Overclocking Guide Part 3: How To Gain 81% For $27

[pschmid]

How does an 81% clock increase from a $27 upgrade sound? Walk with us as we put our wealth of recommendations to the test and come out victorious!

 

[goozinator]

What are the CPU temps idle and under a load with that overclock?

 

[Homerr]

I continue to be confounded by RAM prices. I know if you want to play you have to pay, but these type of "for only $27" articles don't ever tell the price of the premium RAM that has to be used. The OCZ you used goes for around $270, but you can find 2x1gb sets for $190.

So I'd rather see the article title say $107, as it is the difference between a non-OC system price with RAM + HSF.

edit:grammar

 

[yamahog-2]

Question: Which version of this board was used? 1.0, or 2.0

 

[asa_riey0000]

what is the power consumptions?, compare to non-OC system.
these level of OC of coz need powerful and lilbit-pricey PSU.

 

[magreen]

I'm pleased to see Tom's is starting to overclock with the right board, the right cpu, the right bios, and the right memory to get a respectable overclock. I'd been disappointed on those points over the past 6 months -- seeing articles reporting a low maximum overclock on a certain board or certain chip when they hadn't tested using the right components.

 

[Slobogob]

I continue to be confounded by RAM prices. I know if you want to play you have to pay, but these type of "for only $27" articles don't ever tell the price of the premium RAM that has to be used. The OCZ you used goes for around $270, but you can find 2x1gb sets for $190.

So I'd rather see the article title say $107, as it is the difference between a non-OC system price with RAM + HSF.

edit:grammar

The title is very misleading, i agree. As you already mentioned the whole hardware was choosen with overclocking in mind so the difference between what you need to overclock and what you need to get a complete system would be the final cost - not the 27$ of some HSF. The choosen title is quite a cheap shot to get attention, similar to the headings of heavily opinionated magazines like the "sun" or, and god forgive me for comparing THG to it, "the inquirer".
Apart from the title i liked the article. Everything that is needed to know is explained and written quite comprehensive. Even though i can´t really tell how comprehensive the article will be for someone with no technical expertise at all. But then again, such a person shouldn´t be overclocking at all.

 

[Crashman]

Overclocking with the "wrong" components can be good for comparing motherboard stability, but doesn't tell you what the highest bus speed the board can achieve is. Still, at least you get something out of it.

 

[Impkin]

Looking at this series as a whole I was expecting more of a generic "guide" for overclocking. However, the result is a specific guide on the specific set of hardware that was OC'd. I would think that the article was written for those with no overclocking experience. However the series arrives at conclusions without explaining how to get there.

Example: the recommended, maximum low-risk CPU voltage of 1.45v
The specs from Intel's site offer a range for the E6300 of 0.8v-1.35v
While the recommendation may be fine for the E6300 and similar CPUs it would have been better to give the reasoning behind the recommendation. Maybe something like, "Best low-risk practice is to increase the CPU's voltage by 10% max."


An improvement to Part 3 would have been more consistent listing of the starting values.
Example: it is explained that the memory voltage was raised from stock values to 2.2v. What is this 'stock' value?
OCZ specs list 1.9v-2.1v. DDR2 standard is 1.8v.


"...some speeds between 380 MHz and 400 MHz were unstable, while other higher speeds were perfectly fine. Increasing FSB voltage by 0.20 V got us past 420 MHz, but again, with some settings in the middle not working correctly. Choosing the +0.30 V setting eliminated all FSB stability issues and allowed us to shoot for the moon!"

What prompted further testing past the "settings in the middle"?
I have no overclocking experience. From all that I have read when reaching an unstable point you either up the voltage and try again, or decide the limit has been reached (you can also try reducing temperatures if possible, and test again). What would be the indicator that perhaps a higher speed would be more stable at current voltage settings? At what point does further speed-setting-only experimentation involve too great a risk of permanent damage to the CPU?

In the end section "Backing down" how were those values chosen?

