Help with new PC

'Rayn' wrote, in part:
| I'm getting huge headaches with this machine. Just installed it and
| allready it's overheating (according to Everest) with around 70C at full
| load. I can't figure out what's wrong. I'm planning to OC it, but for
| now I just can't figure out why it's running so hot? On the other hand,
| mesuring with TAT gives a max temp of only 50C. So what gives? which one
| of these should I trust?
| Tried a few tweak as far as overclocking is concerned but I'm a noob
| when it comes to OC-ing intel. So far I think the ram is the weak link.
| CPU can easily go as high as 3.6-4GHz, but testing ram with memtest
| reveals tons of errors..
_____

Trust TAT over Everest.
Your memory speed is not a problem if you change the CPU Clock : Memory
Clock ratio so that no matter what FSB speed is set, the memory operates
within specifications. AFTER you get a good stable overclock, THEN you
might want to try overclocking the memory by as much as 20% to 30%.
(Manufacturer terminology varies for CPU Clock : Memory Clock ratio.)

Phil Weldon

"Rayn" <spam.RemoveThis@home.com> wrote in message news:fntb31$qsi$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
| PC:
|
| CPU: C2D e6850
| RAM: 2xDDR2 800 corsair twin 6400 (5-6-6-15 i think)
| MB: Asus Commando (updated bios)
| COOLER: Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX
| PSU: Fortron 400W
| GPU Gainward 8800 GT 512
| Well ventilated case with sound isolation (foam).
|
| I'm getting huge headaches with this machine. Just installed it and
| allready it's overheating (according to Everest) with around 70C at full
| load. I can't figure out what's wrong. I'm planning to OC it, but for
| now I just can't figure out why it's running so hot? On the other hand,
| mesuring with TAT gives a max temp of only 50C. So what gives? which one
| of these should I trust?
| Tried a few tweak as far as overclocking is concerned but I'm a noob
| when it comes to OC-ing intel. So far I think the ram is the weak link.
| CPU can easily go as high as 3.6-4GHz, but testing ram with memtest
| reveals tons of errors..
|
| ..sorry for the chaotic mature of the post but i've been working on this
| for the better part of the day and i'm completely lost with this new PC
| and can't seem to figure out what's wrong.
| Any temerature or overclocking suggestions are apreciated.
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

"Rayn" <spam DeleteThis @home.com> wrote in message news:fntb31$qsi$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
> PC:
>
> CPU: C2D e6850
> RAM: 2xDDR2 800 corsair twin 6400 (5-6-6-15 i think)
> MB: Asus Commando (updated bios)
> COOLER: Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX
> PSU: Fortron 400W
> GPU Gainward 8800 GT 512
> Well ventilated case with sound isolation (foam).
>
> I'm getting huge headaches with this machine. Just installed it and
> allready it's overheating (according to Everest) with around 70C at full
> load. I can't figure out what's wrong. I'm planning to OC it, but for
> now I just can't figure out why it's running so hot? On the other hand,
> mesuring with TAT gives a max temp of only 50C. So what gives? which one
> of these should I trust?

70C is likely correct, and while it's maybe 3-5C higher than it could
be at full load on air cooling, it's absolutely fine/normal for that CPU.

> Tried a few tweak as far as overclocking is concerned but I'm a noob
> when it comes to OC-ing intel. So far I think the ram is the weak link.
> CPU can easily go as high as 3.6-4GHz, but testing ram with memtest
> reveals tons of errors..
>
> ..sorry for the chaotic mature of the post but i've been working on this
> for the better part of the day and i'm completely lost with this new PC
> and can't seem to figure out what's wrong.
> Any temerature or overclocking suggestions are apreciated.

That 400W power supply might be an issue, depending on how
much hardware you have. If you're getting tons of errors at stock
speed try reseating the memory and make sure the system bios is
set to defaults. If you still get errors its time to call Corair or your
retailer for a swap.
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

'General Schvantzkopf' wrote:
| Look at the temperatures in the BIOS, that should give you the correct
| values. Once you have a trustworthy temp reading you'll have a way of
| telling which of your temp reading programs is giving you the best values.
_____

The temperatures shown in the BIOS are of limited value. When you boot into
the BIOS, four conditions exist:
#1. The system has just been started, so the CPU temperature will be lower
than normal
#2. The CPU will be under minimal load, so the temperature will not reflect
normal operating conditions, much less a heavy processor load
#3. The operating system will not be loaded, so the idle function
implemented by Windows 2000/XP/Vista will not be used
#4. Any fan and CPU speed stepping you have set in the operating system
will not be operative.

In short, about the only use of BIOS temperatures are to tell if a heatsink
has fallen off.

