2.1v).
>>>> Since the G0 Q6600 doesn't run free either, I'm thinking maybe Intel
>>>> did
>>>> something to choke them.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps there's a bigger market for the faster CPUs now and intel
>>> is grading more thoroughly? (Which amounts to the same thing
>>> essentially)
>>
>> Well, the Allendale at least is an entirely different core, right?
>
> I don't know about entirely different. I thought that it just had a
> smaller L2, lower FSB and a feature (virtualisation?) was either not
> supported or disabled. However, I've just spectacularly proved that I
> don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to C2Ds so who knows?
> <g>
> I might play with my FSB/ratio a bit now. I would appreciate
> suggestions (other than anatomically difficult ones).

Hmmm. Running fine at same vcore and 413 x 8 with FSB/RAM 1:1. I can't go to
7 x as the RAM is rated DDR2-800 (but will do 900/450MHz). To use the x 7
and stay at 3.3GHz the RAM would be 472MHz and it doesn't like it (even with
a little voltage increase). Seems I can't go below 1:1 so the RAM is my
limiting factor.

Q&D benches show around 3% improvement. The RAM is actually running slower
because, at 300FSB it was 2:3 ratio and running at 450MHz. Die temps seem to
have gone up about 3°C across the board.

Might wait until I get the bolt-thru kit and lap the IHS before I play
anymore.
--
TTFN,

Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

OK,

I ordered a 4500 and a Gigabyte DS3-L P35 MB with the Gskill ram:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098




I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC pretty
simple!

thx

bob



"~misfit~" <misfit61nz DeleteThis @yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:47483855@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> Somewhere on teh interweb ~misfit~ typed:
>> Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would indeed. However, I'm stuck with an 11x multiplier (running
>>>> 300FSB). Perhaps someone with a good E4300?
>>>
>>> Oh, didn't you know? The multipliers are now adjustable downwards on
>>> most motherboards!
>>
>> Ha! Of course I knew! I was just having fun with you! <cough>
>>
>> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
>> seconds.
>> Hehee! I thought I'd read somewhere that FSB was adjustable downwards
>> within the limits of the CPUs presets, I just didn't know whow to
>> actually adjust it in my BIOS as hitting up/down/page up/page down
>> made no difference. I just found out you have to type it in. With
>> this CPU I can have anything between 6 and 11.
>>
>> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm running
>> 300 x 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412 x 8? 471
>> x
>> 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I already
>> know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable temp/vcore. Would I
>> be better off with a faster FSB and lower multi?
>>
>>>>> I didn't increase the voltage as much as I thought since the
>>>>> Gigabyte board undervolts by .06v and there is a fairly large
>>>>> vDroop with
>>>>> this board. I think that the newer proceesors don't like the
>>>>> higher FSB speeds for some reason. My E6400 is stable to 1760 FSB
>>>>> with the SuperTalent DDR-667 (Micron D9, no heat spreaders, 2.1v).
>>>>> Since the G0 Q6600 doesn't run free either, I'm thinking maybe Intel
>>>>> did
>>>>> something to choke them.
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps there's a bigger market for the faster CPUs now and intel
>>>> is grading more thoroughly? (Which amounts to the same thing
>>>> essentially)
>>>
>>> Well, the Allendale at least is an entirely different core, right?
>>
>> I don't know about entirely different. I thought that it just had a
>> smaller L2, lower FSB and a feature (virtualisation?) was either not
>> supported or disabled. However, I've just spectacularly proved that I
>> don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to C2Ds so who knows?
>> <g>
>> I might play with my FSB/ratio a bit now. I would appreciate
>> suggestions (other than anatomically difficult ones).
>
> Hmmm. Running fine at same vcore and 413 x 8 with FSB/RAM 1:1. I can't go
> to 7 x as the RAM is rated DDR2-800 (but will do 900/450MHz). To use the x
> 7 and stay at 3.3GHz the RAM would be 472MHz and it doesn't like it (even
> with a little voltage increase). Seems I can't go below 1:1 so the RAM is
> my limiting factor.
>
> Q&D benches show around 3% improvement. The RAM is actually running slower
> because, at 300FSB it was 2:3 ratio and running at 450MHz. Die temps seem
> to have gone up about 3°C across the board.
>
> Might wait until I get the bolt-thru kit and lap the IHS before I play
> anymore.
> --
> TTFN,
>
> Shaun.
>
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC pretty
| simple!
_____

