Overclocking E6600. What you guys think of this?

OK, heres the deal. Just to see what happens, i OC'd my CPU to 3.0GHz by setting the FSB to 333MHz while leaving the multiplier at 9. I left the voltages unchanged. Everything was stable, ran 3DMark 05 and 06. CPU idled at 45 degrees (CoreTemp) using stock cooling while room temps were about 22 degrees celcius.

Now by default, the FSB is 266MHz. My MoBo set the RAM to 533MHz so that a 1:1 ratio could be maintained. I ran the memory at 533 @ 4.4.4.8 timings. However, the memory was designed to run at 667MHz @ 5.5.5.15 timings though. My questions are:
1. Is 533 @ 4.4.4.8 better than 667 @ 5.5.5.15? (I plan to run the memory at 667mhz if i increase the FSB to 333MHz).
2. Can i safely run my CPU at 3GHz using stock cooling?
3. Can i damage the Mobo by increasing the FSB?

Thanks people :)
25 answers Last reply
More about overclocking e6600 guys this
  1. 1. If you keep it at 1:1 it should be better then going with 4:5 for the higher speed. At 1:1 the higher speed would be better.
    2. Most likely yes. I could probably safely run my E4300 at 3ghz without too much problems. Heat wise, or other.
    3. Not sure, but from my understanding, any overclock will shorten the lifespan of your computer components. The increased use of electricity and heat will be the biggest factors of shortening usability of the motherboard.
  2. Cool, but then ill be too paranoid to keep it OC'd like that. Coz ill know that i could potentially screw my pc up. Besides, i didn t see a big performance difference hey.
  3. If you edit video you can see rendering times a bit shorter :roll:
    If you didn't raise the voltage, I wouldn't care too much with shortened life span :wink:
  4. OK, so if voltages are still at stock, no damage can be done to CPU? And what about raising the FSB? Will that damage the mobo?
  5. I'll be using stock cooling hey. And yes, i am BIOS OC'ing. You think 3.0GHz is maybe too much for stock cooling?
  6. Thats very true.. We heading for Autumn now, so ambient temps are lower.. You think OC'ing it to 2.6GHz will be safer then? (333FSB x 8Multiplier)
  7. This is my cooling setup:
    120mm fan at the front of the case (intake)
    120mm fan at the rear of the case (exhaust)
    80mm fan on side panel (intake)

    Then also, stock HSF on CPU, and very efficient cooling system on PSU (apparently one of the best PSUs around)
  8. wow, what is with the big difference in ambient and idle temps? that shouldn't be much more than 5oC but what you have is huge!
  9. How about if i enable the C1 voltage control feature? That will lower voltages when pc is idle to keep temps down. Or would this cause chaos if my pc is running at 3.0GHz?
  10. I think i read somewhere on one of the older forum topics that you should disable C1 and EIST if you plan to OC. While i can see why EIST should be disabled, im not so sure that my pc will be stable if the C1 feature lowers voltages while system runs at 3.0GHz though...

    Have you tried this? Are you currently using this feature? (C1)
  11. i'm still going with the ambient and idle temp thing, seriously, the ambient temp is 22oC and the idle temp of your proc is 45oC there has to be a problem, because at idle there is little heat generated, so the ambient temp air blowing across the heatsink should cool it to near ambient temps. however, that is more that a 20oC increase on ambient, so it is likely your heatsink isn't set correctly or something.

    Quote:
    CPU idled at 45 degrees (CoreTemp) using stock cooling while room temps were about 22 degrees celcius.
  12. Brilliant! So that means that my cpu will run fairly cool when its idle or not working too hard. I'll just have to wait till i get home to test...

    Are you using stock cooling though?
  13. It was idling at those temps because the CPU was OC'd to 3.0GHZ, and i wasnt using the C1 voltage control which lowers voltages when PC is idle. At stock speeds, i get a temp of 35 degrees (CoreTemp) with C1 enabled.
  14. But you said you still get similar idle temps as i do? How high do your temps get though?
  15. Ok, I am running e6300 at 3.4ghz with stock cooling, thats a 1300mhz overclock, so I wouldn't worry about 600mhz overclock, the C2Duo's can take it.

    Secondly, why dont u just go and buy an aftermarket cooler, they are not very expensive and will easily take 10 degrees C off your load temp.