Phil Weldon

"General Schvantzkopf" <schvantzkopf RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fsGdnTXi9NY5rD_anZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com...
| On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:29:24 +0100, Rayn wrote:
|
| > PC:
| >
| > CPU: C2D e6850
| > RAM: 2xDDR2 800 corsair twin 6400 (5-6-6-15 i think) MB: Asus Commando
| > (updated bios)
| > COOLER: Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX
| > PSU: Fortron 400W
| > GPU Gainward 8800 GT 512
| > Well ventilated case with sound isolation (foam).
| >
| > I'm getting huge headaches with this machine. Just installed it and
| > allready it's overheating (according to Everest) with around 70C at full
| > load. I can't figure out what's wrong. I'm planning to OC it, but for
| > now I just can't figure out why it's running so hot? On the other hand,
| > mesuring with TAT gives a max temp of only 50C. So what gives? which one
| > of these should I trust?
| > Tried a few tweak as far as overclocking is concerned but I'm a noob
| > when it comes to OC-ing intel. So far I think the ram is the weak link.
| > CPU can easily go as high as 3.6-4GHz, but testing ram with memtest
| > reveals tons of errors..
| >
| > ..sorry for the chaotic mature of the post but i've been working on this
| > for the better part of the day and i'm completely lost with this new PC
| > and can't seem to figure out what's wrong. Any temerature or
| > overclocking suggestions are apreciated.
|
| Look at the temperatures in the BIOS, that should give you the correct
| values. Once you have a trustworthy temp reading you'll have a way of
| telling which of your temp reading programs is giving you the best values.
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

'unsigned' wrote:
| 70C is likely correct, and while it's maybe 3-5C higher than it could
| be at full load on air cooling, it's absolutely fine/normal for that CPU.

| That 400W power supply might be an issue, depending on how
| much hardware you have. If you're getting tons of errors at stock
| speed try reseating the memory and make sure the system bios is
| set to defaults. If you still get errors its time to call Corair or your
| retailer for a swap.
_____

A CPU temperature setting of 70 degrees is far too high for any
non-overclocked Intel Core 2 Duo CPU that you expect to overclock. Intel
TAT is reliable AND can fully load both cores. Everest, as far as I know,
does not even REPORT the CPU temperature on some motherboards.

A decent 400 Watt power supply should handle most any system based on an
E6850/8800 GT. The FIRST thing to check is the speed at which the memory is
operating. The CPU Clock : Memory Clock ratio must be set so that the
unoverclocked 1333 MHz FSB is not running the DDR2-800 memory out of spec.
That means, with the original poster's system, running the memory bus at 1/2
the FSB bus (which should allow an overclocked FSB speed of up to 1600 MHz
without requiring the DDR2-800 memory out of spec.

Phil Weldon

<nospam DeleteThis @sbcglobal.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:Jpqoj.9777$EZ3.2853@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
| "Rayn" <spam DeleteThis @home.com> wrote in message
news:fntb31$qsi$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
| > PC:
| >
| > CPU: C2D e6850
| > RAM: 2xDDR2 800 corsair twin 6400 (5-6-6-15 i think)
| > MB: Asus Commando (updated bios)
| > COOLER: Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX
| > PSU: Fortron 400W
| > GPU Gainward 8800 GT 512
| > Well ventilated case with sound isolation (foam).
| >
| > I'm getting huge headaches with this machine. Just installed it and
| > allready it's overheating (according to Everest) with around 70C at full
| > load. I can't figure out what's wrong. I'm planning to OC it, but for
| > now I just can't figure out why it's running so hot? On the other hand,
| > mesuring with TAT gives a max temp of only 50C. So what gives? which one
| > of these should I trust?
|
| 70C is likely correct, and while it's maybe 3-5C higher than it could
| be at full load on air cooling, it's absolutely fine/normal for that CPU.
|
| > Tried a few tweak as far as overclocking is concerned but I'm a noob
| > when it comes to OC-ing intel. So far I think the ram is the weak link.
| > CPU can easily go as high as 3.6-4GHz, but testing ram with memtest
| > reveals tons of errors..
| >
| > ..sorry for the chaotic mature of the post but i've been working on this
| > for the better part of the day and i'm completely lost with this new PC
| > and can't seem to figure out what's wrong.
| > Any temerature or overclocking suggestions are apreciated.
|
| That 400W power supply might be an issue, depending on how
| much hardware you have. If you're getting tons of errors at stock
| speed try reseating the memory and make sure the system bios is
| set to defaults. If you still get errors its time to call Corair or your
| retailer for a swap.
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:25:02 -0500, Phil Weldon wrote:

> 'General Schvantzkopf' wrote:
> | Look at the temperatures in the BIOS, that should give you the correct
> | values. Once you have a trustworthy temp reading you'll have a way of
> | telling which of your temp reading programs is giving you the best
> values. _____
>
> The temperatures shown in the BIOS are of limited value. When you boot
> into the BIOS, four conditions exist:
> #1. The system has just been started, so the CPU temperature will be
> lower than normal
> #2. The CPU will be under minimal load, so the temperature will not
> reflect normal operating conditions, much less a heavy processor load
> #3. The operating system will not be loaded, so the idle function
> implemented by Windows 2000/XP/Vista will not be used #4. Any fan and
> CPU speed stepping you have set in the operating system will not be
> operative.
>
> In short, about the only use of BIOS temperatures are to tell if a
> heatsink has fallen off.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "General Schvantzkopf" <schvantzkopf.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fsGdnTXi9NY5rD_anZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com... | On Thu, 31 Jan
> 2008 21:29:24 +0100, Rayn wrote: |
> | > PC:
> | >
> | > CPU: C2D e6850
> | > RAM: 2xDDR2 800 corsair twin 6400 (5-6-6-15 i think) MB: Asus
> Commando | > (updated bios)
> | > COOLER: Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX | > PSU: Fortron 400W
> | > GPU Gainward 8800 GT 512
> | > Well ventilated case with sound isolation (foam). | >
> | > I'm getting huge headaches with this machine. Just installed it and
> | > allready it's overheating (according to Everest) with around 70C at
> full | > load. I can't figure out what's wrong. I'm planning to OC it,
> but for | > now I just can't figure out why it's running so hot? On the
> other hand, | > mesuring with TAT gives a max temp of only 50C. So what
> gives? which one | > of these should I trust?
> | > Tried a few tweak as far as overclocking is concerned but I'm a noob
> | > when it comes to OC-ing intel. So far I think the ram is the weak
> link. | > CPU can easily go as high as 3.6-4GHz, but testing ram with
> memtest | > reveals tons of errors..
> | >
> | > ..sorry for the chaotic mature of the post but i've been working on
> this | > for the better part of the day and i'm completely lost with
> this new PC | > and can't seem to figure out what's wrong. Any
> temerature or | > overclocking suggestions are apreciated. |
> | Look at the temperatures in the BIOS, that should give you the correct
> | values. Once you have a trustworthy temp reading you'll have a way of
> | telling which of your temp reading programs is giving you the best
> values.

A reboot gets you the temperature at idle which gives you something to
compare to the idle temp when the OS is running. The OP's problem is that
he has two programs that give temps that are 20C apart. Comparing idle
temp to idle temp will allow him to figure out which program is right.
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

Few things I noticed:
Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings the
MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1 and
lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the ram
MHz (or am i missing smthing?).

I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
(amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.


CpuZ:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

'General Schvantzkopf' wrote:
| A reboot gets you the temperature at idle which gives you something to
| compare to the idle temp when the OS is running. The OP's problem is that
| he has two programs that give temps that are 20C apart. Comparing idle
| temp to idle temp will allow him to figure out which program is right.
_____

No, since the conditions are different, as I point out #1, #2, #3.

And no, since the location of the thermal diodes that TAT use are not the
same as that used by some other CPU sensor reading applets.

And no, since the temperature rise will be greater for TAT as heat
production increases compared to the rise in some other CPU sensor reading
applets.

The Intel description of how TAT operates is a good source for understanding
the differences.

Phil Weldon

"General Schvantzkopf" <schvantzkopf.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fsGdnTbi9NZGDz_anZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com...
| On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:25:02 -0500, Phil Weldon wrote:
|
| > 'General Schvantzkopf' wrote:
| > | Look at the temperatures in the BIOS, that should give you the correct
| > | values. Once you have a trustworthy temp reading you'll have a way of
| > | telling which of your temp reading programs is giving you the best
| > values. _____
| >
| > The temperatures shown in the BIOS are of limited value. When you boot
| > into the BIOS, four conditions exist:
| > #1. The system has just been started, so the CPU temperature will be
| > lower than normal
| > #2. The CPU will be under minimal load, so the temperature will not
| > reflect normal operating conditions, much less a heavy processor load
| > #3. The operating system will not be loaded, so the idle function
| > implemented by Windows 2000/XP/Vista will not be used #4. Any fan and
| > CPU speed stepping you have set in the operating system will not be
| > operative.
| >
| > In short, about the only use of BIOS temperatures are to tell if a
| > heatsink has fallen off.
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > "General Schvantzkopf" <schvantzkopf.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:fsGdnTXi9NY5rD_anZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com... | On Thu, 31 Jan
| > 2008 21:29:24 +0100, Rayn wrote: |
| > | > PC:
| > | >
| > | > CPU: C2D e6850
| > | > RAM: 2xDDR2 800 corsair twin 6400 (5-6-6-15 i think) MB: Asus
| > Commando | > (updated bios)
| > | > COOLER: Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX | > PSU: Fortron 400W
| > | > GPU Gainward 8800 GT 512
| > | > Well ventilated case with sound isolation (foam). | >
| > | > I'm getting huge headaches with this machine. Just installed it and
| > | > allready it's overheating (according to Everest) with around 70C at
| > full | > load. I can't figure out what's wrong. I'm planning to OC it,
| > but for | > now I just can't figure out why it's running so hot? On the
| > other hand, | > mesuring with TAT gives a max temp of only 50C. So what
| > gives? which one | > of these should I trust?
| > | > Tried a few tweak as far as overclocking is concerned but I'm a noob
| > | > when it comes to OC-ing intel. So far I think the ram is the weak
| > link. | > CPU can easily go as high as 3.6-4GHz, but testing ram with
| > memtest | > reveals tons of errors..
| > | >
| > | > ..sorry for the chaotic mature of the post but i've been working on
| > this | > for the better part of the day and i'm completely lost with
| > this new PC | > and can't seem to figure out what's wrong. Any
| > temerature or | > overclocking suggestions are apreciated. |
| > | Look at the temperatures in the BIOS, that should give you the correct
| > | values. Once you have a trustworthy temp reading you'll have a way of
| > | telling which of your temp reading programs is giving you the best
| > values.
|
| A reboot gets you the temperature at idle which gives you something to
| compare to the idle temp when the OS is running. The OP's problem is that
| he has two programs that give temps that are 20C apart. Comparing idle
| temp to idle temp will allow him to figure out which program is right.
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

'Rayn' wrote:
| Few things I noticed:
| Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings the
| MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
| that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
| ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
| ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
| but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1 and
| lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the ram
| MHz (or am i missing smthing?).
|
| I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
| CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
| (amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
| Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.
|
|
| CpuZ:
|
| http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
_____

You are missing something, but the fault is with the ambiguous nature of
most motherboard manuals. They usually don't give a clear explanation of
some settings, especially the memory speed settings. AND the terminology
varies among the different manufacturers.