Overclocking is easy - understanding the motherboard manual is hard B^)

Seriously, back in the days of the Celeron 300a there were almost no BIOS
and/or motherboard tweaks you COULD make, so the manuals were pretty easy,
even if they did seem to be written in one language, translated to a second,
revised in a third, and published in a fourth. Now the BIOS options are
extensive (my EVGA 680i SLI motherboard has at least 35 user settable
paramters that affect overclocking) and even when the manual translation(s)
are good, different manufacturers may use different terminology for the same
parameters.

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" <me DeleteThis @getlost.com> wrote in message
news:YradnXYY8bt4CdTanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@comcast.com...
| OK,
|
| I ordered a 4500 and a Gigabyte DS3-L P35 MB with the Gskill ram:
|
| http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098
|
|
|
|
| I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC pretty
| simple!
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|
|
| "~misfit~" <misfit61nz DeleteThis @yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
| news:47483855@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
| > Somewhere on teh interweb ~misfit~ typed:
| >> Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
| >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> It would indeed. However, I'm stuck with an 11x multiplier (running
| >>>> 300FSB). Perhaps someone with a good E4300?
| >>>
| >>> Oh, didn't you know? The multipliers are now adjustable downwards on
| >>> most motherboards!
| >>
| >> Ha! Of course I knew! I was just having fun with you! <cough>
| >>
| >> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
| >> seconds.
| >> Hehee! I thought I'd read somewhere that FSB was adjustable downwards
| >> within the limits of the CPUs presets, I just didn't know whow to
| >> actually adjust it in my BIOS as hitting up/down/page up/page down
| >> made no difference. I just found out you have to type it in. With
| >> this CPU I can have anything between 6 and 11.
| >>
| >> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm running
| >> 300 x 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412 x 8?
471
| >> x
| >> 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I already
| >> know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable temp/vcore. Would I
| >> be better off with a faster FSB and lower multi?
| >>
| >>>>> I didn't increase the voltage as much as I thought since the
| >>>>> Gigabyte board undervolts by .06v and there is a fairly large
| >>>>> vDroop with
| >>>>> this board. I think that the newer proceesors don't like the
| >>>>> higher FSB speeds for some reason. My E6400 is stable to 1760 FSB
| >>>>> with the SuperTalent DDR-667 (Micron D9, no heat spreaders, 2.1v).
| >>>>> Since the G0 Q6600 doesn't run free either, I'm thinking maybe Intel
| >>>>> did
| >>>>> something to choke them.
| >>>>
| >>>> Or perhaps there's a bigger market for the faster CPUs now and intel
| >>>> is grading more thoroughly? (Which amounts to the same thing
| >>>> essentially)
| >>>
| >>> Well, the Allendale at least is an entirely different core, right?
| >>
| >> I don't know about entirely different. I thought that it just had a
| >> smaller L2, lower FSB and a feature (virtualisation?) was either not
| >> supported or disabled. However, I've just spectacularly proved that I
| >> don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to C2Ds so who knows?
| >> <g>
| >> I might play with my FSB/ratio a bit now. I would appreciate
| >> suggestions (other than anatomically difficult ones).
| >
| > Hmmm. Running fine at same vcore and 413 x 8 with FSB/RAM 1:1. I can't
go
| > to 7 x as the RAM is rated DDR2-800 (but will do 900/450MHz). To use the
x
| > 7 and stay at 3.3GHz the RAM would be 472MHz and it doesn't like it
(even
| > with a little voltage increase). Seems I can't go below 1:1 so the RAM
is
| > my limiting factor.
| >
| > Q&D benches show around 3% improvement. The RAM is actually running
slower
| > because, at 300FSB it was 2:3 ratio and running at 450MHz. Die temps
seem
| > to have gone up about 3°C across the board.
| >
| > Might wait until I get the bolt-thru kit and lap the IHS before I play
| > anymore.
| > --
| > TTFN,
| >
| > Shaun.
| >
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

