Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HELP!!! Overclocking Pentium D 805

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
March 4, 2006 5:52:56 PM

I have just built a new system with an EVGA 133-P4-NF51-XX, and an Intel Pentium D 805, 533 FSB.

I just bumped up the FSB by 10%, which put it at 586, and now, (In windows system properties), one core is showing 2.93Ghz....

I don't understand why only one core is showing the increase, (in Windows System Properties.... Anybody know?

One core is showing 2.66Ghz, the other 2.93Ghz... Or am I misinterpreting this?
March 4, 2006 8:07:43 PM

Ok :)  I think I figured it out. In windows system properties, when it lists the system specs, it is showing the processor name (description) on the first line... which is "Pentium(R) D CPU 2.66GHz", then, on the next line it is showing the actual current clock speed, "2.93 GHz, 1.00 GB of RAM"

:lol: 
March 4, 2006 9:20:26 PM

Not sure if you realize it but you got lucky with that board even working with a 533FSB CPU. According to eVGA's website it only supports 800/1066! Is it stable?
Related resources
March 4, 2006 10:01:13 PM

then it might be a little more stable if you clock it to 800 :wink:
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2006 10:12:37 PM

Quote:
Not sure if you realize it but you got lucky with that board even working with a 533FSB CPU. According to eVGA's website it only supports 800/1066! Is it stable?


Ofcource it will work, it would just set the northbridge speed lower and ofcourse it will be stable - its running the northbridge at 1/2 its max speed, when they list "support FSB800/1066" they mean everything INCLUDING that.
March 4, 2006 10:18:11 PM

I agree, but that will depend on the CPU. Personally, I would of chosen the Asus SLI board instead and it does support 533FSB CPU's. Asus usually OC pretty well too. I can't even find a review for the eVGA board he's using which leaves me to wonder why use it? It even costs more than an Asus.....
March 4, 2006 10:27:59 PM

That just seems like a big assumption without any documentation to support it. It also makes no sense why eVGA would NOT list a 533FSB in the specs as there are P4's & Celeron D's that use that FSB. I hardly believe it can or should be assumed that everything LGA775 will just work.
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2006 10:46:57 PM

THEY LIST "FSB800/1066" AS A FEATURE BUT INTERNALLY THEY WILL RUN AT LOWER SPEEDS, SAME AS THE i865 BOARDS "SUPPORT FSB800" MEANS 400MHZ - 800MHZ FSB
March 4, 2006 11:06:38 PM

It appears I have somehow offended your pseudo guru sensibilities, hence the CAP LOCKS or perhaps the keyboard just got stuck?? :lol: 
When it comes to FSB's, if you wish to ASSUME such things, knock yourself out sport. :wink:
March 4, 2006 11:36:51 PM

Well it should be able to run slower then the rated specs, but the lucky part is BIOS support for the CPU. I seems like Intel is selling extra Pentium D cores cheap, with a slower bus. If you could get those back to 200(or 800) it would be a great deal for $150.

4ghz!
March 4, 2006 11:51:17 PM

I agree with you 100%. After reviewing my original post I realized the same thing. It's really a case of bios support for anything under 800FSB and not so much a case of stability. The real qustion here is, is the 805 fully functional or is it a crippled/defective FSB 820 and can it be OC'ed successfully to an 800FSB? If it can be OC'ed close too, and/or beyond 800FSB, it will be the best bang for the buck right now from anyone and virtually required for any budget build, IMHO.
March 5, 2006 5:12:52 AM

Quote:
Well it should be able to run slower then the rated specs, but the lucky part is BIOS support for the CPU. I seems like Intel is selling extra Pentium D cores cheap, with a slower bus. If you could get those back to 200(or 800) it would be a great deal for $150.

4ghz!


How ultimate would a 53% overclock be?? do you know of any good phase change coolers?
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2006 7:49:26 AM

the FSB/communication section of the cpu is not crippled, they just sell the chip at a slower speed and slower fsb, just like the prescott 2800 with fsb533 (the cpu might not reach the initial 2800/800 at there selected vcore so they lower the speeds like an underclock so it does).

