Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

My first OC! Is this OK?...

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
June 28, 2007 4:46:12 PM

Just did my first cpu OC. I'm not a noob with computers or hardware, in fact I built this one myself, I just never OC'ed before because I had been using Intel boards and liked stability, plus I couldn't take even the slightest chance of something going wrong. I had no problem just upgrading my cpu, selling off my old, when I needed a power fix.
Not to mention with how hot the pre-C2D cpu's were running, spending $$ on cooling was something I didn't want to do, aside from getting a good case and a good $30 HSF just for stock clocks.

Anyhow, it felt great to OC something other than my graphics card!
My specs are in my sig, working with e6600 and DS3 board. I used the Gigabyte DS3 overclocking guide, which that thread is now locked and I don't know why. Was stickied, great guide for a noob!

I mostly followed everything that guide said. Except I didn't try for a 350 FSB OC right off the bat plus the cpu in the guide was an e6300 w/7x multiplier, I have the e6600 w/9x.
The FSB I tried was 333. The only other thing in the guide I didn't follow was upping my DDR2 voltage since my goal was to get a decent OC (and being a noob I think going from 2.4 to 3.0ghz is decent for sure) without upping any voltages, which I accomplished.
Plus, while the guide said to loosen timings of RAM to 5-5-5-15, my Mushkin DDR2-800 timings were already 5-5-5-18. So I actually tightened the Tras to 15.

Now I don't know if doing that makes changing the ddr2 voltage more important, less important, or maybe it doesn't matter.
If this isn't the right way to go about this then somebody please let me know and I'll change it. And I'm not against changing voltages if I need to, if it means more stability.
But then again, like I said I only went for a 333 FSB instead of 350.

So I restarted the computer, everything booted fine, went into windows fine. Temps were still good and my new timings stuck on the RAM according to CPU-Z. And my OC was successful now getting a 3.0ghz cpu!

When I first got the board, it had the F10 bios. My cpu temp idle was as low as 20c. A few days back I upgraded to the F12 bios where my idle was around 30c. What a difference! These were windows readings. In the F10 bios, rather than 20c I was seeing like 25c. With the F12 bios rather than 30c I was seeing like 36c.
So I've seen my cpu temps all over the place. And that sucks because I don't know which reading is right, or which bios has the more accurate readings. Does anybody know?

Regardless, I still have yet to see my cpu temp really get much above 40c under full load for about 30 minutes with the new overclock, so I think I'm in good shape. Temps in general only rose on the cpu a few degrees with the OC, and the SYS temp only up 1 degree. It idle's around 40c now. I did the "touch test" with my northbridge. It is barely even warm! I can hold my finger on it all day long.
This is a good thing, right?

I still have yet to do a long torture test, but I will get to that. I'm thinking I will have no problems. If not, I'm thinking about getting greedy and upping the FSB to 350!
However, before I do that I just wanted to run this past any of you more experienced people. Would like to hear from at least one person that can tell me if what I did so far is OK. Mainly with how I tightened the timings rather than loosen (just the tras) and how I didn't change any voltage.

So, what do you think? Assuming I pass the torture test, of course.

More about : question

June 28, 2007 5:54:10 PM

Yeah, I have TAT, and CoreTemp. They all read the same as far as the windows reading. By windows reading I mean all the software progs that read temp, everything but the bios.
Yeah, everest, the gigabyte tool, TAT, CoreTemp, pretty much all read the same.
So are those what I should go by? I hope those are the accurate reading as my bios reads like 4 or 5 degrees higher.

Also, what bios do you have? Did you have the same problem as me with the huge temp difference. Even with the software progs using the F10 bios, they were giving me 10c cooler readings than they do now. With the F12 bios, 10c warmer in windows. Same thing in the bios as well, but with the readings being again a few degrees higher in the bios than what I get in windows.
Again, either way I'm not too concerned because the temps aren't too hot.
But even TAT read 10c lower temps with the F10 bios.

Anyhow, you obviously OC with the DS3. Did I do everything OK? Was it OK that I tightened the tras (from 18 to 15) and didn't change DDR2 voltage? Is 333 FSB a number that could cause problems? If my temps are good, should I go for 350 FSB or beyond?
June 28, 2007 8:23:11 PM

OK, I know I wanted to wait to hear from someone to see if what I was doing with my RAM timings and not changing voltages was OK to do as long as things were stable.

Couldn't help myself, and I'm bored. So I went ahead and tried for 350 FSB anyhow.
Also, I learned that although my Mushkin EM6400 RAM is listed on the RAM as having 5-5-5-18 timings, that is only listed there because of some Jdec standard or something.
After some reading, I learned that the real timings were 5-5-5-12, which is also what they were listed as when I bought them.

So by changing tras to 15, I in fact was loosening my timings.
Then I also read another OC guide that said that as long as your RAM speed is higher than your FSB overclock that it might be best to use your normal timings and voltage with a moderate OC.
Since I am now considering my RAM as being 5-5-5-12 by default (disregarding that whole jdec standard thing), those are the timings I used this time since my rated RAM speed is 1600mhz and my FSB is now 1400mhz. RAM is still higher, so I'm going by what somebody else said about not messing with the RAM timings or voltage.

Wasn't sure how this would work out. Anyhow, I booted up at 350 FSB, standard RAM timings, and no voltage adjustments.
Everything so far is fine.
Temps at idle still good, same as the 333 fsb overclock.
I'm running the stress test now, after a half hour I'm seeing the cpu temp flirting with 50c, but I don't think it has hit 50c yet.

Am I correct to assume that 50c - 55c after a couple hours of full load testing is OK?
I've heard 60c is probably the highest you want to see, so I think I'm still in good shape.
My alarm is set to 70c but I can't imagine hitting that. The temps I'm getting now are with the middle of summer being here as well.

Anyhow, I'm more than happy here. Reaching a 350 FSB on basic air cooling and no other voltage or memory adjustments.
I am curious though. One thing I noticed is that stepping is gone. This is normal right? I think I disabled it in the bios. Kind of sucks that the cpu won't be throttled down like it was a stock and will always be running at 3.15ghz because I really don't play games that often to need the OC. Wish there was a way to just have all my OC bios settings kick in only when I start a game, but I'm pretty sure that is impossible.

I also noticed, which is good, that my one bios settings is running my RAM 1:1 with my FSB automatically, no matter where I set the FSB. That is pretty cool.
Then I also noticed that means my RAM is operating at 350mhz rather than 400mhz.
So now I'm wondering if I could drop RAM timings below standard since it is operating at below standard speeds?
However, I won't mess with that, I think everything is OK as it is.