I had read good things about the Gigabyte "friendliness" and was hoping to
just start with the FSB and that it would not OC the memory,etc.

I'm graduating from an Abit BH-6 v1.0, P3 LOL !

thx

bob


"Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed.DeleteThis@example.com> wrote in message
news:13kjddv418j1u75@corp.supernews.com...
> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
> | I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC
> pretty
> | simple!
> _____
>
> Overclocking is easy - understanding the motherboard manual is hard B^)
>
> Seriously, back in the days of the Celeron 300a there were almost no BIOS
> and/or motherboard tweaks you COULD make, so the manuals were pretty easy,
> even if they did seem to be written in one language, translated to a
> second,
> revised in a third, and published in a fourth. Now the BIOS options are
> extensive (my EVGA 680i SLI motherboard has at least 35 user settable
> paramters that affect overclocking) and even when the manual
> translation(s)
> are good, different manufacturers may use different terminology for the
> same
> parameters.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Bob Johnson" <me.DeleteThis@getlost.com> wrote in message
> news:YradnXYY8bt4CdTanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | OK,
> |
> | I ordered a 4500 and a Gigabyte DS3-L P35 MB with the Gskill ram:
> |
> | http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC
> pretty
> | simple!
> |
> | thx
> |
> | bob
> |
> |
> |
> | "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
> | news:47483855@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> | > Somewhere on teh interweb ~misfit~ typed:
> | >> Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
> | >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
> | >>>
> | >>>> It would indeed. However, I'm stuck with an 11x multiplier (running
> | >>>> 300FSB). Perhaps someone with a good E4300?
> | >>>
> | >>> Oh, didn't you know? The multipliers are now adjustable downwards
> on
> | >>> most motherboards!
> | >>
> | >> Ha! Of course I knew! I was just having fun with you! <cough>
> | >>
> | >> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
> | >> seconds.
> | >> Hehee! I thought I'd read somewhere that FSB was adjustable downwards
> | >> within the limits of the CPUs presets, I just didn't know whow to
> | >> actually adjust it in my BIOS as hitting up/down/page up/page down
> | >> made no difference. I just found out you have to type it in. With
> | >> this CPU I can have anything between 6 and 11.
> | >>
> | >> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm running
> | >> 300 x 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412 x 8?
> 471
> | >> x
> | >> 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I already
> | >> know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable temp/vcore. Would I
> | >> be better off with a faster FSB and lower multi?
> | >>
> | >>>>> I didn't increase the voltage as much as I thought since the
> | >>>>> Gigabyte board undervolts by .06v and there is a fairly large
> | >>>>> vDroop with
> | >>>>> this board. I think that the newer proceesors don't like the
> | >>>>> higher FSB speeds for some reason. My E6400 is stable to 1760 FSB
> | >>>>> with the SuperTalent DDR-667 (Micron D9, no heat spreaders, 2.1v).
> | >>>>> Since the G0 Q6600 doesn't run free either, I'm thinking maybe
> Intel
> | >>>>> did
> | >>>>> something to choke them.
> | >>>>
> | >>>> Or perhaps there's a bigger market for the faster CPUs now and
> intel
> | >>>> is grading more thoroughly? (Which amounts to the same thing
> | >>>> essentially)
> | >>>
> | >>> Well, the Allendale at least is an entirely different core, right?
> | >>
> | >> I don't know about entirely different. I thought that it just had a
> | >> smaller L2, lower FSB and a feature (virtualisation?) was either not
> | >> supported or disabled. However, I've just spectacularly proved that I
> | >> don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to C2Ds so who knows?
> | >> <g>
> | >> I might play with my FSB/ratio a bit now. I would appreciate
> | >> suggestions (other than anatomically difficult ones).
> | >
> | > Hmmm. Running fine at same vcore and 413 x 8 with FSB/RAM 1:1. I can't
> go
> | > to 7 x as the RAM is rated DDR2-800 (but will do 900/450MHz). To use
> the
> x
> | > 7 and stay at 3.3GHz the RAM would be 472MHz and it doesn't like it
> (even
> | > with a little voltage increase). Seems I can't go below 1:1 so the RAM
> is
> | > my limiting factor.
> | >
> | > Q&D benches show around 3% improvement. The RAM is actually running
> slower
> | > because, at 300FSB it was 2:3 ratio and running at 450MHz. Die temps
> seem
> | > to have gone up about 3°C across the board.
> | >
> | > Might wait until I get the bolt-thru kit and lap the IHS before I play
> | > anymore.
> | > --
> | > TTFN,
> | >
> | > Shaun.
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