The DDR2 RAM nomenclature indicates TWICE the memory clock because DDR2 RAM
transfers data TWICE per clock cycle. Thus, DDR2-800 RAM has a stock clock
speed of 400 MHz. Also, the other method of labeling DDR2 RAM is to use 8 X
the stock clock speed X 2. Thus, DDR2-800 RAM can also be labeled PC-6400
and DDR2-1066 RAM can also be labeled PC-8500.

According to the CPU-Z panes you posted, you were UNDERCLOCKING your CPU @
2000 MHz (6 X 333.3 MHz = 2000 MHz) and overclocking your DDR2-800 by a
small amount (333 MHz X 5/4 = 416.25 MHz).

If you set the ratio at 1:1 instead of 4:5 then with a FSB of 1333 MHz you
will be running the DDR2-800 ram at DDR2-667 (333 MHz X 1/1 = 333 MHz).

Since you are running your CPU at only 2/3 its rated speed, and also using a
very low CPU core voltage (1.04 v), the TAT readings of 45 C under load are
reasonable. What are you using to load the cores? The built-in TAT
function to place a heavy load on the CPU cores will generate more heat than
any normal operational load, so you should really use the TAT loading
function for comparing temperatures under load. (Or use Orthos to load and
TAT for temperatures, but report what kind of load you are using.

Some other suggestions:

The CPU core voltage is VERY low; do you have speed step enabled, and is
that perhaps the reason that the reported CPU multiplier is only 6 X and the
CPU speed is only 2000 MHz? If so, you must disable speed step (or whatever
your motherboard manual calls that function) while trying to find a stable
overclock. Once you have everything working as you wish, then by all means
enable speed step so that when the CPU is not under heavy load the power
consumption is reduced.

I would have thought almost any DDR2-800 memory would overclock by the
slight
amount reported by CPU-Z (333 MHz / (4/5) = 416.1 MHz ), just a 4%
overclock, but perhaps not. Also, you have the Cycle Time (tRAS) set to 15
clocks rather than the 18 clock shown in the SPD pane for your memory.

I'd say you should get right with the memory speed, the CPU core voltage,
and get speed step disabled before thinking before suspecting the memory as
anything worse than just not overclockable.

Also there are a plethora of other parameters that you may have inadvisably
changed. Perhaps the first approach would be to get every thing working at
absolute default except for setting the FSB : Memory ratio 1:1. (Notice
that CPU-Z actually uses the ratio in reverse, the 4:5 actually means 5:4;
the same confusion reigns in motherboard manuals - there has been some
discussion in this newsgroup on that confusion.) [For one example, I have
using, since April, DDR2-1066 memory with a FrontSide Bus speed of 1200 MHz
(E4300 @ 2700 MHz) and a 1:2 FSB : DRAM ratio as reported by CPU-Z, which
means my DDR2-1066 memory is running at DDR2-1200 specs. In the BIOS on my
EVGA 680i motherboard I set the Memory Bus speed to 1200 MHz (same as the
FSB speed); this gives what CPU-Z and some motherboard manufacturers call a
1:2 CPU Clock : Memory Clock ratio.]

As you can see, the variations in terminology make this a confusing subject.
Some of the variation is caused by the capability of nVidia chipsets
compared to Intel chipsets.

I hope this helps. Please continue to ask questions and provide even more
memory, including the terminology used in your BIOS for setting memory
speeds.

Phil Weldon

"Rayn" <spam RemoveThis @home.com> wrote in message news:fntl2n$lb7$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
| Few things I noticed:
| Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings the
| MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
| that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
| ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
| ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
| but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1 and
| lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the ram
| MHz (or am i missing smthing?).
|
| I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
| CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
| (amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
| Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.
|
|
| CpuZ:
|
| http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

