Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Overclocking E6600-Please look over my settings /give advice

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
February 4, 2007 10:21:42 PM

Hi,

After reading the guide @ Tom’s Hardware and the one in this forum by wusy (Core2Duo Overclocking guide), I decided to give it a try. I usually spend big $$ on the fastest CPU but if I can save over $600 clams buying the E6600 and overclocking it to the same speed as the Core 2 Extreme X6800, it would allow me to purchase a new Monitor and a sound card (WOOT)!

Here is a list of the components I have saved in a ‘wish list’ at Newegg:

• Antec Nine Hundred Mid Tower Computer Case
• GIGABYTE GA-965P-DS3 Motherboard
• Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M shared L2 Cache
• ZALMAN 9700 LED 110mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler
• PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610 EPS12V EPS12V 610W Continuous @ 40°C Power Supply
• EVGA 640-P2-N825-AR GeForce 8800GTS 640MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 SUPERCLOCKED HDCP Video Card 576MHz/1700MHz(effective)
• Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache
• Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic 7.1 Channels 24-bit 96KHz PCI Interface Sound Card
• NEC Display Solutions 90GX2 Silver 19" 4ms DVI LCD Monitor with 4-port USB 2.0 hub 400 cd/m2 700:1

I wasn’t sure which memory I should purchase to overclock this system, suggestions? Cost isn’t as important as performance is to me so please suggest the best.

After reading both guides (Tom’s & wusy’s) I believe these should be my settings to achieve the 3GHz mark. Correct me if and where I am wrong!

• HDD S.M.A.R.T Capability [Disabled]
• Limit CPU Max. to 3 [Disabled]
• No-Execute Memory Protect [Disabled]
• CPU Enhanced Halt (C1H) [Disabled]
• CPU Thermal Monitor (2TM2) [Disabled]
• CPU HIST Function (or EIST, hard to read) [Disabled]
• Virtualization Technology [Disabled]
• Robust Graphica Booater (could be a H) [Auto]
• CPU Clock Ratio [9 X]
• CPU Host Clock Control [Enabled]
• CPU Host Frequency (Mhz) [333]
• PCI Express Frequency (Mhz) [100]
• C.I.A.Z [Disabled]
• System Memory Multiplier (SPD) [2.0]
• DRAM Timing Selectable (SPD) [Manual]
• Change the CAS#, RAS#, RAS#, RAS# to the ones specified on your RAM (depends on which RAM you suggest)
• Act to Act Delay (trrd) [Auto]
• Rank WRITE To READ Delay [Auto]
• Write To Procharge Delay [Auto]
• Refresh to ACT Delay [0]
• Read to Procharge Delay [Auto]
• Memory Performance Enhance [Normal]
• System Voltage Control [Manual]
• DDR2 OverVoltage Control [+0.3 or +0.4] (+0.4 in Tom’s Guide but I believe it depends on which memory you suggest and what it is rated for, correct?
• PCI-E OverVoltage Control [+0.1V (does that look correct or should it be set to normal?)]
• FSB OverVoltage Control [+0.3V Tom’s, 1.40V wusy (is this the same?)]
• (G) MCH OverVoltage Control [+0.3V @ Tom’s, 1.55 according to wusy (is this the same?)]
• CPU Voltage Control [1.400V – correct? E6600]
• Increase SB Voltage (vICH) by +0.1V from default-lowest value (this was suggested by wusy but I didn’t see this setting in the screens from Tom’s guide)

Those are all the settings I could find in Tom’s guide and I tried to adjust them as close as I could according to wusy’s guide. I don’t really want to push the system beyond the 3GHz mark so what else should I do, if anything?

Test with (wusy’s guide):
- CPU-Z
- Prime95
- Memtest86+
- Core Temp
- SpeedFan

1. Fire up CPU-Z and keep it running in the background to monitor clock speed
2. Fire up Core Temp to monitor temperature
3. Fire up SpeedFan to monitor voltages
3. Run dual instances of Prime95 in torture mode for 2 hours
4. (Optional) Run Memtest86+ for 2hrs
5. If stable go to Part4-Further Attempts, if not go back to last stable frequency
6. Once you’re happy with the settings proceed to the final part


The Finalizing section (wusy’s guide) is where I’m a little confused. Should I lower these settings one at a time then run each Test again before making another adjustment? Will I need to lower these settings even if I run all the tests without errors or is this necessary?