I hope everything I'm doing so far is OK.
Related resources
June 29, 2007 5:13:09 AM

wow....thanks for the novel! but seriously it sounds liek you are having fun which is a good thing. From what I can tell you are doing things properly. I just Overclocked my E6600 for the first time a little bit ago. Managed to hit 3.2 Ghz with a Zalman 9700. Anythin after 3.2 makes my computer totally unstable....even when I up the voltages..strange. I think I am running it at 1.5 voltage. Kinda high, but my 9700 keeps it relatively cool. Keep experimenting with your overclock even if you dont play games often, it;s nice to know how far you can push it when that time comes! Good luck
June 29, 2007 6:47:43 AM

Yeah I am having some fun with it. Plus I am still running into some things I would like answers for, but I guess all that is important is that I know the basics and that everything seems stable. So far so good, at least.

Was definitely excited to not only get my ram timings where they should have been by lowering the tRAS by 5, but still being able to clock higher yet without changing default voltages.
So getting 3.15ghz with that definitely made me happy, I wasn't expecting that, especially without needing to spend a dime for better cooling.
All benchmarks (including for the RAM, hard drive, and even graphics processing) have increased, even if only a little due to the higher clock on the cpu. And of course the cpu benchmarks themselves are showing the increase they should.

It does sound like I might be near the limit as far as how high I can go without changing voltages or ram timings. 3.2ghz does sound like the fine line before you need to start altering that stuff. And that is pretty much where I am at with 3.15. It sure seems like I can go higher yet, but I'll stick with this for now. And I can probably go much higher if I start upping the voltages.
Under full stress for a good hour I did hit 50c after about 15 minutes, but surprisingly from that point on it never went further, and occasionally dropping a few degrees.

So it is nice to know that when the time comes (like a geforce 8 graphics card), that I'll be able to push further and I have headroom with the temps. I'd also maybe like to get cheap north/south bridge fans, whether I need them or not, just to be safe.
But for now, I think this awesome cpu at 3.15ghz is plenty enough to bring out the full power of games alongside my 7900gt OC'ed. Going much further I'm thinking might start making my graphics card a bottleneck if it hasn't already.
Not sure if that is correct logic or not, but I have to think that I am around the point where any additional higher clocks won't do a whole lot but get me nice benchmarks.

As much as I'd like to keep pushing and experimenting, I think I had my fun and already accomplished more than I thought I would. Before the OC I seriously figured I would be happy if I could get 2.8ghz and 3.0ghz would simply be awesome. So to get 3.15ghz has been a treat.
Perhaps soon, down the road, I might push to 415 FSB or something like that, even if I need to buy a couple cheap north/south bridge fans I'm fine with that.
So it is also nice to already know I can go higher, maybe a lot higher, when I feel like it.

My logic is that if I get my max overclock right away, then I'll be tempted to spend even more money I don't have like a year from now on another new cpu. But if I settle for what I have now for a few months, then push it a little more every few months, it will be kind of like buying a new cpu all the time for free!
I think that is good logic, at least for somebody like myself gets the urge to upgrade but is on a tight budget. Like I said, this will keep me from being another cpu so soon.

Lastly, I do think I got lucky getting a good C2D and board. For one thing, I know the new C2D chips don't OC as well, some can't even get past 3.2ghz even with better cooling than what I have and using the same or better board.
My e6600, which I've had for a week now, is labeled 2005 on it! That is an old C2D!
Then the hot northbridge issue that some people have with the DS3, I don't have.
I did the touch test before and after the OC, even at full load. At idle, I swear the heatsink feels lukewarm at best, I could lay my head down on it and fall asleep for the night!
And OC'ed under full load, still I can keep my finger on it all day, it is maybe a little warmer than at idle.

So yeah, I'm definitely happy and got myself some solid products!
June 29, 2007 7:39:04 AM

Rob, you are hired. I couldn't even take the the time to read your 500 word posts. If you are looking for a job, your in. If you want help, then consider distilling you're concerns into the most concise post possible. I really can't comment on content because I stopped reading at the beginning.

Edit: Grammar/punctuation, I was a little frustrated.
June 29, 2007 8:23:58 AM

If you have an E6600 then you can change the multi 6x-7x-8x-9x, which means you can lower it but you can't raise it. A $60 cooler can mean the difference between 3GHz & 3.6-3.8GHz. If you can keep stock temps at bay you can push it more and still be safe. My first OC took 15 minutes and from stock I went right to 3.6GHz @400x9 @ 1.52volts my temps are under 50c. During hardcore gaming it has never gone past 48c. Good luck.
June 29, 2007 6:35:56 PM

Quote:
Rob, you are hired. I couldn't even take the the time to read your 500 word posts. If you are looking for a job, your in. If you want help, then consider distilling you're concerns into the most concise post possible. I really can't comment on content because I stopped reading at the beginning.

Edit: Grammar/punctuation, I was a little frustrated.


I'm a long poster, that is just how I am, sorry you don't like it. But if you feel that a happy OC'ing noob looking for a few answers and talking about his first overclock isn't worth your time, or if you feel that 6 or 7 paragraphs is too much for your mind to handle, then by all means please ignore it entirely, you don't have to be a sarcastic jerk about it.

There are a lot of details in my posts because I want to list everything going on in case somebody who feels like reading the post might find that I'm doing something wrong.
So sue me!
I read my longest post here in about 40 seconds. Funny thing is that I've posted much longer posts than that before. Damn, I might get crucified should somebody have to read for more than a minute! A forum is all about reading/writing (typing). So having a problem with somebody doing just that seems odd to me.

Note that some people don't have a big problem with it and are willing to at least reply, whether they read it all or not.
How something like this frustrates you? Damned if I know.
Again, if you don't like how I post, ignore it. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. This should have been taught to you when you were 5 or 6 years old.
I've been posting in forums for years now, I don't need help. People respond whether they are short or long, its not an issue for me.
June 29, 2007 7:33:39 PM

Quote:
If you have an E6600 then you can change the multi 6x-7x-8x-9x, which means you can lower it but you can't raise it. A $60 cooler can mean the difference between 3GHz & 3.6-3.8GHz. If you can keep stock temps at bay you can push it more and still be safe. My first OC took 15 minutes and from stock I went right to 3.6GHz @400x9 @ 1.52volts my temps are under 50c. During hardcore gaming it has never gone past 48c. Good luck.