They might also sell it like that cause if AMD wants to match they will loose money.
March 5, 2006 11:18:42 AM

Apache Lives :
Quote:
the FSB/communication section of the cpu is not crippled, they just sell the chip at a slower speed and slower fsb, just like the prescott 2800 with fsb533 (the cpu might not reach the initial 2800/800 at there selected vcore so they lower the speeds like an underclock so it does).


I agree :) 

Hey what kind of can of worms did I open here??? HA HA :lol: 

Alright, I hope we all can get along here...

Check this out... Here are all 3 of my systems :) 

SYSTEM I

Aspire XPlorer
A8N-SLI Premium
550W Black Beauty PS
AMD64 X2 4400+ w/Zalman Cooler
3 GB Corsair XMS
250GB Hitachi Deskstar SATA II
EVGA 6800GS CO SE
SBAudigy
Terminator TV/FM Card (for Jazz radio)
Olevia 26" Widescreen
Logitech Mx Laser Mouse w/Thermaltake Lighted Gaming Pad
Saitek Eclipse Keyboard/Thrustmaster Game Controller
NEC DL DVDRW
Memorex DVDRW
80GB Seagate Ext. Hard Drive
30GB Apple iPod Video
Windows XP SP2 (updated)



SYSTEM II

Aspire XCruiser
Gigabyte K8N PRO SLI
550W PS
AMD64 3200+ w/Zalman Cooler
1GB Patriot RAM
250GB WD ATA
Chaintech GeForce 6200TC
Samsung 910MP TV Monitor
Logitech Wireless Keyboard/Mouse
NEC DL DVDRW
BenQ DVD DL
Windows XP SP2 (updated)



SYSTEM III

Coolermaster Black Cavalier 4 (CAV-TO4)
Evga 133-P4-NF51-AX
350W Stock PS
Intel Pentium D 805 w/Stock HTSink-Fan
1GB Geil DDRII 533 4-4-4-12
80GB Hitachi DS SATAII
Chaintech GeForce 6200TC
Lite-On DVD DL
Windows XP SP2 (updated)
March 5, 2006 11:59:31 AM

Now I may be getting a bit carried away, but I love building computers! :) 

I wanted to compare the Pentium D with my AMD X2. Now I know it is really not a "TRUE" comparison by many factors, (I wanted the 2.8 Pent D however I really had to watch spending, ($220, or $150???) but then it would have an 800Mhz FSB to compare with my X2, still it can be compared in some respect) And, since Evga had a good deal on a 6800GS OC SE/Evga P4 MB COMBO... I couldn't resist. I actually only payed $80 for the board... And I am impressed with it! It has some very nice physical features and the BIOS is very extensive!

I hate to say it, but I have had a lot of trouble with System I, and I think most of it is directly related to the ASUS board. I actually paid $175 for it. I won't go into great detail, but I have an occasional lock up on that system, that I do not experience with any other computer I own. I also have 2 Laptops and my roommate has a dell desktop, my girlfriend has a Compaq desktop, (I forgive her everyday) :) , and I have never had one lock up like that ASUS board. I have switched processors with my Gigabyte board even just to test, and I have noticed there seems to be some kind of instability sometimes .

Now one thing I noticed... Getting back to the PENTIUM D. (I have only had it for 2 days so far),

I put NFS Hot Pursuit 2 on both My X2 system and my Pentium D system, and during take off's, my X2 system is much faster loading.

I am very impressed so far with the Pentium D's performance, and who would have ever thought I could OC it to 2.93Ghz by increasing the FSB by only 10%. Or am I just crazy???

I cannot OC my ASUS board with the X2 more than 20% without errors, and even then I am not so sure it is totally foolproof :)  And that is probably putting it mildly, because look who is operating it :p 
March 5, 2006 1:29:28 PM

Can you change the multiplyerfor 20 down to 14? I know most of the 6xx chips do (EIST.) With the 14x multipltyer you could do 200x14 for 2.8ghz. The 200+ FSB would realy help performance. With the 20x multiplyer you may have to raise the core voltage over 1.45 and water cool it. These may just be in the bottom bin because of the voltage need to run at 2.8GHz+.