~misfit~ wrote:

> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031 seconds.

So, perhaps an extra second and a half penalty for the lesser cache, around the
same difference between the 4MB and 2MB cache processors, as I recall. I just
checked the CPU usage while this was running, and it appears only partially
multithreaded. The total CPU usage was 50 percent, with a higher and lower
spiky curve oneach core...

> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm running 300 x
> 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412 x 8? 471 x 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200
> to 800 and I already know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable temp/vcore. Would I be better off with a faster
> FSB and lower multi?

Well, the higher FSB and lower multiplier should result in more memory bandwidth.
I don't think the processors are as bandwidth starved as they once were, so it may
or may not help, depending upon the application. I was very disappointed when I
had to lower my speed with the Q6600 and raise the multiplier.
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| I had read good things about the Gigabyte "friendliness" and was hoping to
| just start with the FSB and that it would not OC the memory,etc.
|
| I'm graduating from an Abit BH-6 v1.0, P3 LOL !
_____

The very FIRST thing to do before selecting a motherboard is to DOWNLOAD and
READ the manual. The more or less automatic overclocking available in the
BIOS for your motherboard is limited to a relatively mild 17%. You will
have to get down into the trenches and go manual to realize the real
potential of your CPU. As for memory, DDR2 memory is generally run at an
actual 2:1 CPU clock : Memory clock ratio so that DDR2-800 memory is run at
normal speed when the FSB is at 1600 MHz. With my EVGA 680i SLI
motherboard/E4300/DDR2-1066 memory I CAN run the CPU clock : Memory clock
ratio at 1:1 with a FrontSide Bus of 1200 MHz for a 50% overclock, but the
performance difference between the slower 2:1 ratio and the faster 1:1 ratio
is very small.

I too had an aBit BH-6 ver. 2.0. I even modified the motherboard to enable
the CPU on-die thermal diode temperature measurement (added a resistor and
capacitor that aBit have left out so as to disable the function.)