What I would like to see would be the guidelines on how to set reasonable boundaries on the various parameters a noobi OC'er should experiment with. This guide would be geared toward OC'ing a system for continuous, long term use. Not for simply achieving the highest OC possible that will run just long enough to pass an arbitrary stability test. What percentage of the default/as-shipped settings is a low-risk margin to experiment with that will result in a system that will run at those speeds for 1-2 years?

 

[Crashman]

Looking at this series as a whole I was expecting more of a generic "guide" for overclocking. However, the result is a specific guide on the specific set of hardware that was OC'd.

You must not have read the conclusion of Part 2

I would think that the article was written for those with no overclocking experience. However the series arrives at conclusions without explaining how to get there.

You must not have read the recommendations and reasons in Part 2.

Example: the recommended, maximum low-risk CPU voltage of 1.45v
The specs from Intel's site offer a range for the E6300 of 0.8v-1.35v
While the recommendation may be fine for the E6300 and similar CPUs it would have been better to give the reasoning behind the recommendation. Maybe something like, "Best low-risk practice is to increase the CPU's voltage by 10% max."

The reason is covered in the E6300 recommendation, part 2. The old 10% rule of thumb is just that, a rule of thumb, and doesn't apply to all processors. Good voltage recommedations can only be made from experience, the experience was carried over in Part 2 recommendations.

An improvement to Part 3 would have been more consistent listing of the starting values.
Example: it is explained that the memory voltage was raised from stock values to 2.2v. What is this 'stock' value?
OCZ specs list 1.9v-2.1v. DDR2 standard is 1.8v.

Stock value for DDR2-800 is 1.80V. OCZ specs 1.80V for this particular RAM. Most of OCZ's other RAM is specified at above stock values.

"...some speeds between 380 MHz and 400 MHz were unstable, while other higher speeds were perfectly fine. Increasing FSB voltage by 0.20 V got us past 420 MHz, but again, with some settings in the middle not working correctly. Choosing the +0.30 V setting eliminated all FSB stability issues and allowed us to shoot for the moon!"

What prompted further testing past the "settings in the middle"?
I have no overclocking experience. From all that I have read when reaching an unstable point you either up the voltage and try again, or decide the limit has been reached (you can also try reducing temperatures if possible, and test again). What would be the indicator that perhaps a higher speed would be more stable at current voltage settings? At what point does further speed-setting-only experimentation involve too great a risk of permanent damage to the CPU?

Guesswork, the important part being the result, raising FSB voltage cured the problem.

In the end section "Backing down" how were those values chosen?

CPU FSB was backed down by one setting level, the CPU was dropped to a FSB that could be run at that reduced voltage level, etc.

What I would like to see would be the guidelines on how to set reasonable boundaries on the various parameters a noobi OC'er should experiment with. This guide would be geared toward OC'ing a system for continuous, long term use. Not for simply achieving the highest OC possible that will run just long enough to pass an arbitrary stability test. What percentage of the default/as-shipped settings is a low-risk margin to experiment with that will result in a system that will run at those speeds for 1-2 years?

Results always varry, in the end it's all about guesswork and experience. Part 2 included a wide variety of experience that came from other people's guesswork, Part 3 put some of it to use.

 

[wpb]

What percentage of the default/as-shipped settings is a low-risk margin to experiment with that will result in a system that will run at those speeds for 1-2 years?

I think the answer to that question is any setting that doesn't require an increase in voltage and runs within your RAM's memory specs. For example I OC my e6300 with DDR2-667 to a FSB of 333 MHz at stock voltage. It's a safe and stable OC, IMO.

 

[caamsa]

I have overclocked before and have tried to get more out of an older system in order to play games etc.

Some of the gains from OC this cpu are amazing.........but

If your already getting 115-130 frame in fear I would rather just keep it running stock. It performs great at stock speeds IMO for gaming. Now as newer games come out and you need more performance overclock the hell out of it.

I guess im a chicken I have never put a new system together and started off with an overclock. I usually end up doing it later on when it is needed.