I did decide to add another 6 to the FSB (356 FSB) so I could get just over 3.2ghz. 3204mhz to be exact.
Still default voltages and RAM timings. Everything booted up fine and I'm running some stress tests and benchmarks right now. Temps seem to be about the same, but I'll have to see if this can push max cpu temp above 50c, which was the highest I hit at 3.15ghz. And that was with everything stressed out, all hardware.

Now you are tempting me to go for 400 FSB! But isn't that a bad number, strap or something like that?

With a couple cheap north/south bridge fans to keep my whole mobo cool (even though my northbridge heatsink isn't hot), I just may try to do that. Maybe I can do it without them, but I want to be safe. I think I can, just because going from 2.4ghz to 3.2+ghz has maybe raised my temps by 1 degree, maybe 2. And that is a .8ghz difference. Going another .4ghz should only raise them maybe another degree or two.

I will probably have to change from the default voltages though, like you are with 1.52 volts.
However, don't know why but I'm afraid to mess with the default voltages.

What kind of temp increase did you get just from the voltage change itself (not including the FSB increase)?
I'm thinking that upping the volts to like 1.5 might raise my temps a lot. Even without the N/S bridge fans I want to get, I do have some headroom, but I do want to be on the safe side and not max out near 60c.

Should I be so paranoid to adjust volts? If I do adjust them, does my system become less stable? And like I said, what kind of temp increase might I get from changing the voltage?
If things become even a little less stable by doing that, I just might be happy sticking with the 3204mhz I have now.

One last thing. What bios are you using? I did ask the question before about how my temps (both in windows and in the bios, and in TAT) were 10c or more lower than they are now with the F10 bios.
So if I didn't update my bios, I would be telling you that my max temp under load is 40c right now at the most, maybe a little less.
But with the F12, I'm at 50c under stress.
That is still worrying me because I don't know which one is more accurate, and since both are so much different, I worry that maybe none of my temp readings are what they say they are.

Thanks. :wink:
June 29, 2007 8:47:43 PM

Do not go past 1.55 Vcore with air cooling, its a bad idea. Also do you have CPU Vcore set to auto, if so most motherboards including mine over do it with the Vcore setting if set to auto. What I did was set Vcore to 1.45 and just keep raising the FSB until theres instability and just raise the Vcore a little and see it that makes it stable. I know Tom's Hardware has an overclocking guide thats easy to unstand, let my try and find it.
June 29, 2007 10:06:35 PM

I used the Gigabyte DS3 guide. It said that for moderate overclocks to just leave the vcore where it is, unless of course your clock is unstable.
And I did check for fluctuations in vcore using speedfan at idle and while testing and they did not fluctuate. Perhaps one of the settings I disabled was "auto" for vcore, although I don't remember that specifically.
But I do know that vcore is stable at 1.35.

I would try to bump it up, manually, but like I said I'm a little paranoid of messing with the default voltages right now and I have no idea what kind of heat increase it might cause.
If somebody told me that it might add a degree or two, then that might be OK, anything more than that and I will just leave it where it is. I've heard of people lowering vcore to get better temps. That might be something I can try.
What do you think?
June 29, 2007 10:36:17 PM

As long as your temps are no more then 65c using TAT (which uses temp sensor in each core versus the one in center=over all temp) with Orthos at full load. I tried going right to 3.6 using auto Vcore setting, then I noted my Vcore and then disabled auto Vcore went to the Vcore where it was at when set to auto. I then began to lower the Vcore until Orthos failed, then upped it and tested again till it didn't fail.

I lowered my Vcore from Auto 1.57v down to 1.52v and that brought my temps down a lot. Don't exceed 1.55 unless you can maintain cool temps. If you had water cooling you could go as high as 1.6v. Remember that Intel designs their Core 2's to last at least ten years at stock voltages, so by overvolting (overclocking) your only shaving off a few years. But who do you know that has had a CPU for more than four years?
June 30, 2007 2:37:25 AM

So is TAT more trustworthy than even the bios? I feel like I can't trust TAT or any other method right now because I mentioned about how, between bios (two different bios) and windows, I've seen idle as low as 19c and as high as 39c!!!
My problem is that TAT seems to do what all other software does, which they all basically read about 4c lower than the bios reads.

It sounds like you aren't even sure, if you OC'ed right away, how much cooler you would be with stock voltage.
If I go from 1.35 to 1.5 vcore, will I see a big temp difference? Because if you saw a temp difference just dropping from 1.57 to 1.52, then I do worry what going from 1.35 to something like 1.5 might do as far as higher temps.

Water cooling is definitely out of the equation. As much as I would love it, that is just going a little too far for my tastes. I'd rather sink that $$ into upgrading hardware. Especially since air cooling is so successful with the C2D's, I don't see the need.
Maybe if the next gen of cpu's are pretty hot, then I might.

What you said about 65c being the max is good to know. I've heard some people say 60c. But I'm assuming that as long as you are under 70c, even if being at 68c takes 5 years off the cpu life, then you "should" still have 5 good years if that 10 year thing is accurate.
Anyhow, despite my concern about temp readings all over the place, not one of them has been anywhere near 65c, which is good.
June 30, 2007 3:20:08 AM

Just trying to give you a clue. Rock on.
June 30, 2007 4:22:05 AM

First I don't trust my bios for temps only for voltage. The reason I don't trust the bios temp is cuz when you have an Intel motherboard, Intel processer and an Intel chipset, I'll trust Intel's TAT temp program over all. Remember TAT is reading the same DTS (Thermal Temp Sensor) that the bios is reading. My bios is made by some other company. Now if you using the stock cooler then no you should not go past 3.2Ghz if you have good airflow. If you want more you must get a really good CPU HSF (Heat Sink Fan) like the Tuniq Tower 120.

Ok for the 60c temp your hearing is the CPU IHS (integrated heat speader) temp, not core temp. Theres two types of sensors in the CPU, two one inside each core and one inbetween the cores on the processer die. The 60c temp spec is for the die temp sensor inbetween the cores. The core temp spec is for the sensor inside each core 65c cool, 70c warm and 75c hot. We all prefer to stay under 65c core temp, your core temp will aways be 15 degrees hotter than your "CPU temp" (the one inbetween)

So we have the "CPU temp", the sensor inbetween the cores (spec 60c). Then theres the "core temp" one in each core (Spec 65c) Sorry if I am repeting my self I just don't want to confuse anyone. I do agree that water cooling is not for the average consumer as setting one up is no easy task. You have to worry about condisation dripping over your motherboard. Heres the cooler I recommend>> And don't worry its not to heavy or to big for your motherboard.