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" <me.RemoveThis@getlost.com> wrote in message
news:ltCdna8q7umsVtTanZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
|I had read good things about the Gigabyte "friendliness" and was hoping to
| just start with the FSB and that it would not OC the memory,etc.
|
| I'm graduating from an Abit BH-6 v1.0, P3 LOL !
|
| thx
|
| bob
|
|
| "Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed.RemoveThis@example.com> wrote in message
| news:13kjddv418j1u75@corp.supernews.com...
| > 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| > | I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC
| > pretty
| > | simple!
| > _____
| >
| > Overclocking is easy - understanding the motherboard manual is hard B^)
| >
| > Seriously, back in the days of the Celeron 300a there were almost no
BIOS
| > and/or motherboard tweaks you COULD make, so the manuals were pretty
easy,
| > even if they did seem to be written in one language, translated to a
| > second,
| > revised in a third, and published in a fourth. Now the BIOS options are
| > extensive (my EVGA 680i SLI motherboard has at least 35 user settable
| > paramters that affect overclocking) and even when the manual
| > translation(s)
| > are good, different manufacturers may use different terminology for the
| > same
| > parameters.
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > "Bob Johnson" <me.RemoveThis@getlost.com> wrote in message
| > news:YradnXYY8bt4CdTanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@comcast.com...
| > | OK,
| > |
| > | I ordered a 4500 and a Gigabyte DS3-L P35 MB with the Gskill ram:
| > |
| > | http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC
| > pretty
| > | simple!
| > |
| > | thx
| > |
| > | bob
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
| > | news:47483855@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
| > | > Somewhere on teh interweb ~misfit~ typed:
| > | >> Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
| > | >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
| > | >>>
| > | >>>> It would indeed. However, I'm stuck with an 11x multiplier
(running
| > | >>>> 300FSB). Perhaps someone with a good E4300?
| > | >>>
| > | >>> Oh, didn't you know? The multipliers are now adjustable downwards
| > on
| > | >>> most motherboards!
| > | >>
| > | >> Ha! Of course I knew! I was just having fun with you! <cough>
| > | >>
| > | >> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
| > | >> seconds.
| > | >> Hehee! I thought I'd read somewhere that FSB was adjustable
downwards
| > | >> within the limits of the CPUs presets, I just didn't know whow to
| > | >> actually adjust it in my BIOS as hitting up/down/page up/page down
| > | >> made no difference. I just found out you have to type it in. With
| > | >> this CPU I can have anything between 6 and 11.
| > | >>
| > | >> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm
running
| > | >> 300 x 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412 x
8?
| > 471
| > | >> x
| > | >> 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I
already
| > | >> know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable temp/vcore. Would
I
| > | >> be better off with a faster FSB and lower multi?
| > | >>
| > | >>>>> I didn't increase the voltage as much as I thought since the
| > | >>>>> Gigabyte board undervolts by .06v and there is a fairly large
| > | >>>>> vDroop with
| > | >>>>> this board. I think that the newer proceesors don't like the
| > | >>>>> higher FSB speeds for some reason. My E6400 is stable to 1760
FSB
| > | >>>>> with the SuperTalent DDR-667 (Micron D9, no heat spreaders,
2.1v).
| > | >>>>> Since the G0 Q6600 doesn't run free either, I'm thinking maybe
| > Intel
| > | >>>>> did
| > | >>>>> something to choke them.
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>> Or perhaps there's a bigger market for the faster CPUs now and
| > intel
| > | >>>> is grading more thoroughly? (Which amounts to the same thing
| > | >>>> essentially)
| > | >>>
| > | >>> Well, the Allendale at least is an entirely different core, right?
| > | >>
| > | >> I don't know about entirely different. I thought that it just had a
| > | >> smaller L2, lower FSB and a feature (virtualisation?) was either
not
| > | >> supported or disabled. However, I've just spectacularly proved that
I
| > | >> don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to C2Ds so who
knows?
| > | >> <g>
| > | >> I might play with my FSB/ratio a bit now. I would appreciate
| > | >> suggestions (other than anatomically difficult ones).
| > | >
| > | > Hmmm. Running fine at same vcore and 413 x 8 with FSB/RAM 1:1. I
can't
| > go
| > | > to 7 x as the RAM is rated DDR2-800 (but will do 900/450MHz). To use
| > the
| > x
| > | > 7 and stay at 3.3GHz the RAM would be 472MHz and it doesn't like it
| > (even
| > | > with a little voltage increase). Seems I can't go below 1:1 so the
RAM
| > is
| > | > my limiting factor.
| > | >
| > | > Q&D benches show around 3% improvement. The RAM is actually running
| > slower
| > | > because, at 300FSB it was 2:3 ratio and running at 450MHz. Die temps
| > seem
| > | > to have gone up about 3°C across the board.
| > | >
| > | > Might wait until I get the bolt-thru kit and lap the IHS before I
play
| > | > anymore.
| > | > --
| > | > TTFN,
| > | >
| > | > Shaun.
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
| >
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