Any suggestion /advice you can give would be greatly appreciated!!
February 5, 2007 10:24:35 AM

Its hard to say if 1.4v will get you too 3.0 ghz it depends on what stepping chip you get.

I have the same board and cpu as what you have on your wish list and if i had to purchase a new system and keep prices around the same i would get a 6400 and a 680i board instead. you should be able to hit 3.0 ghz with it just as easily but no one knows how much voltage you will need until you start o.cing it. just make sure you have some good cooling and you should be fine.
February 5, 2007 11:07:15 AM

Wow, that's a long list of settings!

I have that CPU with an Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro and can hit 3.6 GHz stable easy with acceptable temps. I've never changed most of the settings you mention, I simply:

Increased vCore to 1.4v;
Increased vMCH to 1.55v;
Increased FSB to 333 (or 400 for the 3.6GHz wonder)

and bingo, it works fine.

I have 2GB of DDR800 (PC6400) 4-4-4-12 which allows me to hit 3.6GHz with those timings, but if you only plan on OCing to 3Gig then DDR667 will be fine. Have fun :) 

Oh, and Wusy suggests lowering the settings to the lowest possible whilst maintaining stability, as the increased voltages are basically what shorten the life of (or kill!) your CPU. 1.4V isn't too high at all though.....
Related resources
February 5, 2007 1:14:28 PM

I would go with the 74GB raptor, its faster than the 150GB and costs less. Use the raptor for OS and games and throw in a +160GB regular hard drive for MP3s and storage. I am not sure about the OCing I have a post here trying to get some answers for my rig but no replies yet. GOOD LUCK!
February 5, 2007 1:38:29 PM

Nah, stick with the 150GB Raptor, it's faster than the 74GB in some areas and is much better value for money.... only 50% more cash for 100% more storage. Plus with the ever increasing size of games you don't want to be constantly having to uninstall them to install others do you?
February 5, 2007 6:49:07 PM

LOL....

I know it's a looong list. Tom's Guide used the same board (different CPU, E6300) and had screens of all the BIOS settings so I wanted to be sure and include them to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

3.6GHz would be even better 8O . It's not that I wouldn't won't to go higher, I just don't want to do anything that would waste the $$ I just spent :( .

Now Memory, would CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) TWIN2X2048-6400C4 4-4-4-12 2.1V be a good choice? It is 'approved' memory for this board according to Gigabytes web site or would another brand/model be a better choice?

Thanks for your reply, BTW 8)
February 5, 2007 6:58:44 PM

Why the 680i and E6400? Is the 680i a 'better' board? Wouldn't the extra 2mb of L2 per core be beneficial?

I didn't plan on running SLI so I thought the Gigabyte MB would be the better value, actually, I could afford the GTX instead of the GTS with the $$ I save from this board.

Why would you choose the 680i and E6400 instead?




Thank's to everyone for your advice!
February 5, 2007 7:37:29 PM

GSte - "Nah, stick with the 150GB Raptor, it's faster than the 74GB in some areas"

Where did you get this information? Every post I have read says that the 74GB Raptor is much faster than the 150GB raptor. Besides the physics of it also makes sense, smaller data smaller swing of the heads - shorter seek time. If you have some evidence that contradicts that please let me know. I just don't see how a head can seek faster when it has twice as much data to surf over. Remember that the hard drive is the systems bottleneck, every micro second helps.
February 5, 2007 8:37:30 PM

Ok, I can purchase the 150 Raptor for 229 before rebate or (as advised) the 74 Raptor (159) and a Western Digital Caviar RE WD1600YS 160GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb (63).... roughly the same cost!

So, use the 74 raptor for the Operating System and games/other programs and the 7200 drive for storage of MP3', Photo's, Word Documents, ETC. ?