Phil Weldon wrote:
> 'Rayn' wrote:
> | Few things I noticed:
> | Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings the
> | MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
> | that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
> | ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
> | ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
> | but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1 and
> | lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the ram
> | MHz (or am i missing smthing?).
> |
> | I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
> | CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
> | (amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
> | Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.
> |
> |
> | CpuZ:
> |
> | http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
> _____
>
> You are missing something, but the fault is with the ambiguous nature of
> most motherboard manuals. They usually don't give a clear explanation of
> some settings, especially the memory speed settings. AND the terminology
> varies among the different manufacturers.
>
> The DDR2 RAM nomenclature indicates TWICE the memory clock because DDR2 RAM
> transfers data TWICE per clock cycle. Thus, DDR2-800 RAM has a stock clock
> speed of 400 MHz. Also, the other method of labeling DDR2 RAM is to use 8 X
> the stock clock speed X 2. Thus, DDR2-800 RAM can also be labeled PC-6400
> and DDR2-1066 RAM can also be labeled PC-8500.
>
> According to the CPU-Z panes you posted, you were UNDERCLOCKING your CPU @
> 2000 MHz (6 X 333.3 MHz = 2000 MHz) and overclocking your DDR2-800 by a
> small amount (333 MHz X 5/4 = 416.25 MHz).
>
> If you set the ratio at 1:1 instead of 4:5 then with a FSB of 1333 MHz you
> will be running the DDR2-800 ram at DDR2-667 (333 MHz X 1/1 = 333 MHz).
>
> Since you are running your CPU at only 2/3 its rated speed, and also using a
> very low CPU core voltage (1.04 v), the TAT readings of 45 C under load are
> reasonable. What are you using to load the cores? The built-in TAT
> function to place a heavy load on the CPU cores will generate more heat than
> any normal operational load, so you should really use the TAT loading
> function for comparing temperatures under load. (Or use Orthos to load and
> TAT for temperatures, but report what kind of load you are using.
>
> Some other suggestions:
>
> The CPU core voltage is VERY low; do you have speed step enabled, and is
> that perhaps the reason that the reported CPU multiplier is only 6 X and the
> CPU speed is only 2000 MHz? If so, you must disable speed step (or whatever
> your motherboard manual calls that function) while trying to find a stable
> overclock. Once you have everything working as you wish, then by all means
> enable speed step so that when the CPU is not under heavy load the power
> consumption is reduced.
>
> I would have thought almost any DDR2-800 memory would overclock by the
> slight
> amount reported by CPU-Z (333 MHz / (4/5) = 416.1 MHz ), just a 4%
> overclock, but perhaps not. Also, you have the Cycle Time (tRAS) set to 15
> clocks rather than the 18 clock shown in the SPD pane for your memory.
>
> I'd say you should get right with the memory speed, the CPU core voltage,
> and get speed step disabled before thinking before suspecting the memory as
> anything worse than just not overclockable.
>
> Also there are a plethora of other parameters that you may have inadvisably
> changed. Perhaps the first approach would be to get every thing working at
> absolute default except for setting the FSB : Memory ratio 1:1. (Notice
> that CPU-Z actually uses the ratio in reverse, the 4:5 actually means 5:4;
> the same confusion reigns in motherboard manuals - there has been some
> discussion in this newsgroup on that confusion.) [For one example, I have
> using, since April, DDR2-1066 memory with a FrontSide Bus speed of 1200 MHz
> (E4300 @ 2700 MHz) and a 1:2 FSB : DRAM ratio as reported by CPU-Z, which
> means my DDR2-1066 memory is running at DDR2-1200 specs. In the BIOS on my
> EVGA 680i motherboard I set the Memory Bus speed to 1200 MHz (same as the
> FSB speed); this gives what CPU-Z and some motherboard manufacturers call a
> 1:2 CPU Clock : Memory Clock ratio.]
>
> As you can see, the variations in terminology make this a confusing subject.
> Some of the variation is caused by the capability of nVidia chipsets
> compared to Intel chipsets.
>
> I hope this helps. Please continue to ask questions and provide even more
> memory, including the terminology used in your BIOS for setting memory
> speeds.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Rayn" <spam.RemoveThis@home.com> wrote in message news:fntl2n$lb7$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
> | Few things I noticed:
> | Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings the
> | MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
> | that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
> | ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
> | ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
> | but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1 and
> | lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the ram
> | MHz (or am i missing smthing?).
> |
> | I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
> | CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
> | (amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
> | Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.
> |
> |
> | CpuZ:
> |
> | http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
>
>

Thanks for in depth reply.
Yeah you're right speedstep was on. It was actually 333x9=3GHz
Being new to all this I got a question:
Is Having 4:5 and a 333 FSB (ram@416mhz) is the same as having 1:1 and
400FSB (ram@400MHz)?
If all the other values are the same and the CPU is not near max OC (and
we forget about the 16MBz..).
Because AFAIK my MB @ default values has a 4:5 with 333FSB. Hence the
small OC for ram. Going much over 333FSB is impossible at this ratio
because of ram. However, when swiching to 1:1 the ram, now actually
working at 400 instead of 416 MHz, it's not working error free (tested
with memtest). What gives? Shouldn't ram be "happy" at this setting?
I guess i'm looking for a way to get around the RAM and boost the CPU
which can prolly go up to 4GHz easy.
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

'Rayn' wrote:
| Yeah you're right speedstep was on. It was actually 333x9=3GHz
| Being new to all this I got a question:
| Is Having 4:5 and a 333 FSB (ram@416mhz) is the same as having 1:1 and
| 400FSB (ram@400MHz)?
| If all the other values are the same and the CPU is not near max OC (and
| we forget about the 16MBz..).
| Because AFAIK my MB @ default values has a 4:5 with 333FSB. Hence the
| small OC for ram. Going much over 333FSB is impossible at this ratio
| because of ram. However, when swiching to 1:1 the ram, now actually
| working at 400 instead of 416 MHz, it's not working error free (tested
| with memtest). What gives? Shouldn't ram be "happy" at this setting?
| I guess i'm looking for a way to get around the RAM and boost the CPU
| which can prolly go up to 4GHz easy.
_____