Yeah, Phil

I think we both go back to the Celery 300 days

bob



"Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed.DeleteThis@example.com> wrote in message
news:13kjtv88ne2e7e@corp.supernews.com...
> 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
> | I had read good things about the Gigabyte "friendliness" and was hoping
> to
> | just start with the FSB and that it would not OC the memory,etc.
> |
> | I'm graduating from an Abit BH-6 v1.0, P3 LOL !
> _____
>
> The very FIRST thing to do before selecting a motherboard is to DOWNLOAD
> and
> READ the manual. The more or less automatic overclocking available in the
> BIOS for your motherboard is limited to a relatively mild 17%. You will
> have to get down into the trenches and go manual to realize the real
> potential of your CPU. As for memory, DDR2 memory is generally run at an
> actual 2:1 CPU clock : Memory clock ratio so that DDR2-800 memory is run
> at
> normal speed when the FSB is at 1600 MHz. With my EVGA 680i SLI
> motherboard/E4300/DDR2-1066 memory I CAN run the CPU clock : Memory clock
> ratio at 1:1 with a FrontSide Bus of 1200 MHz for a 50% overclock, but the
> performance difference between the slower 2:1 ratio and the faster 1:1
> ratio
> is very small.
>
> I too had an aBit BH-6 ver. 2.0. I even modified the motherboard to
> enable
> the CPU on-die thermal diode temperature measurement (added a resistor and
> capacitor that aBit have left out so as to disable the function.)
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Bob Johnson" <me.DeleteThis@getlost.com> wrote in message
> news:ltCdna8q7umsVtTanZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
> |I had read good things about the Gigabyte "friendliness" and was hoping
> to
> | just start with the FSB and that it would not OC the memory,etc.
> |
> | I'm graduating from an Abit BH-6 v1.0, P3 LOL !
> |
> | thx
> |
> | bob
> |
> |
> | "Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed.DeleteThis@example.com> wrote in message
> | news:13kjddv418j1u75@corp.supernews.com...
> | > 'Bob Johnson' wrote:
> | > | I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC
> | > pretty
> | > | simple!
> | > _____
> | >
> | > Overclocking is easy - understanding the motherboard manual is hard
> B^)
> | >
> | > Seriously, back in the days of the Celeron 300a there were almost no
> BIOS
> | > and/or motherboard tweaks you COULD make, so the manuals were pretty
> easy,
> | > even if they did seem to be written in one language, translated to a
> | > second,
> | > revised in a third, and published in a fourth. Now the BIOS options
> are
> | > extensive (my EVGA 680i SLI motherboard has at least 35 user settable
> | > paramters that affect overclocking) and even when the manual
> | > translation(s)
> | > are good, different manufacturers may use different terminology for
> the
> | > same
> | > parameters.
> | >
> | > Phil Weldon
> | >
> | > "Bob Johnson" <me.DeleteThis@getlost.com> wrote in message
> | > news:YradnXYY8bt4CdTanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | > | OK,
> | > |
> | > | I ordered a 4500 and a Gigabyte DS3-L P35 MB with the Gskill ram:
> | > |
> | > | http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | I'll wait before I ask questions but I hope the GB MB makes this OC
> | > pretty
> | > | simple!
> | > |
> | > | thx
> | > |
> | > | bob
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
> | > | news:47483855@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> | > | > Somewhere on teh interweb ~misfit~ typed:
> | > | >> Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
> | > | >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
> | > | >>>
> | > | >>>> It would indeed. However, I'm stuck with an 11x multiplier
> (running
> | > | >>>> 300FSB). Perhaps someone with a good E4300?
> | > | >>>
> | > | >>> Oh, didn't you know? The multipliers are now adjustable
> downwards
> | > on
> | > | >>> most motherboards!
> | > | >>
> | > | >> Ha! Of course I knew! I was just having fun with you! <cough>
> | > | >>
> | > | >> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