How's that sound?
February 5, 2007 10:01:37 PM

Put two 74gb raptors in raid 0. It's pricey but rocks so hard.
February 5, 2007 10:19:29 PM

Quote:
GSte - "Nah, stick with the 150GB Raptor, it's faster than the 74GB in some areas"

Where did you get this information? Every post I have read says that the 74GB Raptor is much faster than the 150GB raptor. Besides the physics of it also makes sense, smaller data smaller swing of the heads - shorter seek time. If you have some evidence that contradicts that please let me know. I just don't see how a head can seek faster when it has twice as much data to surf over. Remember that the hard drive is the systems bottleneck, every micro second helps.


Yes you are correct, the benchmarks I had seen were using the 74GB with 8MB cache, didn't realise they now made a 16MB one. The 74GB is slightly faster in most tests... not sure about the physics thing though.... I'm no Hard Drive engineer, but I imagine the platters are the same size in both (?). I'd still get the 150 because of it's size, and because it'll still be way faster than a 7200 RPM. Those milliseconds wouldn't bother me, but if you like your PC Mark scores and don't mind swapping your games round every now and then, go for it.
February 5, 2007 10:32:21 PM

Quote:
LOL....

3.6GHz would be even better 8O . It's not that I wouldn't won't to go higher, I just don't want to do anything that would waste the $$ I just spent :( .

Now Memory, would CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) TWIN2X2048-6400C4 4-4-4-12 2.1V be a good choice? It is 'approved' memory for this board according to Gigabytes web site or would another brand/model be a better choice?


If you came close to frying your chip it's very likely you'd know about it before it happened. I don't know of anyone who's killed one, other than those using loopy voltages trying to squeeze every last ounce from it. Just monitor your temps carefully and test for stability as you were planning.

That memory is rock solid. Don't know about in the States, but here in the UK you can get the same speed Corsair Dominator for only £10 more..... better for OCing should you decide to push the FSB further but I don't know what availability is like there. A good kit that it's hard to get hold of over here, but I think you can get there is the 2GB Mushkin XP2-6400 4-4-3-10.... supposed to overclock like nothing on earth and can apparently (and this is just what I have read not seen) run at cas3 on only 1.9v.

Personally I'd take the cheaper mobo and the GTX as it has significantly better performance than the GTS and will affect your gaming more than the mobo choice.

I have the Antec 900 myself and it is fantastic.

Hope it works out whatever though. :) 
February 5, 2007 11:38:23 PM

GSte - I got the 8MB one with Windows XP installed and I swap the SATA cable with another one that has 16MB and has Windows Vista 32bit installed. I have not noticed much difference between the two. I should run a bench test on each and see if adding Vista to the 16MB one makes a difference compared to XP on the 8MB one. It would have been nice to try each with the same OS but its too late heh. I am using the XP drive now because when I installed vista on Jan 22 when it was released there was only beta drivers for my video (XFX 8800GTS) and sound card (X-Fi Fatal1ty). I could not play BF 2142 without getting kicked by punk buster every few seconds. The beta video drivers caused Vista to crash when returning from hibernate. Not sure if this is due to the beta drivers, sorry off topic.
February 6, 2007 9:59:53 AM

Quote:
GSte - I got the 8MB one with Windows XP installed and I swap the SATA cable with another one that has 16MB and has Windows Vista 32bit installed. I have not noticed much difference between the two. I should run a bench test on each and see if adding Vista to the 16MB one makes a difference compared to XP on the 8MB one. It would have been nice to try each with the same OS but its too late heh. I am using the XP drive now because when I installed vista on Jan 22 when it was released there was only beta drivers for my video (XFX 8800GTS) and sound card (X-Fi Fatal1ty). I could not play BF 2142 without getting kicked by punk buster every few seconds. The beta video drivers caused Vista to crash when returning from hibernate. Not sure if this is due to the beta drivers, sorry off topic.


I'd really love to get my hands on Vista, but will be waiting for this very reason. Sounds like you have a sweet rig there. :) 
February 6, 2007 4:21:40 PM

Ill start a new thread once I plug back in the Vista drive and reinstall Vista with the new released drivers. Vista is so easy to install plus it leaves no trace of the old drivers when you format and reinstall the OS. Now, where are all the DX10 games LOL!
!