Your CPU probably NOT 'go up to 4 GHz easy.' Don't even start to think that
way. First get your system stable at completely stock specifications.
After that, you MIGHT get 3.4 GHz 'easy'. Anything more is a gift. The
large percentage overclocks ALWAYS come with the slower CPUs in a series,
NOT in the faster CPUs. The reason? The slower CPUs may actually BE
identical to the faster CPUs, but, for market demand reasons, the
manufacturer has set the multiplier lower. As experience is gained in
manufacturing as particular series of CPUs, the yield of superior CPUs
increases faster than the demand for the highest clock speed CPUs. So it
may very well be that a 2.4 GHz CPU will overclock to about the same
absolute speed as a 3.0 GHz CPU. At this moment in time, you will be VERY
lucky if you can get 4 GHz out of ANY Core 2 Duo without a cooling system
that costs more than the CPU.

You need to approach overclocking methodically. Rather than scattering more
questions, you will get help if you first answer the questions you have
already been asked. After all, you are sitting in front of your computer;
we are not. And you have already stated you don't quite understand what's
going on. Neither do we, unless you can give some specific answers to the
questions you've been asked.

Phil Weldon

"Rayn" <spam.RemoveThis@home.com> wrote in message news:fnv9mc$c6i$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
| Phil Weldon wrote:
| > 'Rayn' wrote:
| > | Few things I noticed:
| > | Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings
the
| > | MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
| > | that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
| > | ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
| > | ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
| > | but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1
and
| > | lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the
ram
| > | MHz (or am i missing smthing?).
| > |
| > | I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
| > | CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
| > | (amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
| > | Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.
| > |
| > |
| > | CpuZ:
| > |
| > | http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
| > _____
| >
| > You are missing something, but the fault is with the ambiguous nature of
| > most motherboard manuals. They usually don't give a clear explanation
of
| > some settings, especially the memory speed settings. AND the
terminology
| > varies among the different manufacturers.
| >
| > The DDR2 RAM nomenclature indicates TWICE the memory clock because DDR2
RAM
| > transfers data TWICE per clock cycle. Thus, DDR2-800 RAM has a stock
clock
| > speed of 400 MHz. Also, the other method of labeling DDR2 RAM is to use
8 X
| > the stock clock speed X 2. Thus, DDR2-800 RAM can also be labeled
PC-6400
| > and DDR2-1066 RAM can also be labeled PC-8500.
| >
| > According to the CPU-Z panes you posted, you were UNDERCLOCKING your CPU
@
| > 2000 MHz (6 X 333.3 MHz = 2000 MHz) and overclocking your DDR2-800 by a
| > small amount (333 MHz X 5/4 = 416.25 MHz).
| >
| > If you set the ratio at 1:1 instead of 4:5 then with a FSB of 1333 MHz
you
| > will be running the DDR2-800 ram at DDR2-667 (333 MHz X 1/1 = 333 MHz).
| >
| > Since you are running your CPU at only 2/3 its rated speed, and also
using a
| > very low CPU core voltage (1.04 v), the TAT readings of 45 C under load
are
| > reasonable. What are you using to load the cores? The built-in TAT
| > function to place a heavy load on the CPU cores will generate more heat
than
| > any normal operational load, so you should really use the TAT loading
| > function for comparing temperatures under load. (Or use Orthos to load
and
| > TAT for temperatures, but report what kind of load you are using.
| >
| > Some other suggestions:
| >
| > The CPU core voltage is VERY low; do you have speed step enabled, and is
| > that perhaps the reason that the reported CPU multiplier is only 6 X and
the
| > CPU speed is only 2000 MHz? If so, you must disable speed step (or
whatever
| > your motherboard manual calls that function) while trying to find a
stable
| > overclock. Once you have everything working as you wish, then by all
means
| > enable speed step so that when the CPU is not under heavy load the power
| > consumption is reduced.
| >
| > I would have thought almost any DDR2-800 memory would overclock by the
| > slight
| > amount reported by CPU-Z (333 MHz / (4/5) = 416.1 MHz ), just a 4%
| > overclock, but perhaps not. Also, you have the Cycle Time (tRAS) set to
15
| > clocks rather than the 18 clock shown in the SPD pane for your memory.
| >
| > I'd say you should get right with the memory speed, the CPU core
voltage,
| > and get speed step disabled before thinking before suspecting the memory
as
| > anything worse than just not overclockable.
| >
| > Also there are a plethora of other parameters that you may have
inadvisably
| > changed. Perhaps the first approach would be to get every thing working
at
| > absolute default except for setting the FSB : Memory ratio 1:1. (Notice
| > that CPU-Z actually uses the ratio in reverse, the 4:5 actually means
5:4;
| > the same confusion reigns in motherboard manuals - there has been some
| > discussion in this newsgroup on that confusion.) [For one example, I
have
| > using, since April, DDR2-1066 memory with a FrontSide Bus speed of 1200
MHz
| > (E4300 @ 2700 MHz) and a 1:2 FSB : DRAM ratio as reported by CPU-Z,
which
| > means my DDR2-1066 memory is running at DDR2-1200 specs. In the BIOS on
my
| > EVGA 680i motherboard I set the Memory Bus speed to 1200 MHz (same as
the
| > FSB speed); this gives what CPU-Z and some motherboard manufacturers
call a
| > 1:2 CPU Clock : Memory Clock ratio.]
| >
| > As you can see, the variations in terminology make this a confusing
subject.
| > Some of the variation is caused by the capability of nVidia chipsets
| > compared to Intel chipsets.
| >
| > I hope this helps. Please continue to ask questions and provide even
more
| > memory, including the terminology used in your BIOS for setting memory
| > speeds.
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > "Rayn" <spam.RemoveThis@home.com> wrote in message
news:fntl2n$lb7$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
| > | Few things I noticed:
| > | Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings
the
| > | MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
| > | that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
| > | ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
| > | ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
| > | but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1
and
| > | lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the
ram
| > | MHz (or am i missing smthing?).
| > |
| > | I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
| > | CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
| > | (amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
| > | Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.
| > |
| > |
| > | CpuZ:
| > |
| > | http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
| >
| >
|
| Thanks for in depth reply.
| Yeah you're right speedstep was on. It was actually 333x9=3GHz
| Being new to all this I got a question:
| Is Having 4:5 and a 333 FSB (ram@416mhz) is the same as having 1:1 and
| 400FSB (ram@400MHz)?
| If all the other values are the same and the CPU is not near max OC (and
| we forget about the 16MBz..).
| Because AFAIK my MB @ default values has a 4:5 with 333FSB. Hence the
| small OC for ram. Going much over 333FSB is impossible at this ratio
| because of ram. However, when swiching to 1:1 the ram, now actually
| working at 400 instead of 416 MHz, it's not working error free (tested
| with memtest). What gives? Shouldn't ram be "happy" at this setting?
| I guess i'm looking for a way to get around the RAM and boost the CPU
| which can prolly go up to 4GHz easy.
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