    The C1 function will remove some of the reason that you are overclocking as the CPU with go up and down, personally its the first thing I switch off.
    Its a bit like fitting a big turbo and hot cams to your car, and then putting in an electric engine for economy - what are you trying to achieve
  16. Well, think about it, a CPU can last for YEARS (6-10+) if properly cooled, so what if a little overclock will shorten it's life spam (though it won't if it's properly cooled because those chips were designed for those kind of speeds), it's not like you're going to keep this machine for the next 6+ years :P

    I would personally go with an aftermarked cooler, Arctic Silver 5 as thermal paste, and overclock it to 3.2 Ghz (400 FSB) IF your memory can handle running at ddr2-800, but if it can't, 3.0 Ghz is fine.
  17. I see your point but I enabled the C1 control so that idle temps remain low. This means that (and i tried it) when my pc is idle or not working too hard, my temps sit around 33-35 degrees celcius (CoreTemp) even at a 3GHz OC. When i push it to 100% load, it goes up to 50 degrees.

    BUT... I was thinking... See, Intel wanted to be the Top Dog again when they released the Core 2 series of CPUs, right? These CPUs boasted "never before seen" performance. Now, if these chips could handle such and OC and remain 100% stable, then why didnt Intel just clock each CPU higher? For example, E6400 @ 2.4GHz or E6600 @2.9GHz or X6800 @ 4Ghz?? Why didnt they do that? I mean, this wouldve ensured that AMD would not be able to come close to them... Must be a reason....
  18. Quote:
    I see your point but I enabled the C1 control so that idle temps remain low. This means that (and i tried it) when my pc is idle or not working too hard, my temps sit around 33-35 degrees celcius (CoreTemp) even at a 3GHz OC. When i push it to 100% load, it goes up to 50 degrees.

    BUT... I was thinking... See, Intel wanted to be the Top Dog again when they released the Core 2 series of CPUs, right? These CPUs boasted "never before seen" performance. Now, if these chips could handle such and OC and remain 100% stable, then why didnt Intel just clock each CPU higher? For example, E6400 @ 2.4GHz or E6600 @2.9GHz or X6800 @ 4Ghz?? Why didnt they do that? I mean, this wouldve ensured that AMD would not be able to come close to them... Must be a reason....



    Firstly, yields. Not all the chips overclock that well. I don't know how much truth there is in one story I have seen that they select poorer yield chips for oem and the better yield chips for retail. This way the ones they assume will overclclock less go into systems that wont be overclocked, and you or I get to buy ones that overclock like mad. Ive seen that story in a couple of places but I think it is hearsay as it is quite difficult to achieve this.

    The second thing (which is just my belief) is that if you want your chip to be vuanted by the enthusiast community (who are generally very influential when it comes to advising friends or customers) then make it one that overclocks big time. Lets face it, performance and everything is nice, but what we all go thru to get the biggest overclock can be something else, and delivering a chip that overclocks so much more than the current AMD chips has given Intel big qudos amongst enthusiasts and is reaping its rewards for intel to AMD's cost.

    Of course, I could be talking bollocks.
  19. Just get a Thermaltake Silent Water, mine was $49 and change w/shipping. Right now with the fan speed set @ 50% semi-idling (2 downloads and netradio on winamp running) it bounces between 32 and 34 at 3750 according to TAT. The most I've ever been able to get it up to was 42 w/prime 95 running continuously. Their a breeze to install, only hitch you gotta have enough clearance at the back of the case for the radiator, which most all cases have, quite small radiator and hardly any noise. Doesn't help on c2d's to turn fan speed up more than halfway, just makes more noise and makes no difference whatsoever in temps.
  20. Intel has been fusing c2d cores (not getting enough lower performing cores - extreme yields) for at least 6 months now. Mine was purchased in early December and it is. Runs at 1.4, no matter how high I peg it, been up to 1.54, it wont go one tick higher and the TAT temps stay virtually unchanged.
  21. Quote:
    I see your point but I enabled the C1 control so that idle temps remain low. This means that (and i tried it) when my pc is idle or not working too hard, my temps sit around 33-35 degrees celcius (CoreTemp) even at a 3GHz OC. When i push it to 100% load, it goes up to 50 degrees.

    BUT... I was thinking... See, Intel wanted to be the Top Dog again when they released the Core 2 series of CPUs, right? These CPUs boasted "never before seen" performance. Now, if these chips could handle such and OC and remain 100% stable, then why didnt Intel just clock each CPU higher? For example, E6400 @ 2.4GHz or E6600 @2.9GHz or X6800 @ 4Ghz?? Why didnt they do that? I mean, this wouldve ensured that AMD would not be able to come close to them... Must be a reason....