I don't have a dual core yet, my first will be a conroe. I have both AMD and Intel single cores. If you compare my Intels to the Winchester they win. Hypertransport can't save it from the bad memory controler, a mess up AMD fans seem to have forgiven, or forgoten. Yet they can nit-pic Intel. My Venice is alot better than the Winchester, probably my best CPU. But it is close, and not at everything. A San Diago would be alittle better.

I have had more stability problems with the AMDs, mostly with my Asrock DualSATA2. That's why it has my winnie now. The Biostar Tforce6100-939 is quite good. Asus makes the best Intel mobos, but not the best AMD. It is nice to know I could just plug in a dual core in one of my 939 mobos. Intel makes you get a new mobo for just about every new CPU. But now it's all the same, AM2 or Conroe. Both need new mobos.

Read this, Yonah smokes a FX60.
The Yonah is on a small air cooler, the FX has a VapoChill. :lol: 
Conroe is going to Rule as the King CPU very soon.
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2006 6:27:53 PM

Quote:
Can you change the multiplyerfor 20 down to 14? I know most of the 6xx chips do (EIST.) With the 14x multipltyer you could do 200x14 for 2.8ghz. The 200+ FSB would realy help performance. With the 20x multiplyer you may have to raise the core voltage over 1.45 and water cool it. These may just be in the bottom bin because of the voltage need to run at 2.8GHz+.

I don't have a dual core yet, my first will be a conroe. I have both AMD and Intel single cores. If you compare my Intels to the Winchester they win. Hypertransport can't save it from the bad memory controler, a mess up AMD fans seem to have forgiven, or forgoten. Yet they can nit-pic Intel. My Venice is alot better than the Winchester, probably my best CPU. But it is close, and not at everything. A San Diago would be alittle better.

I have had more stability problems with the AMDs, mostly with my Asrock DualSATA2. That's why it has my winnie now. The Biostar Tforce6100-939 is quite good. Asus makes the best Intel mobos, but not the best AMD. It is nice to know I could just plug in a dual core in one of my 939 mobos. Intel makes you get a new mobo for just about every new CPU. But now it's all the same, AM2 or Conroe. Both need new mobos.

Read this, Yonah smokes a FX60.
The Yonah is on a small air cooler, the FX has a VapoChill. :lol: 
Conroe is going to Rule as the King CPU very soon.


hey same here - i's waitin for conroe for my first dual core (or amds answer)
March 5, 2006 7:18:49 PM

Understood and makes perfect sense. :wink:

Isn't it funny how roles have reversed where Intel is now the budget brand (dual core anyway), inferior underdog yet providing the most bang for the buck and taunting AMD (and their fanboys) with lower cost dual cores. Similar to the Athlon XP generation vs. the P4c's(800FSB & HT) where the AMD fanboys loved to try and compare when an XP's strength was only against first and second generation Northwoods, not P4c's. How times have changed and lets just hope Conroe isn't just hype like the PrescHots were. *sigh*
March 5, 2006 9:37:46 PM

Quad Core to be out end of 2006
March 6, 2006 1:50:47 AM

Quote:
Now I may be getting a bit carried away, but I love building computers! :) 

I wanted to compare the Pentium D with my AMD X2. Now I know it is really not a "TRUE" comparison by many factors, (I wanted the 2.8 Pent D however I really had to watch spending, ($220, or $150???) but then it would have an 800Mhz FSB to compare with my X2, still it can be compared in some respect) And, since Evga had a good deal on a 6800GS OC SE/Evga P4 MB COMBO... I couldn't resist. I actually only payed $80 for the board... And I am impressed with it! It has some very nice physical features and the BIOS is very extensive!