June 30, 2007 8:27:23 AM

Good info.
That was another thing I forgot to ask about with the 3 different temps (also confusing).
I've just been looking at the two core temps that TAT shows, not so much the the other temp (in between the cores as you say).

However, I don't have any 15c difference. My cpu temp runs basically the same as the cores, that is why I always thought that cpu temp was an average temp between the two cores, but I guess it isn't. Even now, one of my cores is 32c, and my cpu temp is exactly the same. All 3 readings have always been roughly the same, surely not a 15c difference, and this was true even before I started to OC, and was also true before I did the bios update.
I'm thinking that since I'm stable and having OC success and decent temps that this shouldn't be a problem.
However, should I be concerned?
June 30, 2007 9:00:01 AM

If I were you I'd trust only core temps as the other sensor has been known to give bad readings.
June 30, 2007 2:00:17 PM

Quote:
Just trying to give you a clue. Rock on.


All he is saying, and now me, is that you pack a lot of content into one post. You will find more help from various people if shorten your posts with with concise information. Its something i have had to learn also.

Otherwise.

Trust TAT in conjunction with Speedfan.

I didnt raise any voltages, infact I lowered my vcore to 1.2000. I went from 1.86Ghz to 3.0Ghz with a tat in the mid to high 30's to a load no more than 50c with dual prime95's running for upto 8hrs (my temps swing a lot as the room with computer gets very warm in the evenings, 80degrees plus)

I think I read that you used gigabytes OC guide. There is an excellent guide on here somewhere just for the ga-965P and the c2d.

Manually set your memory times to stock. No need to raise them or any voltages.
June 30, 2007 9:19:46 PM

Quote:
Just trying to give you a clue. Rock on.



Trust TAT in conjunction with Speedfan.

I didnt raise any voltages, infact I lowered my vcore to 1.2000. I went from 1.86Ghz to 3.0Ghz with a tat in the mid to high 30's to a load no more than 50c with dual prime95's running for upto 8hrs (my temps swing a lot as the room with computer gets very warm in the evenings, 80degrees plus)

Thats a great OC there all on 1.2v. It seems that the lower end core 2's OC better and as you go up near the X6800 the OC gete smaller. My E6600 at 1.52 vcore @3.6GHz. Same go's for RAM, 6400 chips will go just as high as 1066 chips even though that 1066 dimms are the same 6400 chip, just OC'ed already.
June 30, 2007 9:30:28 PM

Thank you. According to someone else, older e6300 (b2 vs L2 steppings?) allowed under volting and better OC'ing in general.

I can go higher, in fact I got to 3.52, but I didnt like the temperatures so I didnt test stabilty. Had to get vcore fairly high.

To get to 7x440, I have to move my vcore to 1.25 and my memory timings to 6-6-6-16 and the dimm up .1v Didnt seem worth it.

What I have now seems to be the sweet spot.
July 1, 2007 3:45:14 AM

Thanks for all the notes, guys. What I'm learning is that how far you can go can really vary.
Even with the same cpu, like the e6600, there are many reports of the older produced cpu's overclocked better than the newer ones (mine is labeled 2005), and when I'm seeing what people are doing with the C2D in general, I'm seeing all sorts of stuff, all on air cooling. When I see somebody has water cooling I disregard their OC's as that is a different league.

Anyhow, after the last few posts, I started thinking why not just see how far I can go with the FSB on default voltage, then see if I can even lower the voltage below default values from there to prevent a temp rise.

I did just that! I'm so far beyond my expectations. I am now at a lucky 3.33ghz! Which is a 370 FSB. But what I'm more impressed about is that I got this OC and then lowered my voltage below default!
I really can't believe I'm getting 370 FSB with undervoltage. And, as might be expected, with the slightly lower volts on the vcore (on the e6600 the default is 1.35 and I'm at 1.31), my temps seem to have perhaps lowered, or if anything they stayed the same.

Did stress it out for about a half hour. Still haven't done a 10 hour torture test yet, nor am I sure that I ever will. Mainly because I never play a game or stress out my hardware for anywhere near that long. I might play a game for 2 hours straight, max. And so I just don't see the point of 10 hours, my computer on idle isn't even on for that many hours in a day normally.

Want to thank everybody for clearing things up, and helping me learn that if I do things right I can have a good, high and stable OC. Even should this not end up being stable I know what to do. And the gigabyte board does do a great job when it gets settings it doesn't like. I tried the 370 FSB on 1.2 vcore. It didn't like that too much, but all that happened was it rebooted, I upped it a bit closer to default, then all was good.

And still no hot northbridge. With this latest OC while my temps were at max, I did the touch test on the northbridge, it is barely warm! I have to do the touch test because I don't have a sensor for the northbridge.

Anyhow, at this point, I think I'm about near my max OC without changing voltage above defaults (I can probably go just a little higher with the FSB obviously if I raise the vcore up to default again). And I do still have headroom with temps if I wanted to do that. Maybe I will work on that down the road.
I do have an 8800gts KO coming, and that might raise all temps even though this is the coolest running 8 series card. If that runs around 50c idle like some report, then I may be able to up some voltages above default and see where that takes me because that is just a few degrees higher than my 7900gt is running.
July 1, 2007 5:14:56 AM

I seen my friend at 1.44 vcore reach 3.8GHz with good temps. It seems that you got a "lucky chip" (CPU) that can clock high with low voltage. I really believe you can go much higher than you could imagine! On top of that your undervolting and still stable, I wish I was as lucky as you. Later if you deside to go with a really big cooler like the Tuniq Tower 120 or the Thermalright you could go much higher.

"But one thing no one should ever do is OC and not stress test their CPU for at least 12 hours is not good practice. Down the road you might find that you have a doomed Windows XP and damage to your CPU! CPU errors can happen at anytime within ten minutes, one hour or one instant your games get demanding and you'll never know. :cry:  I stressed my CPU using Orthos for three days or 72 hours, now thats stability.
July 1, 2007 5:42:25 AM

Yeah, like I said, when I saw my cpu was dated 2005, I figured this had to of been one of the old, and hopefully higher clocking C2D's.
Also Lucky with the really cool northbridge as well, apparently.

I have decided to stop at 3.33ghz (this time I'm serious!), just start enjoying some games. I don't doubt that I could hit 3.8ghz with a voltage increase, however, you are right, I will want to wait later down the road when I feel I could benefit from another boost and have the money for a top of the line HSF. For now 3.33ghz is plenty, no need to get greedy, my gpu is already surely a bottleneck.