 

[pentax]

Hi.
I was reading OC guides for some time, tried with my new PC, but last week It sudenly died. Some would say, ofcourse, you overclocked it.
But, here is the thing:

Asus P5W HD Deluxe
E6600 @ 3.2GHz (8x400) 1.35V
RAM @ 800Mhz 4,4,4,12 (which are declared specs for my Corsair) 2.1V
PCI @ 33.3MHz, PCIe @ 110MHz
CPU temp 44C under the torture, MB temp also 44C

And what is strange for me is that perfectly stable system with moderate voltages and temps, dies like that. Actualy the proc had died. I managed to change it under the warenty. They also changed the MB just in case.

Now I'm afraid to try the same OC-ing although I'm sure I didn't fry the proc.

Any thoughts or suggestions on that?

Thanks!
B.

 

[Crashman]

Some people have bad luck. Some parts die early, even without being overclocked.

 

[cpy]

I think this OC system would not be good idea in extended periods of time. I think it will be stable in default, but there will surely be things that will crash system, maybe i`m wrong, but OCed system will never be as stable as it gets in stock, or at least in these high settings.

 

[Crashman]

I've been running a 2GHz Athlon 64 at 2.4GHz for six months and not had a crash. That's as agressive an overclock as an E6300 at 3.0GHz.

 

[cpy]

Yea and what do you do on your pc? Office work? Then i`d believe.

 

[Paul_gren]

hello

this is off topic but i need an advice...

i just have a question: I have bought one month ago a Pentium D 820 (at around 100$) , a Thermaltake Golden Orb 2 cooler and a Gigabyte 945PL S3 v.2.0 motherboard. I also bought a ATI R x1650XT from Sapphire + 2X512 DDR 533 from Corsair hoping that a low cost system like this one could give me a good gameplay experience (even if not at highest settings).

In the past few months I read de OC articles and I went home decided to try an oc on my system just to see how far it goes...

but then there is this problem: in my motherboard's BIOS I have no memory timing settings and jus CPU voltage and frequency modifiers. I said to myself that I had to get another BIOS version but Gigabyte doesn't offer any update...

My question is : have I chosen the wrong components for OC? I'm asking because on the MB box it is written that it was built for high end users and maybe OC...

thanks

 

[cpy]

Definitely total lack of any capability to read before you buy anything. If MB does not have any OC friendly notices, then it is no go. Normaly you can find out what mobos in bios provide. Box says a lot, my asus box have so many OC stuff written on box i can hardly notice anything not concerning OC friendly info, damn good options but as unstable as nforce can get. Damn next time AMD is no go for me...

 

[deceneu]

how about a overclocking A E6600? that should be interesting.
and why dont is chosed as mobo the DS4? or the P5B deluxe?

 

[AMDThunder]

I think because they were trying to keep a midline price range.

It was nice to see the components used so closely match my own. Makes me feel better about my choices for sure. I have the S3 instead of the DS3, but same thing. Have the exact vid card too. G. Skill ram instead of OCZ, but same timings, etc.

Did I read the article right where they didn't manually set pci-e to 100? So the OC on the FSB also OCd the vid card? If so, how dangerous is that for the vid card? I'm all for getting more bang for my buck

 

[Crashman]

Did I read the article right where they didn't manually set pci-e to 100? So the OC on the FSB also OCd the vid card? If so, how dangerous is that for the vid card? I'm all for getting more bang for my buck

Great catch there on any article omission. Fortunately, it's in the pictures from Page 4:

Set to 100MHz PCIe

 

[AMDThunder]

Hmmm, so then I'm confused on how they got the overclocked speeds on the GPU. It did mentioned ATI Tools and the like, but said they weren't up to date (or some such) for the 1950Pro. I'll read it again and see if I missed something.

 

[Crashman]

ATI Tray Tool was the one that supported the card they used. Others were not up to date on X1950 Pro support. Asus also included a utility, but it had a much more limitted range.

 

[AMDThunder]

Reread it and caught that. Was just about to edit my post. Thanks anyway for the heads up.