I hate to say it, but I have had a lot of trouble with System I, and I think most of it is directly related to the ASUS board. I actually paid $175 for it. I won't go into great detail, but I have an occasional lock up on that system, that I do not experience with any other computer I own. I also have 2 Laptops and my roommate has a dell desktop, my girlfriend has a Compaq desktop, (I forgive her everyday) :) , and I have never had one lock up like that ASUS board. I have switched processors with my Gigabyte board even just to test, and I have noticed there seems to be some kind of instability sometimes .

Now one thing I noticed... Getting back to the PENTIUM D. (I have only had it for 2 days so far),

I put NFS Hot Pursuit 2 on both My X2 system and my Pentium D system, and during take off's, my X2 system is much faster loading.

I am very impressed so far with the Pentium D's performance, and who would have ever thought I could OC it to 2.93Ghz by increasing the FSB by only 10%. Or am I just crazy???

I cannot OC my ASUS board with the X2 more than 20% without errors, and even then I am not so sure it is totally foolproof :)  And that is probably putting it mildly, because look who is operating it :p 


ASUS + AMD = PRESCOTT
this may be related :o 
March 6, 2006 2:33:46 AM

Quote:
ASUS + AMD = PRESCOTT
this may be related


I am not following you....?
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2006 5:04:41 AM

Quote:
Understood and makes perfect sense. :wink:

Isn't it funny how roles have reversed where Intel is now the budget brand (dual core anyway), inferior underdog yet providing the most bang for the buck and taunting AMD (and their fanboys) with lower cost dual cores. Similar to the Athlon XP generation vs. the P4c's(800FSB & HT) where the AMD fanboys loved to try and compare when an XP's strength was only against first and second generation Northwoods, not P4c's. How times have changed and lets just hope Conroe isn't just hype like the PrescHots were. *sigh*


No P6 based CPU has let us down - every single one was both faster and colder then the last, its P4 that gave intel a poor name and all the hype and no gain, P4 was just a market grabber "oo look a 2ghz cpu, must be faster then amds 1.5ghz cpu"
March 6, 2006 5:10:19 AM

Quote:
Understood and makes perfect sense. :wink:

Isn't it funny how roles have reversed where Intel is now the budget brand (dual core anyway), inferior underdog yet providing the most bang for the buck and taunting AMD (and their fanboys) with lower cost dual cores. Similar to the Athlon XP generation vs. the P4c's(800FSB & HT) where the AMD fanboys loved to try and compare when an XP's strength was only against first and second generation Northwoods, not P4c's. How times have changed and lets just hope Conroe isn't just hype like the PrescHots were. *sigh*


No P6 based CPU has let us down - every single one was both faster and colder then the last, its P4 that gave intel a poor name and all the hype and no gain, P4 was just a market grabber "oo look a 2ghz cpu, must be faster then amds 1.5ghz cpu"

i wouldn't go so far to say that. answer this would amd be as good as they are today without the pentium 4?
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2006 6:35:05 AM

yeah true

P6 - amd always had something as quick but were hotter, mostly cheaper and they did beat intel to 1ghz, we didnt get let down as in each release was quicker and colder (more efficent) - no P6 cpu has ever seen 50w of heat throughout the 8 cores and at the same time the clock speed raised 8x and double the cores and still running strong.

ME = P6 FAN :D 
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 13, 2006 1:16:50 AM

Mine does, for 42846. The dual cores and much better FP performance of my new rig is far better than that of my old 2.2 P4-M laptop, not to mention that it runs far quieter and 20 degrees cooler.
March 13, 2006 1:28:54 AM

well its a laptop, so you can't compare how cool/quiet it is to a PD
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 13, 2006 1:42:26 AM

That is true. Laptops are designed to and do run hotter than desktop chips. The fans and heatsinks are tiny, making a lot of noise and being generally less than effective. Heck, my desktop chip's max temperature is the *idle* temperature of the P4-M (65 C).