I guess I will run at least a 10 hour stress test, I can try to go 12. You guys know more about this than I do.
Even though I don't understand all the reasons why I need to do it, I will do it if it is an important thing.
It sound sounds so harsh to torture your system for that long, my fear is that the test itself is more likely to damage something than the consequences of not running the test for 12 hours.

But I do have a pretty good OC here, and I sure as hell can't afford for anything to go wrong in the future.
So, again, if you guys say this is the best thing I can do, that it is safe, and can prevent future problems, then I will definitely do it. And I will.
If it can tell me everything is really stable, it is worth it.

Btw, do you still use your computer during that 72 hours or do you have a backup? Luckily I at least have the internet on another computer, just won't be able to game for that 12 hours.
Did you still use the computer during the test? I noticed that I could do some things while under stress, but things loaded VERY slow, as expected.
July 1, 2007 9:25:53 AM

Thing is that the stress tests monitor you hardware and if for some reason your CPU is having trouble keeping up with Orthos, it will stop the test and thats when you get an error detected. Think of Orthos as a drill instructor that will push you to the limit but he's not going to let you hurt yourself. It would take a long time to damage your CPU even at 80c for months on end.

But I agree that your OC is pretty good and safe, you know it can handle anything you through at it and still run cool. Better safe than sorry applys here. Enjoy it for now and maybe later when your more knowlegable about OC'ing then you could see maybe more power out of your CPU. Enjoy it and let the fun begin.
July 1, 2007 7:37:45 PM

Yeah, having been an OC noob just days ago, never having a board that could OC, things are moving along so fast.
I almost feel like I'm cheating something. Know what I mean? Like I don't deserve even this good of an OC. And I certainly didn't expect it. It is still blowing my mind that I'm OC'ed almost a full ghz when I was only expecting something under 2.9ghz due to my not having top of the line case and HSF.

As for testing, I'm a little confused about some thing. On the guide I read, it said to download prime95. You mention Orthos. Does it matter which one I use?
And I'm assuming I want to stress everything at once, I guess there are options to stress only the cpu, or just the memory. I suppose it makes sense that I torture everything.
July 1, 2007 8:24:45 PM

I stress test using the dual prime95 (follow the guide)

As for how long, I did 8hrs, but many feel longer is better. I wasnt comfortable letting it run while i was asleep, so i let it run while I was on/near the computer. You can move the test to the backround and continue about your normal computer activity.
July 1, 2007 11:46:42 PM

Orthos is more easy to use as it stress both cores and RAM, you should use Blend CPU & RAM. That will stress boths core and RAM. Prime95 you have to download two copys and launch both programs (Prime95). Orthos is more user friendly as it shows time duration, clock speed and you just click start, thats it. Prime95 is more a pain.
July 2, 2007 1:09:08 AM

OK, I tried both. I also like Orthos. More simple and is designed to automatically deal with both cores. Besides that, the test seems the same as prime95, so why not use Orthos for a dual core?

Before testing, I ran the everest stress test that stresses out everything, including cpu, ram, fpu, cache, and hard drive. That ran forever no problems.
Ran Oblivion (most intensive game I play) with maxed out settings for a couple hours. No problems at all. And I would never play more than that anyhow in one day, or for that long, so I figured I was good.

Started Orthos and got an error after 2 seconds! If my games and other stress tests are running fine for long periods of time, why wouldn't this? This is already so far beyond how much stress I would actually put on the system, but I still want to pass it.

So I lowered the FSB just a tad, was still near 3.3ghz, and no errors. Good, at least short term about 15 minutes no errors, that is at least a good sign that it will run longer, but I have yet to find out.
I wanted to see if I could get it to run over ten minutes by bumping the FSB back up to 3.33ghz, but raise my ddr2 voltage and vcore. Got errors again!
Basically, seems to me that increasing voltage isn't doing a damn thing to even help get a couple extra FSB. And I know my temps aren't hitting danger levels.
Seems strange that the test runs better with voltages under default (well less than what I raised them to) at just a few FSB less.

Maybe it is a case of needing to find the exact voltages, but I tried quite a few in vcore, trying the few above default. No difference. Tried bumping ddr2 voltage up by .1, and .2. Still no help.
Strange, but not that I care.
I would much rather run at a few FSB less with under default voltages for vcore (and default for everything else) than get like 3 more on the FSB but need to really bump up my voltages.

Perhaps I'm at the line where I need to start messing with the other voltages to get better results, which is something I would like to wait to do and see how it goes. Don't feel like rebooting anymore trying to find just the right voltages to get a few FSB considering I probably won't like any heat increase anyhow.

If I can have my voltages at default or less and run just a few FSB less than 370, then I'm certainly going to gladly do that.
Now I just need to run Orthos for a long time, but indications so far is that it should be pretty stable, especailly considering my games and other stress tests after a couple hours were fine at even higher FSB.
I'll update after the long torture!
July 2, 2007 1:25:03 AM

Was thinking, why not just ask what any of you guys might do.

Say you are stable at 365 FSB with all default voltages. Now, say your temps are good and now you want to go for 400 FSB.
From the default voltages, where would you go from here. I know it might take some experimentation, but in general, what kind of voltage changes would you expect to need to achieve this.

Would you just up the vdimm (ddrw) voltage and vcore to X amount? Would you possibly start upping some of the other voltages as well, like MCH, PCI, and FSB voltages?

Just curious as to what voltage settings you guys would expect to work, roughly. And my RAM is Mushkin EM6400 (not sure if that is considered high quality or not, as I know quality can affect what ddr2 voltage you might need). Some OC'ers here do have 400 FSB, maybe they can tell me exactly what they did. But then again, they may not have hit 370 FSB with all default or lower voltages either.
Hmm.
July 2, 2007 2:45:47 AM

I havent read all what you said yet, will do later.

As to Prime95, if you set it up the way your supposed to, it runs both cores at 100% and you dont have to download it twice.

There have reported instances of a dual prime95 finding a problem with in minutes vs hours or never on Orthos. Of course some have reported the reverse, but if you do a google search, you will see more hang in dual prime95 and not orthos if there is a problem.

You can also do SuperPi as a quick test for stability. I usually do 8m just see if it works.
July 2, 2007 11:42:19 AM

The P965's are famus for acting up at some FSB speeds and your there. Somtimes your hit an instability wall on theses P965's, all you do is either try going passed it or under it. Its perfectly normal for chipsets to behave like this. I had major instability at 385, but since I know of it I just went to 400 FSB. After that it didn't act up anymore. So try going pass the point where it starts acting up, the difference between 370 & 400 isn't that huge a leep.