"Rayn" <spam.RemoveThis@home.com> wrote in message news:fnv9mc$c6i$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
> Phil Weldon wrote:
>> 'Rayn' wrote:
>> | Few things I noticed:
>> | Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings the
>> | MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
>> | that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
>> | ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
>> | ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
>> | but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1
>> and
>> | lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the ram
>> | MHz (or am i missing smthing?).
>> |
>> | I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
>> | CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
>> | (amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
>> | Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.
>> |
>> |
>> | CpuZ:
>> |
>> | http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
>> _____
>>
>> You are missing something, but the fault is with the ambiguous nature of
>> most motherboard manuals. They usually don't give a clear explanation of
>> some settings, especially the memory speed settings. AND the terminology
>> varies among the different manufacturers.
>>
>> The DDR2 RAM nomenclature indicates TWICE the memory clock because DDR2
>> RAM transfers data TWICE per clock cycle. Thus, DDR2-800 RAM has a stock
>> clock speed of 400 MHz. Also, the other method of labeling DDR2 RAM is
>> to use 8 X the stock clock speed X 2. Thus, DDR2-800 RAM can also be
>> labeled PC-6400 and DDR2-1066 RAM can also be labeled PC-8500.
>>
>> According to the CPU-Z panes you posted, you were UNDERCLOCKING your CPU
>> @
>> 2000 MHz (6 X 333.3 MHz = 2000 MHz) and overclocking your DDR2-800 by a
>> small amount (333 MHz X 5/4 = 416.25 MHz).
>>
>> If you set the ratio at 1:1 instead of 4:5 then with a FSB of 1333 MHz
>> you
>> will be running the DDR2-800 ram at DDR2-667 (333 MHz X 1/1 = 333 MHz).
>>
>> Since you are running your CPU at only 2/3 its rated speed, and also
>> using a
>> very low CPU core voltage (1.04 v), the TAT readings of 45 C under load
>> are
>> reasonable. What are you using to load the cores? The built-in TAT
>> function to place a heavy load on the CPU cores will generate more heat
>> than
>> any normal operational load, so you should really use the TAT loading
>> function for comparing temperatures under load. (Or use Orthos to load
>> and
>> TAT for temperatures, but report what kind of load you are using.
>>
>> Some other suggestions:
>>
>> The CPU core voltage is VERY low; do you have speed step enabled, and is
>> that perhaps the reason that the reported CPU multiplier is only 6 X and
>> the
>> CPU speed is only 2000 MHz? If so, you must disable speed step (or
>> whatever
>> your motherboard manual calls that function) while trying to find a
>> stable
>> overclock. Once you have everything working as you wish, then by all
>> means
>> enable speed step so that when the CPU is not under heavy load the power
>> consumption is reduced.
>>
>> I would have thought almost any DDR2-800 memory would overclock by the
>> slight
>> amount reported by CPU-Z (333 MHz / (4/5) = 416.1 MHz ), just a 4%
>> overclock, but perhaps not. Also, you have the Cycle Time (tRAS) set to
>> 15
>> clocks rather than the 18 clock shown in the SPD pane for your memory.
>>
>> I'd say you should get right with the memory speed, the CPU core voltage,
>> and get speed step disabled before thinking before suspecting the memory
>> as
>> anything worse than just not overclockable.
>>
>> Also there are a plethora of other parameters that you may have
>> inadvisably
>> changed. Perhaps the first approach would be to get every thing working
>> at
>> absolute default except for setting the FSB : Memory ratio 1:1. (Notice
>> that CPU-Z actually uses the ratio in reverse, the 4:5 actually means
>> 5:4;
>> the same confusion reigns in motherboard manuals - there has been some
>> discussion in this newsgroup on that confusion.) [For one example, I
>> have
>> using, since April, DDR2-1066 memory with a FrontSide Bus speed of 1200
>> MHz
>> (E4300 @ 2700 MHz) and a 1:2 FSB : DRAM ratio as reported by CPU-Z, which
>> means my DDR2-1066 memory is running at DDR2-1200 specs. In the BIOS on
>> my EVGA 680i motherboard I set the Memory Bus speed to 1200 MHz (same as
>> the FSB speed); this gives what CPU-Z and some motherboard manufacturers
>> call a 1:2 CPU Clock : Memory Clock ratio.]
>>
>> As you can see, the variations in terminology make this a confusing
>> subject. Some of the variation is caused by the capability of nVidia
>> chipsets compared to Intel chipsets.
>>
>> I hope this helps. Please continue to ask questions and provide even
>> more
>> memory, including the terminology used in your BIOS for setting memory
>> speeds.
>>
>> Phil Weldon
>>
>> "Rayn" <spam.RemoveThis@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:fntl2n$lb7$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>> | Few things I noticed:
>> | Tried overclocking with 1:1 after seeing that on automatic settings the
>> | MB reads the RAM as 6700 instead of 6400 (although i have no idea if
>> | that is relevant, i'm new to ddr2). Got a "perfect" 400FSB with 9x and
>> | ram at 800 =3,6 MHz. this should work perfectly AFAIK, but testing the
>> | ram at this setting reveals tons of errors. Tried upping the V to 2.1
>> | but only lowers how often the errors happen. can't go lower than 1:1
>> and
>> | lowering the multiplier only makes the FSB bigger and, in turn, the ram
>> | MHz (or am i missing smthing?).
>> |
>> | I've got ~44C in bios (no cpu load ofc), 72/72C for cores and 60C for
>> | CPU (this is everest readout, don't ask..) under load, TAT reads
>> | (amazingly) 25C (no load) to 45C (under load), and finally, ~60C from
>> | Core Temp under load... gotta love those sensors.
>> |
>> |
>> | CpuZ:
>> |
>> | http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7888/cpuzvq1.jpg
>
> Thanks for in depth reply.
> Yeah you're right speedstep was on. It was actually 333x9=3GHz
> Being new to all this I got a question:
> Is Having 4:5 and a 333 FSB (ram@416mhz) is the same as having 1:1 and
> 400FSB (ram@400MHz)?
> If all the other values are the same and the CPU is not near max OC (and
> we forget about the 16MBz..).
> Because AFAIK my MB @ default values has a 4:5 with 333FSB. Hence the
> small OC for ram. Going much over 333FSB is impossible at this ratio
> because of ram. However, when swiching to 1:1 the ram, now actually
> working at 400 instead of 416 MHz, it's not working error free (tested
> with memtest). What gives? Shouldn't ram be "happy" at this setting?
> I guess i'm looking for a way to get around the RAM and boost the CPU
> which can prolly go up to 4GHz easy.