> | > | >> seconds.
> | > | >> Hehee! I thought I'd read somewhere that FSB was adjustable
> downwards
> | > | >> within the limits of the CPUs presets, I just didn't know whow to
> | > | >> actually adjust it in my BIOS as hitting up/down/page up/page
> down
> | > | >> made no difference. I just found out you have to type it in. With
> | > | >> this CPU I can have anything between 6 and 11.
> | > | >>
> | > | >> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm
> running
> | > | >> 300 x 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412
> x
> 8?
> | > 471
> | > | >> x
> | > | >> 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I
> already
> | > | >> know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable temp/vcore.
> Would
> I
> | > | >> be better off with a faster FSB and lower multi?
> | > | >>
> | > | >>>>> I didn't increase the voltage as much as I thought since the
> | > | >>>>> Gigabyte board undervolts by .06v and there is a fairly large
> | > | >>>>> vDroop with
> | > | >>>>> this board. I think that the newer proceesors don't like the
> | > | >>>>> higher FSB speeds for some reason. My E6400 is stable to 1760
> FSB
> | > | >>>>> with the SuperTalent DDR-667 (Micron D9, no heat spreaders,
> 2.1v).
> | > | >>>>> Since the G0 Q6600 doesn't run free either, I'm thinking maybe
> | > Intel
> | > | >>>>> did
> | > | >>>>> something to choke them.
> | > | >>>>
> | > | >>>> Or perhaps there's a bigger market for the faster CPUs now and
> | > intel
> | > | >>>> is grading more thoroughly? (Which amounts to the same thing
> | > | >>>> essentially)
> | > | >>>
> | > | >>> Well, the Allendale at least is an entirely different core,
> right?
> | > | >>
> | > | >> I don't know about entirely different. I thought that it just had
> a
> | > | >> smaller L2, lower FSB and a feature (virtualisation?) was either
> not
> | > | >> supported or disabled. However, I've just spectacularly proved
> that
> I
> | > | >> don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to C2Ds so who
> knows?
> | > | >> <g>
> | > | >> I might play with my FSB/ratio a bit now. I would appreciate
> | > | >> suggestions (other than anatomically difficult ones).
> | > | >
> | > | > Hmmm. Running fine at same vcore and 413 x 8 with FSB/RAM 1:1. I
> can't
> | > go
> | > | > to 7 x as the RAM is rated DDR2-800 (but will do 900/450MHz). To
> use
> | > the
> | > x
> | > | > 7 and stay at 3.3GHz the RAM would be 472MHz and it doesn't like
> it
> | > (even
> | > | > with a little voltage increase). Seems I can't go below 1:1 so the
> RAM
> | > is
> | > | > my limiting factor.
> | > | >
> | > | > Q&D benches show around 3% improvement. The RAM is actually
> running
> | > slower
> | > | > because, at 300FSB it was 2:3 ratio and running at 450MHz. Die
> temps
> | > seem
> | > | > to have gone up about 3°C across the board.
> | > | >
> | > | > Might wait until I get the bolt-thru kit and lap the IHS before I
> play
> | > | > anymore.
> | > | > --
> | > | > TTFN,
> | > | >
> | > | > Shaun.
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
>> seconds.
>
> So, perhaps an extra second and a half penalty for the lesser cache,
> around the same difference between the 4MB and 2MB cache processors,
> as I recall. I just checked the CPU usage while this was running,
> and it appears only partially multithreaded. The total CPU usage was
> 50 percent, with a higher and lower spiky curve oneach core...
>
>> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm
>> running 300 x 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x 9? 412
>> x 8? 471
>> x 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I
>> already know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable
>> temp/vcore. Would I be better off with a faster FSB and lower multi?
>
> Well, the higher FSB and lower multiplier should result in more
> memory bandwidth. I don't think the processors are as bandwidth
> starved as they once were, so it may or may not help, depending upon
> the application. I was very disappointed when I had to lower my
> speed with the Q6600 and raise the multiplier.