Prime95 is written by the same programers, you have to choose one or the other. They don't work well together either, because the almost the same. Now Orthos is known to be the stongest stresser of all, and the better you stress your OC the safer you'll be. If you fail Orthos that quick then its 1 of 4 things. 1. Your vcore is two low. 2. Ram errors. 3. Chipset voltage. 4. FSB voltage.

I believe that you vcore is to low cause I know how most poeple are about heat, they want a high OC but also want cool temps. It doesn't work like that, my OC is above average. I'm also paying for that OC = heat that I have to keep at bay. I'm suggesting that from this point on use only Orthos for stress testing, simply because its the newest and best at what it does. Whenever you use multiple stress testing programs your going to get many different results.

Heres what you do: Set your vcore a two setting higher than it is, then test using Orthos "no less than 8 hours". Up the vcore until you start to see longer stress testing runs with no errors, and you see that each time you rasie the vcore a little it will begin to fail less and less until you reach "stability. You could try upping the FSB volts and chipset volts 1-3 settings higher without harming anything. Remember that our motherboards, CPU's & Ram are designed for this and if they can't handle the stress Orthos is there to back you up by stopping the test and notifying you of an error. I think your undervolting so up it 1-3 settings and see if you get more "stability".
July 2, 2007 6:52:13 PM

Very interesting stuff. Never even thought about going right to 400. From what I heard on these forums, usually the problem numbers are from 385/395 to 415 FSB. I guess some people get bad results from 395-405, while some may have bad results from 385 to 415 or something like that.
Maybe I will try just shooting for 400 FSB and bump up the voltages a bit, however, if I don't like the heat increase I'm more than happy where I'm at now.

Can't hurt to try now that I'm feel more comfortable with all this and know my board should take care of me, I remember when I went for like 385 (but with stock voltages), it didn't take, but all that happened was I got booted back into the bios splash screen instead of windows, although I do recall a couple important settings getting reset to their default values, but just on the mobo tweaker menu, and it was easy enough to fix.

Anyhow, I will stick with orthos. Seems good, like the interface too.
When I was getting my errors, and I forgot to mention this, I could pass only the cpu test easily (at least for a good 15 minutes), but when I tested just memory it crapped out after a few seconds, or at the most a couple minutes.
Then when I ran the cpu+mem test, the error that came up was the same sort of thing I got when testing the RAM.
So I'm thinking my cpu could very well be fine, but that my RAM needs tweaked.

However, I did try loosening the timings and up the voltage by 1 or 2 notches but I didn't get better results when going for the higher FSB.
Also upped my vcore at the same time and I have yet to see evidence that upping voltage will help any (although I know it isn't true, I just have to find the right settings and FSB).

Anyhow, yeah I think the errors from Orthos were all from the memory since both of the cpu only tests passed just fine.
I find this strange since upping the voltage on both ram and vcore couldn't even net me 5 more FSB, which is why in my last post I was asking about maybe needing to mess with the other voltages.
I really don't need a higher FSB now, but it would be nice to know how far I can go, even if I do need to back it down if I don't like the temps.

Thanks for the good info there, especially about the chipset, I'll try what you said.
July 2, 2007 8:54:07 PM

When you go to 400 FSB change your multiplier to 8, that will give you 3.2GHz. If you go to 400 with a multipier of 9x you'll be at 3.6GHz and thats too high temps wise. 400x9 is where I'm at and temps are tuff to keep down on a hot day like today, 95F. Is that value ram you have there, or just low bin chips? You Ram is holding you back if your errors are only when testing Orthos Ram. Try underclocking (not undervolting) your ram to 667MHz and that should allow you to go without errors
July 2, 2007 11:13:20 PM

Something else that struck me was that I was using an OC guide (as far as bios settings) that were for a noob moderate overclock and with the example cpu being an e6300, not the e6600 I have.
Maybe the cpu isn't a big difference. However, as stated in the guide, it said that some people might have objections to the settings or what have you.

I'm wondering if maybe I need to do some different things as far as settings since I'm trying to OC beyond where the guide meant for me to OC.
Can't recall them now, but there was a good 6 or 7 changes I made with bios settings that perhaps I should change with the larger OC. Voltage is an obvious one and I'm not talking about that.

Yeah, I tried 400 FSB with the 9x multiplier. No go, couldn't get into windows and now I know why. But I'm wondering why lower the multiplier to 8x at 400 FSB to get 3.2ghz when you can just leave it at 9x and go with a 356 (or so) FSB to also get 3.2ghz?
Obviously, I'm still noobish with some of this stuff I haven't toyed with yet.

I'm also getting strange results with Orthos. I ran it once for 2 hours with the settings I had and then got an error after that long. Waited a while, then rebooted with the EXACT same settings and then it crapped out in 2 minutes. How can that be?
Then in general, strange as it is, Orthos runs longer without errors (on the same FSB) when I knock my clocks back! When I increase them, I get errors more quickly! Even at high FSB, like 385.

Is that at all normal? It seems like increasing volts lets me OC less! In fact, I'm getting the best results (at the same or similar FSB's) while undervoltaged!
Baffling. Although that isn't something to complain about. I'd much rather sacrifice a few FSB if my OC feels like running best on low voltage.
But again, the results I'm seeing so far with Orthos aren't giving me very straight answers.
When decreasing volts allows more stability on the same FSB, it makes me think something is wrong.

All I know is that I'm running other stress tests, all my intesive games, and 3dmark06 multiple times (and games for hours) on OC's that get shot down within minutes or seconds in Orthos.
And given that the same settings will pass with flying colors for an hour or two (once it never failed but I had other work to do and had to stop it) one time, then I get errors within a couple minutes the next boot, I'm starting to wonder if I just should trust the fact that the most intensive applications I personally use and will use are running fine at whatever lengths of time.

Now, maybe I will see if I can get some better results at 8x. Otherwise, I don't know what to make of the Orthos inconsistencies. Btw, prime95 is also inconsistent. Just when I think I have a good OC then reboot for the torture test, it craps out where it didn't before, and much quicker.
Super-Pi runs great so far at every setting I've tried.