I have used a Pentium D 820 system a little bit, and it seems to be a little louder and hotter than my X2 4200+ machine but both are pretty quiet. I bet a lot of that is due to the 820D being put in a tiny SFF case with one 80mm fan and my X2 sitting right in front of 80 and 120mm fans in a mid-tower case. Also, the 820D does not have frequency scaling and my X2 does. It makes a big difference. I can't really comment on performance as the other parts in each box are a lot different (so are the OSes) and likely influence the performance more than the CPU does.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 13, 2006 1:47:26 AM

Actually, I think they would have been better. Why? If NetBurst had never happened, then Intel would have had to just speed up the P3 architecture- which they did for the laptop Pentium M and finally on the desktop with Conroe. The P6 microarchitecture is very competitive to AMD's microarchitecture. The P2 vs. K6-2 and P3 vs. K7 attest to that, as does the Pentium M vs. the Turion 64.

If Intel hadn't dumped almost all of its time and money into the P4, I think that they would have been more aggressive in clocking up the P3 core. Here's what I think would have happened, with the actual releases on the left and what could have happened on the right:

1. P4 Williamette: Intel releases a 1.5GHz PIII-S and waits for 130nm to come online.

2. P4 Northwood: New core. Improve the PIII's FP performance (2-3 FPUs/ALUs/integer units), add SSE2, 130nm process, clock speed tops out at 1.7-1.8GHz at first, 533FSB, 1M cache. Ramp up clock speed to about 2GHz at the end of line.

3. P4 Prescott: Ramp up clock speed to about 2.4-2.6GHz with the 90nm process, increase FSB to 800MHz. Dual-channel memory controller. Add 64-bit extensions to counter the Athlon 64, up cache to 2M. Add support for DDR2.

4. Smithfield: First Intel dual-core processor, clock speed a few hundred lower than the desktop chips. Dual FSBs at 533MHz each, 1M cache per core. Requires dual-channel memory.

5. Presler/Cedar Mill: this is about where the Conroe would be, but with independent FSBs.
March 13, 2006 1:52:02 AM

but obviously with many other factors in the way they couldn't just 'speed up the PIII'. besides - they would have had to run into the heat barrier sooner or later and they wouldn't have made as much money from their great marketing.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 13, 2006 1:56:01 AM

Well, the Pentium M *is* more or less a "sped-up P3." The thing that let them speed up the P3 was the process shrink to 130nm. The Pentium M Banias went up to 1.7GHz, which is 300MHz faster than the fastest 180nm P3. 90nm saw the Pentium M get up to 2.26GHz.

Eventually, Intel would have to add pipeline stages to increase clock speed like they have with Conroe. But it would not be 12 -> 20/21/34, it would be add two or four stages.
March 13, 2006 1:58:43 AM

what? i read that the PM was a completely new design built from the ground up, sort of based around the P!!!. not a modified P!!! or anything
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 13, 2006 2:13:15 AM

Eh, I read that the original P-M was very similar to the P3. The Dothan is a little different, but the Banias was supposed to be very similar.
March 13, 2006 9:19:13 AM

Well, on the opinion side of this, for I am not as technically informed as you all, I was going to upgrade my celeron chip to a Pentium M in my Dell Laptop... But I don't use it enough to really think it would be worth the $300 to do it. Dell said I could go up to the Pent M 755, and they wanted like $549 for the dang thing. HA HA I said to them :)  I mean for crying out loud, I can get it on Zipzoomfly for $319.

Hard for a guy like me to keep up with all this Technology. I just have to be happy where I am. I OC'd my Pentium D to 3.73Ghz and it is stable as far as I know. No need to burn it up, I just wanted to see what it would do. I could probably get it to 4Ghz with a water cooler. But Prime 95 puts too much stress on it. It was running at 65c while it was torture testing it...
I have my X2 4400+ running steady and stable at 2.53Ghz and that is better than I have ever got it to run. I switched MB's from an ASUS A8N-SLI Premium to an EVGA 133-NF41-P4-AX. Many more configuration options in the BIOS. :) 

Both of my dual cores are in EVGA boards and they are awesome :) 
March 16, 2006 4:11:18 AM

Quote:
Actually, I think they would have been better. Why? If NetBurst had never happened, then Intel would have had to just speed up the P3 architecture- which they did for the laptop Pentium M and finally on the desktop with Conroe. The P6 microarchitecture is very competitive to AMD's microarchitecture. The P2 vs. K6-2 and P3 vs. K7 attest to that, as does the Pentium M vs. the Turion 64.