A couple of things -

Don't overclock just yet, wait until you've got everything stable at stock
speeds first. Make sure you disable speedstep / EIST / whatever it's called,
as Phil said.

I don't know what your BIOS settings look like as they are different for
each manufacturer - but it seems as though BIOS is forcing your RAM to
default to 400MHz (its full rated speed) even when the FSB is running at
333MHz. I may be wrong, but one or more of your BIOS settings is not ideal.
One of my old motherboards had three options for setting the memory speed -
auto (which matched the memory speed to the FSB) - SPD (which set the memory
speed to its full speed at stock FSB - increasing the FSB therefore
overclocked the memory - causing errors) and MANUAL (which allowed me to set
the memory speed to whatever I wanted) - you should be looking for auto or
manual, or whatever is the equivalent for your BIOS, and you should use a
1:1 ratio which will run your RAM at 333(x2)MHz at stock CPU speeds - well
within the capability of your RAM. Always try to use a 1:1 ratio - it makes
for better performance. Also, for now, allow your memory to set its timings
(CAS tRAS, etc.) automatically. You can tweak them later when everything is
stable.

You mentioned that increasing the memory voltage reduced the number of
errors - that tells us something, so try setting the fsb:mem ratio to 1:1,
leave the voltage on auto, and leave the FSB at 333. If you get memory
errors at this setting, one of two things are wrong:
1.The RAM is faulty, or
2.(more likely) the motherboard is not giving the memory enough voltage,
e.g. the BIOS shows, say, 2.0 volts but in reality it is only giving it,
say, 1.9 volts. Just as an example. This is easily cured by upping the
memory voltage a little bit at a time until it is perfectly stable.

So - try the steps outlined above, and don't try to overclock anything just
yet - let us know if you can get it working perfectly stable at FSB 333MHz
and a 1:1 FSB:MEM ratio first, and from there you can start to overclock.

Regards,

Dr.White.
 >> Stay informed about: Help with new PC 

Rayn wrote:
> However, when swiching to 1:1 the ram, now actually working at 400
> instead of 416 MHz, it's not working error free (tested with memtest).
> What gives? S