    Firstly, yields. Not all the chips overclock that well. I don't know how much truth there is in one story I have seen that they select poorer yield chips for oem and the better yield chips for retail. This way the ones they assume will overclclock less go into systems that wont be overclocked, and you or I get to buy ones that overclock like mad. Ive seen that story in a couple of places but I think it is hearsay as it is quite difficult to achieve this.

    The second thing (which is just my belief) is that if you want your chip to be vuanted by the enthusiast community (who are generally very influential when it comes to advising friends or customers) then make it one that overclocks big time. Lets face it, performance and everything is nice, but what we all go thru to get the biggest overclock can be something else, and delivering a chip that overclocks so much more than the current AMD chips has given Intel big qudos amongst enthusiasts and is reaping its rewards for intel to AMD's cost.

    Of course, I could be talking bollocks.
    These are all good points. In addition, Intel has almost always been conservative with their clock speeds except when faced with a competitor with an inherently superior product (AMD A64) and requiring them to extract all the speed they could from their products (P4/PD) to compete. Once the C2D had a comfortable lead over AMD, Intel returned to their conservative clocks where the CPUs won't overheat even if the heatsink grease isn't applied perfectly and the heatsink fins get choked with 5 years of dust. That way they have it both ways - rock solid zero maintenance reliability for the mainstream, and fantastic performance for the enthusiasts.

    Plus, they have zero development effort upgrades to offer us. Look at their E6850 (3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) scheduled for Q3 release at $266. Why so cheap? Maybe it's nothing but an E6600 with a pinmod to request the 1333 FSB? So by knowing how to adjust the FSB in BIOS you can get the part (or at least equivalent) 6 months early ...
    (I could be talking bollocks too, but I think this is reasonable)
  22. Quote:
    Plus, they have zero development effort upgrades to offer us. Look at their E6850 (3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) scheduled for Q3 release at $266. Why so cheap? Maybe it's nothing but an E6600 with a pinmod to request the 1333 FSB? So by knowing how to adjust the FSB in BIOS you can get the part (or at least equivalent) 6 months early ...
    (I could be talking bollocks too, but I think this is reasonable)


    You may be on to something there.... hmmmm...
  23. Quote:
    Thats very true.. We heading for Autumn now, so ambient temps are lower.. You think OC'ing it to 2.6GHz will be safer then? (333FSB x 8Multiplier)


    Dropping the multiplier on a 965 chipset RAISES the NB fsb. It can handle pretty high fsb speeds, I'm @ 2025 fsb with a 8x450 setting, but the memory gets OC'ed as well, 450 gets me 506 mhz for memory at a 1:1 setting. That's DDR2-1012.
  24. Quote:
    How about if i enable the C1 voltage control feature? That will lower voltages when pc is idle to keep temps down. Or would this cause chaos if my pc is running at 3.0GHz?


    It will get idle temps down, but won't do much else. I am running C1 enabled on the E6700 @ 3 GHz, it works.... does it's job.

    OK, after reading this thread yesterday I couldn't get this out of my head. I have always blindly followed the common advice. When overclocking my c2d I disabled c1, my Opteron before that I disabled cool and quiet, the same with my Athlon before that.

    After reading this thread I have enabled c1 today; idling 4-5c cooler and still orthos stable.

    Quote:
    The C1 function will remove some of the reason that you are overclocking as the CPU with go up and down, personally its the first thing I switch off.
    Its a bit like fitting a big turbo and hot cams to your car, and then putting in an electric engine for economy - what are you trying to achieve


    I was curious how big the performance hit would be while the computer decides to clock up. Superpi to 1 million took an extra .2 sec., I can live with that and the power savings.
  25. The C1 control only lowers the CPU voltage. It however does not decrease the CPU clock speed. EIST is responsible for the "step up/step down" feature. EIST will only work if it enabled in the BIOS and you've changed your windows power scheme to anything except "always on" or "desktop". The C1 feature will ignore this setting though (if enabled in BIOS) and decrease your CPU voltage irrespective of your power scheme setting.

    Just another observation:
    Ive noticed that, when my cpu was clocked to 3.0GHz on stock cooling, the load and idle temps were almost exactly the same as when it was clocked at 2.4GHz. I think this is because i didnt increase the CPU voltage.
    The higher the voltage, the hotter the CPU gets.
    Has anyone else noticed this?
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Overclocking