If Intel hadn't dumped almost all of its time and money into the P4, I think that they would have been more aggressive in clocking up the P3 core. Here's what I think would have happened, with the actual releases on the left and what could have happened on the right:

1. P4 Williamette: Intel releases a 1.5GHz PIII-S and waits for 130nm to come online.

2. P4 Northwood: New core. Improve the PIII's FP performance (2-3 FPUs/ALUs/integer units), add SSE2, 130nm process, clock speed tops out at 1.7-1.8GHz at first, 533FSB, 1M cache. Ramp up clock speed to about 2GHz at the end of line.

3. P4 Prescott: Ramp up clock speed to about 2.4-2.6GHz with the 90nm process, increase FSB to 800MHz. Dual-channel memory controller. Add 64-bit extensions to counter the Athlon 64, up cache to 2M. Add support for DDR2.

4. Smithfield: First Intel dual-core processor, clock speed a few hundred lower than the desktop chips. Dual FSBs at 533MHz each, 1M cache per core. Requires dual-channel memory.

5. Presler/Cedar Mill: this is about where the Conroe would be, but with independent FSBs.


The Tualatins ARE .13 micron process chips :roll: . Your rant is stupidity talking. Only the early Williamette's and the early prescotts were failures. The whole Northwood core was a huge success, and mightily kicked the crap out of any PIII based laptop at that time. Today's Netburst designs are once again performance kings for the processors in their prices range (i.e. PD 805). Show some respect for Netburst. Just because it's old in tooth now doesn't mean it wasn't a good design.
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2006 9:59:30 AM

Quote:
what? i read that the PM was a completely new design built from the ground up, sort of based around the P!!!. not a modified P!!! or anything


Intel at first claimed it was brand new but later admitted it was a P6 core, closest to the P3 tualatin with 1mb cache and a P4 FSB.

The Coppermine topped out at 1ghz, and the P3 tualatin stoped at 1.4ghz (had more) and was based on 130nm before P4.

Intel released the P4 cause they pannic'd when the coppermine wouldnt budge over 1ghz - both the wilamette and the coppermine were 180nm, the P3 reached 1ghz, the P4 - 2ghz using more then twice the stages.
March 16, 2006 12:40:23 PM

Yep, and it wasn't until the Northwood P4c did Intel finally get it right. Speaking of Northwood P4c's, what are your temps with the stk HSF?

I had to upgrade mine to a TT spark 7 to get my P4c 2.8 to 3.5Ghz and even then temps were still around 41C @ idle. Vcore was only 1.55 though. Which brings me to my second question for ya'. Is it possible that the mobo or RAM/timings is holding you back? P4c's are legendary OC'ers and yours should have been able to go much higher @ that Vcore. Heck, you should of been able to get to your current MAX with the factory recommended max Vcore of 1.525.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
March 16, 2006 1:52:38 PM

Okay, it did slip my mind that Tualatins were 130nm. And I also didn't say that the P4 NetBurst was a bad design- only that if Intel had never done it, they'd be farther along on the P6-derived architecture that theyare using again. That's a given because if you don't work on something for a while and come back to it, it is not going anywhere when you didn't work on it. And also that you would have been father along on it if you had stuck with it.

I am not dissing Intel or their P4 NetBurst architecture at all. It was good for Intel to try the P4 NetBurst. New ideas are always welcome and lead to better products, or at the vey least, finding out what doesn't work and why. You're not going to bat 1.000 all the time, but you'll rarely hit a home run if you never swing. The Williamette cores did suck, but the Northwood ones were very good and had better performance than AMD's at the time. It is no accident that my last computer had a 2.2 Northwood "A"-based Pentium 4-M in it rather than a K7-based Athlon XP-Mobile. The Northwood B and C were very good too and ate up K7s for lunch. But the Prescott was when Intel should have moved away from NetBurst as that's when they hit their TDP and clock-speed wall. Prescotts aren't *bad* chips by any means, and they generally are good buys because they have a very bad rap for running hot and not being quite as fast as AMD's offerings.