Perhaps I would try to underclock my RAM, however, as I said I followed that guide for a moderate OC and one of the settings makes the RAM automatically 1:1 with the FSB and so I can't set it to whatever I want without straying from the guide I used.
Also if I run at 667mhz then my RAM would be overclocked (which means loosen timings even more?) and I wouldn't be 1:1 with the FSB.
Still, its something I can try.
My ram is Mushkin EM6400 DDR2-800. Not bad RAM, at least it isn't supposed to be.
July 3, 2007 4:01:25 AM

The reason your unstable is 385ish seems to have chipset problems, yes its normal. Go to 400 FSB with 8x multi cuz if you go to 400 x9 time thats 3.6ghz. If you go to 400 x8 you vcore, temps will be alot lower which is good. See your multiplying 8x400 = 3200mhz and 400x9 = 3600mhz. I think 400x8 will give you low temps, lower vcore and more stability. I think you ram is bad. Your 333-400-467 FSB your memory controller performance is at its best. You can't go to 400x9 on stock volts, but you can stay pretty close to stock vcore voltage at 400 x8 multipier. I think your best OC would be 3.2GHz at 400x8 and you won't have to worry about your temps to much wether you using stock heatsink or not. At that setting its just a safe OC. Change you memory to DDR2 667mhz. If you still get errors then your ram is bad, it shouln't be giving trouble at your OC.
July 3, 2007 6:15:41 AM

Interesting about possibly lower temps at 8x with still a good OC.
I just finished with good Orthos test. Ran for almost 4 hours until I got an error. ddr2 voltage still default and vcore was 2 notches below default. With the error after 4 hours, I decided just to be safe to bump it up a notch for now.
I'm assuming that will give me a stable test even much longer than the 4 hours, which I would be happy with, although I'm not going to test it right now.

In fact, I might just try what you said, although I might be temped to go over 400 FSB at 8x just because I know I'll be able to verify a really long torture test that will be over 3.2ghz at worst with the 9x.
Would it really be that bad if I did 415 FSB or some number like that with the 8x multiplier?
I'm still a little confused about why some numbers are good and some aren't, and why they differ for different people, and how to know what numbers are best for me.

Regardless, I will at least try the 8x at 400 or maybe even at least try higher. If my temps end up better and I seem pretty stable at 400, I just might stick with that even though I'll be giving up a little speed at 3.2ghz.

I also looked for how to manually set my ddr2 speed and I can't find it. The only options are the multipliers. Like I have it set on 2 right now, but all other options (like 3,4,5) make the RAM speed even higher, including "auto". Maybe I need to look harder, but I can't find where I can actually put a number in mhz in.

I wonder why my RAM would be bad? I bought Mushkin because all the reviews and other people said that this particular RAM was good. I'm aware it isn't the best stuff in the world, but much better and more expensive than other stuff I could of got.

And I have run memory benchmarks and they show that the memory is working as good or better than expected. Have also run other memory tests that check of the RAM is bad, and they also say the RAM is good. I also wouldn't think it would be the RAM because with the 1:1 setting its not even operating at its full speed since I'm not OC'ed to 400 FSB.
I thought this would only help the RAM.
I do wish Orthos, when it found an error, could tell me what was going wrong. It just gives vague error messages and tells me to check a stress.txt file that I don't even have.

Oh well, look like there are definitely some more things I can try to get even more stable and maybe even higher clocks.
July 3, 2007 7:43:10 AM

See the memory controller resets its self as you OC to keep the NorthBridge from scaling with the FSB. If your NB never reset itself and you went to 500 FSB, it would blow up/melt. Thats why it has to reset its self at sertain FSB settings, and when it resets its self you don't what to be at the FSB where it resets, because thats where there's instability and low memory controller performence hurting memory bandwidth. The chipset resets its self at 401 FSB so don't want to be there. At 400 FSB the chipset is at its highest memory performence, then when it hits 401 it drops like a rock. So by going from 3.33GHz to 3.2GHz your gaining more performence, "life is stange but computers are stanger."
July 4, 2007 4:32:35 PM

(Edit: sorry, long post, but got some good stuff to say and great results)
Hey, just to let you know, I found your last couple posts really interesting and I've been trying out what you said, and testing, so I'm just replying now.

Honestly, I didn't believe you when you said my performance might be better with the 400 FSB @ 8x. Of course, this is because I hear so many different things about that, but I figured it was worth a try doing what you said because of our similar setup (cpu/mobo).
I don't understand "memory resets" or "the nb scaling with the fsb". But again, it couldn’t hurt to try.

First off, I was a little hesitant because even if this 3.2ghz with the 8x multiplier did perform a little better vs. 3.2hz at 9x, I still wasn't so sure I wanted to do it just because I know I can get stable at more than 3.2ghz with the 9x, maybe even 3.3ghz. Of course, I can boot up and play games and pass other stress tests at even 390 FSB @ 9x, but it just doesn’t pass Orthos.

But let me tell you that this 8x thing worked out great! Why?
For one, I was able to run 400 FSB at 8x with vcore 3 notches below default, and as usual all other voltages are default. Wasn't quite able to do that when going for 3.2ghz-3.3ghz at 9x on stability testing.
Another great thing, maybe my memory isn't so bad. I've mentioned it is rated at 5-5-5-18 (although many do say this ram can operate at 12 tRAS but is listed 18 due to jdec standards, can't say if this is true or not). However, despite the fact I'm now running at the full ddr2-800 speeds, I was still able to LOWER my timings to an awesome 4-4-4-12!

Those two things alone are almost worth settling for 3.2ghz, but let me go even further.
I saved my 3dmark06 benchmarks to txt. Thus, luckily I could compare these new benchmarks to benchmarks I got with the 9x multiplier.
Luckily again, one of those I did with the 9x was with the 356 FSB (3.204ghz), the same speed I'm running at now with 8x. And I am careful with benchmarks, they run under the exact same conditions every time and I do them right after bootup.

What I found is that although 3.2ghz at 8x didn't get me better cpu performance than 3.3ghz at 9x (obviously), I did find that 3.2ghz at 8x had notably BETTER performance (2768 cpu) than 3.204 at 9x (2719 cpu)!
Very interesting.
Not only that, but I did this benchmark before I lowered my vcore and changed my RAM timings from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12! So I can only assume that my entire 3dmark score would only improve more if I ran it again, which I will do when I get a chance.

Furthermore, something else surprising… My sm2 score went up 5 points compared to 3.2ghz at 9x, and my HDR score went up 4 points compared to 3.2ghz at 9x!
Better yet, both the SM2 and HDR scores are respectively 2 and 4 points above the marks I got at 3.3ghz cpu! So it is boosting my graphics/gaming performance as well having the 400 FSB!
And I already mentioned, the big thing being that cpu score was 49 points higher than 3.2ghz at 9x.
Can't wait to see if I get an additional improvement with my low RAM timings and lower vcore.