Yes, very little difference that I can ascertain.

SuperPi 1M

300 x 12 17.750
413 x 8 17.641

However, the CPU temps have increased a few degrees (same clockspeed, same
vcore) so that's got to mean that the CPU is doing more work right? (I'm
running SETI@home)

Cheers,
--
Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

Fishface wrote:

> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031 seconds.
>
> So, perhaps an extra second and a half penalty for the lesser cache, around the
> same difference between the 4MB and 2MB cache processors, as I recall. I just
> checked the CPU usage while this was running, and it appears only partially
> multithreaded. The total CPU usage was 50 percent, with a higher and lower
> spiky curve on each core...

I tried setting the "Core Affinity" of SuperPi mod to a single core and it took .008
seconds longer and it pegged the one core to 100%. I'm such a scientist...
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

Somewhere on teh interweb ~misfit~ typed:
> Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>>> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
>>> seconds.
>>
>> So, perhaps an extra second and a half penalty for the lesser cache,
>> around the same difference between the 4MB and 2MB cache processors,
>> as I recall. I just checked the CPU usage while this was running,
>> and it appears only partially multithreaded. The total CPU usage was
>> 50 percent, with a higher and lower spiky curve oneach core...
>>
>>> So should I re-think my overclock setting with this info? I'm
>>> running 300 x 11. Would I be better off with, say 330 x 10? 367 x
>>> 9? 412 x 8? 471
>>> x 7 or even 550 x 6? My FSB is adjustable from 200 to 800 and I
>>> already know the CPU'll do 3.3GHz easilly at a reasonable
>>> temp/vcore. Would I be better off with a faster FSB and lower multi?
>>
>> Well, the higher FSB and lower multiplier should result in more
>> memory bandwidth. I don't think the processors are as bandwidth
>> starved as they once were, so it may or may not help, depending upon
>> the application. I was very disappointed when I had to lower my
>> speed with the Q6600 and raise the multiplier.
>
> Yes, very little difference that I can ascertain.
>
> SuperPi 1M
>
> 300 x 11 17.750
> 413 x 8 17.641
>
> However, the CPU temps have increased a few degrees (same clockspeed,
> same vcore) so that's got to mean that the CPU is doing more work
> right? (I'm running SETI@home)

Corrected above. I had 300 x 12, it should have been 300 x 11. CPU speed of
3.3GHz in both cases.
--
TTFN,

Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

Somewhere on teh interweb Fishface typed:
> Fishface wrote:
>
>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>>> Ummm, 334 x 9 you say? OK, no problem. SuperPi 1M takes 19.031
>>> seconds.
>>
>> So, perhaps an extra second and a half penalty for the lesser cache,
>> around the same difference between the 4MB and 2MB cache processors,
>> as I recall. I just checked the CPU usage while this was running,
>> and it appears only partially multithreaded. The total CPU usage was
>> 50 percent, with a higher and lower spiky curve on each core...
>
> I tried setting the "Core Affinity" of SuperPi mod to a single core
> and it took .008 seconds longer and it pegged the one core to 100%. I'm
> such a scientist...

ROFL! Yeah, I didn't think it was using both cores. I'd say that the .008
extra is possibly due to the CPU power that the OS is using. (I'm such a
speculator.)
--
TTFN,

Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now? 

What MB are you using and what ram?


bob



> The benchmarks look pretty good to me, despite what people are saying
> about
> the lacking L2. The degree of overclock is definitely not a given. My
> particular
> E4500 will not overclock as Shaun's.
>
 >> Stay informed about: What Core 2 To Buy Now?