The 65nm Intels made me think long and hard about what to put in my new computer. The performance between my AMD X2 4200+ and a Pentium D 930 or 940 is very, very close and the TDP is somewhat close as well. The deciding factors were that a good Socket 939/NF4 board was quite a bit less expensive than a good LGA775/955 or 975 board. Also, DDR400 is less expensive than DDR2-667 or -800.
March 16, 2006 4:14:10 PM

Wow. I actually agree with your last post 100%. My sentiments exactly. 8O
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2006 6:09:55 AM

Quote:
Yep, and it wasn't until the Northwood P4c did Intel finally get it right. Speaking of Northwood P4c's, what are your temps with the stk HSF?

I had to upgrade mine to a TT spark 7 to get my P4c 2.8 to 3.5Ghz and even then temps were still around 41C @ idle. Vcore was only 1.55 though. Which brings me to my second question for ya'. Is it possible that the mobo or RAM/timings is holding you back? P4c's are legendary OC'ers and yours should have been able to go much higher @ that Vcore. Heck, you should of been able to get to your current MAX with the factory recommended max Vcore of 1.525.


My 2600c is a dud - takes 1.6525v to even get to 3ghzm and i get idle temps of ~44 idle with stock cooling and a duct over it (altho the heatsink its self is colder then my fingers, prolly room temps - im thinking the re-apply'd arctic silver isnt working but iv tried generic thermal paste and 2 coats of AS5 and its still posting ~44*c - that reading on two boards aswell its just a crap cpu.
March 17, 2006 8:08:04 AM

If you really hate your cpu so much, how 'bout you trade to me for a Celeron D 310 that overclocks greater than 70%?
March 17, 2006 12:13:21 PM

Well,
I just swapped that P4c 2.8 out for a 3.2 Prescott. I haven't had time to put it up on Ebay yet so if you or anyone else is interested, let me know. Chip was a retail box unit bought a little over 2 yrs ago, guaranteed NOT DOA, working pull. Only reason I swapped it out was I had the 3.2 prescott from an earlier build that I parted out. Only problem is the dumbass girlfriend threw the box out so consider it OEM. :(  I can provide the CPU's code upon request for verification. Anyone interested can PM me or reply here. Also if I do need to put it up on Ebay, I'll post a link as well. Any REASONABLE offers considered. This CPU cost $180 @ time of purchase and as most know, P4c's are hard to come by and are not cheap.
March 17, 2006 9:11:12 PM

Quote:
Any REASONABLE offers considered. This CPU cost $180 @ time of purchase and as most know, P4c's are hard to come by and are not cheap.


HEY YOU! 8O YEAH YOU, you skinny parts seller guy, uh....

I wouldn't like a chip or nothing like that and all dude, but......

I will take one of them disk drives you got there you corn swaggler :D 
March 17, 2006 10:40:19 PM

Pssst! Pssssst!!
You, yeah, You!
Hey, I got these Reeeeal nice CPU's. Yep, this deal is almost toooo good to be true. :wink:
Ooooohhh, You want a nice shiny new drive, huh?? Well..... You've come to the right place Buddy! :D 
Naaaahhhh, you won't burn ya' fingers on this stuff! :o 
I'm a REPUTABLE business man, ya' hear? 8)

Anywho, I had the Preschott 3.2 up to 4.0Ghz with a 1.46 Vcore. Using one of those new Gigabyte HSF's but if you crank it up to 4000RPM, it's very noisy. :(  Still idles @ 48C (3000RPM) and I've yet to test for a full load temp with Prime95. I think it misses my Zalman Reserator. lol
March 17, 2006 11:54:06 PM

:roll: How much for the drive mister? cough it over
!