Now, of course the best thing about all of this is that I started Orthos, expected to need to tweak more and expected to see an error because at 4 notches below default vcore I got an error after 12 minutes and was starting to worry about this 8x thing. However, once I bumped vcore up one notch (to 3 notches below default) the test was going, past 15 minutes, good, and then I just let her go. My room was warm yesterday, but Orthos went on for 9 hours! I considered that "good enough" and I now have my first good and stable OC that I'm happy to stick with.

As I said, I know I could get at least a slightly higher OC at 9x, but the other benefits I'm seeing from the 8x 400 FSB do seem to outweigh that. Only time I may go back to 9x is when I do get better cooling to where I can really toy with the voltages.
I think running Orthos for 9 hours is good. And it didn't get an error after 9 hours, I just wanted to shut down because I didn't want to go to sleep with it running.
Plus, I know some people say to run 24+ hours. But as I've said, between shutting down my pc overnight, every night and the time it spends in standby every day, my computer is only probably on for 10 hours a day.

And considering the longest I would run any intensive application (that would stress my cpu and ram 100%) is a few hours max, and even that most likely wouldn't stress things to where Orthos did.
And given it was a hot day with Orthos running, I think I can say that I have a very stable OC for my purposes at least. And the way it just kept gliding along I do feel like I could of left it on overnight and it would still be going right now.

The temps did hit as high as I will likely ever see them (especially after a good 7 hours). I never did hit 60c, which I don't want to hit. But if I was going to hit 60c, it would have happened yesterday. I came close, like 58c, which is fine, because now I know that even under the most stressful conditions and on a warm day that I won't hit 60c. So I really do have a damn near perfect OC without going too far.

Sorry I wrote so much here, but I really wanted to document all this and thank everybody here, especially systemlord.
Also, despite the length, I know if I were an OC noob with a similar setup (just like I was not even a couple weeks ago) I would love to read through both this thread and the OC guide I used.

There are a lot of people out there with this same chipset and/or board, and cpu that may be running unstable or simply not realize what I just learned. I think it would be great if the great info given here was condensed (basically take out my posts!) into a sticky as it could be useful to both noob and even more advanced OC'ers that are getting instability in the 3.2ghz+ area at 9x.
Thanks again!
July 5, 2007 7:30:18 PM

Yeah with OC'ing its a "numbers game", once you find a happy place for your FSB and multiplier you've struck gold. You have now found out how your chipset/motherboard behaves, I think if you deside to go for a massive heatsink you can really go higher, 3.6ghz-3.8ghz. I really do believe you are one of the "lucky ones" that have a chip thats stable while undervolting. If you do go higher I'd try 467-530 FSB with air cooling. Any game or program that you run with will NEVER stress you computer as much as Orthos. Good luck!
July 5, 2007 9:11:37 PM

Yeah I'm feeling great about OC, especially now that its stable for sure, mainly because I'm just about to install my evga 8800gts KO that came today! That along with my new OC'ed setup should be a blast.

I do have one last question. When winter comes (or I get a new HSF) and I do want to push it further, should I stick with the 8x multiplier and push the FSB well past 400? Or do I go back to 9x and see what I can do?

Also, you mentioned like 333 and 400 FSB being good numbers. If I did get like a, for example 467 FSB, would that not be a good thing?
However, I suppose if I were going for 467 FSB at 8x, I may be better off just trying to hit 400 at 9x since 400 FSD does seem to be a "good" number.

Just curious, but I'm done messing around for now.
Thanks again.
July 6, 2007 5:48:46 AM

Sometimes it easyer to get a higher FSB when using lower multipliers. I have seen people with E6300's reach insane FSB speeds with lower multipliers with a 130% overclock. But yeah I could see you at 400x9 or even 467+ FSB speeds. When you hit an instability just change multiplier or shoot pass the insatability. Remember that when you hit a bump in the FSB go over or under it. If you OC in winter you might run too hot in the summer and will most likely have to stress test again in summer, I'd do it now while its warm cuz you know you stable if you can pass in summer.
July 6, 2007 1:46:30 PM

OK, I'll first try to keep the multiplier at 8x and see where I can get. And I probably will just get a new HSF to OC more rather than wait for winter. I'm just wondering if I might have to change the dynamics of my case as it seems all the really top notch HSF's are of a totally different design then the "Intel type" HSF that my case requires.
That would require me taking off the tunnel, but it might still help leaving the vent holes there. I think it could be doable.

Speaking of case dynamics. I just got that 8800gts KO (evga with the monster cooler and super+clocked) and I could not believe how big it is. I have a full ATX case and this damn thing goes from the back of the case (where the hookups are) and actually hangs maybe up to 2 inches past where the mobo ends! And this is an ATX mobo! It damn near hits my hard drive slots! There isn't much room where my cooler bottom air can get up through.

However, luckily, my cpu temps don't seem to have changed even though this card runs a good 10c+ warmer than my previous. But at 55c idle it is still very cool temps for an 8800 card, probably thanks to the ASC3 cooling system which has the heatsink on the back of the card (which probably is helping my northbridge not get warmer as it would if that heatsink wasn't there).

Anyhow, just the way things are set up on this mobo, getting one of those TT's or Zalmans for my cpu and making a couple changes to the case might not be a bad thing at all at this point. Given those HSF's are much cheaper than a new cpu or gpu, I do see it as being my next upgrade. I'm all set everywhere else.

As far as "hitting the wall", I wish I knew where these "walls" were. Has anybody done research on this board/chipset about this stuff?
Because I was running stable when I kicked back to 362 FSB, I think, at 9x.
But like I told you, 3.2ghz at 8x simply ran better than 3.2ghz at 9x. However, does this mean that at 9x I was hitting the wall? Or did it just simply not perform as well for other reasons?

I guess what I'm saying, or asking is...what is the definition of "hitting the wall"? Does that just mean instability (errors in Orthos)?
Because I'm assuming that if I can get a good OC with an odd number with it being stable, then I don't have to worry much. I'm just wondering whether it was the 8x thing or the 400 FSB thing that is giving me the better performance, or maybe both?

Anyhow, I'm still not going to push anything now that I've passed the long Orthos test, but maybe in a couple/few months. This stuff is definitely tricky business, but still fun and interesting, for sure!
July 7, 2007 12:46:25 AM

Finding a FSB wall is like playing slots machine's in Las Vegas. Yes these FSB walls are instable places and will give you errors, so go around them. Remember lower multipliers = higher FSB speeds as well as pushing your Ram.
!