Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P35-DQ6 Memory Performance Issue

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
October 27, 2007 3:24:42 PM

Hi All,

I recently upgraded my system with a new motherboard, cpu and memory, and after a clean install of XP I noticed how badly my system was running. After some investigation I think I have narrowed it down, but need some advice from people more knowledgeable than myself.

Basically my memory seems to be under performing. I installed 2 gig of pc2-6400 (800 Mhz, 4-4-4-4-12) memory in the dual slots on a gigabyte p35-DQ6 with a Intel Q6600 cpu.

After running Sisoftware Sandra bench test program, and comparing it with my friends similar system, I noticed that my Memory bandwidth score in sandra was only 2500 for both (Float and Int Memory bandwidth), when in his machine my own memory rated 6000+. I then tried his memory in my system, which scored a high 5000 on the test in his own system, but in mine it was back to 2500 for both results.

I am not sure this is relevant, but when i checked my system using cpu-z the only difference i could see between his system and mine was my FSB Dram was 2:3 , and his was 5:6. Though I am personally unsure which is the correct divider for the memory.

Any and all help is very much appreciated. My system is running real slow due to this and its quite frustrating after having upgraded.

Thanks all :) 
October 27, 2007 11:12:04 PM

Download and run CPU-Z and/or PC Wizard 2007 to find out what the FSB speed, memory bus speed, etc are on your system, and whether or not the memory controller is running in dual-channel mode.
October 27, 2007 11:45:51 PM

Mondoman said:
Download and run CPU-Z and/or PC Wizard 2007 to find out what the FSB speed, memory bus speed, etc are on your system, and whether or not the memory controller is running in dual-channel mode.
Better yet, download CPU-Z and Analogx Capture. Set Capture to capture the active window and get a capture/screen shot of each tab. Then upload them to TinyPic . Then copy the address (entry #2) and post it so we can see exactly what CPU-Z is reporting.
Related resources
October 27, 2007 11:53:10 PM

I have P35-DQ6 with Crucial Ballistix 2GB DDR2 800. Q6600 @3G/1333 4:5 ram @ 800, with all other programs running, here are my scores:
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 5959 MB/s
Scaling : 5964 MB/s
Addition : 6129 MB/s
Triad : 6118 MB/s

Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 5987 MB/s
Scaling : 5972 MB/s
Addition : 6169 MB/s
Triad : 6139 MB/s

You clearly have a settings problem.
October 28, 2007 12:04:00 AM

1066 / 4 = 266.5 * 9 = 2398.5

That's your q6600's stock speed.

400 * 2 = 800

That's your ram stock speed.

In order to run your ram at or near stock speed, go to bios, press CTRL & F1, go to "Overclock Navigator Engine", change "System Memory Multiplier" to 3.0 which means:

266.5 * 3 = 799.5

It's near stock speed. Save & exit. Boot up windows & bench only ram in sandra (I don't like it cuz it takes ages; everest is faster). If it says 6x00 MB/s, then you're done. The PC2-XXXX denotes the max speed in megabyte per second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC2-6400#Chips_and_modules
October 28, 2007 12:17:37 AM

I still want to see screen shots, because if he is running that Q6600 @1066 he needs to get the "free" OC to 1333. If he just changes his RAM multiplier he will loose out on a free performance increase.
October 28, 2007 9:20:57 AM

Hey Guys, thanks for helping out :)  .. I'm fine when it comes to building pc's for myself, but when it goes into this area utterly confused, so i appreciate the help.

Here are the pictures you wanted.









When i installed my system, i just left everything on auto assuming it would pick up the right settings.

Thanks again.
October 28, 2007 12:09:42 PM

Zorg, not everyone wants to overclock. Some even vehemently don't want to.

marachai, that's correct. Your ram is at 800mhz. 400mhz is the real speed. times 2 = the advertised speed.
October 28, 2007 6:26:08 PM

Hey guys :) 

wanted to add this in. I went into my bios and set the system mutiplier to 3 today and then went into windows and ran Sisoftware's Sandra tests again. With the changes it actually dropped my two scores from 2500 to around 2300. So I guess that means my bios on auto was doing its job fine.

If thats the case i'm doubly stumped about my low test numbers in Sandra, and why my system is so lagged now. The only changes i made hardware wise were the MB, the cpu and the memory. I went from an Amd 3500 Xp to a Q6600 Intel. Both boards were gigabyte. The memory was from DDR 400 to my DDR2 pc-6400.

Its quite noticable on the desktop when swapping between apps and games and the likes. Its more noticable in games though. Before I upgraded I was half way through nwn2. After i upgraded I reinstalled and loaded up my saves. The game went from playing fine too lagging out when certain events happened on screen.

The general feel of the machine is just ... laggy. It feels like the memory to me.

I havent changed my graphics card or its driver. Only the cpu, memory and mb changed. The only thing sandra found when testing was the memory was under performing.

Any other idea's ? I'd appreciate any more help.
a c 328 à CPUs
a c 106 } Memory
a c 250 V Motherboard
October 28, 2007 7:05:35 PM

Your memory looks good. The timings are not very important to real application performance(vs. synthetic benchmarks). I think your problem is that you don't have enough of it to keep enough tasks in memory at the same time. Look at the performance monitor, and see how many hard page faults you are getting. With a single slower processor, a task will not switch for a relatively long time. With 4 fast cores, two or more can be very busy touching lots of pages, causing lots of demand paging in a memory restricted system.

I would suggest upgrading to 4gb. Get the exact same sticks. You will only see about 3.3gb, but that is 160% better than 2gb.
October 28, 2007 7:24:09 PM

I have a GA-P35-DQ6 and my score is 7300mbs~. I have Ballistix Tracer ddr2 1066 memory in it running @ 1160~ and 5,4,4,4 @ 2.35v. My cpu is a e4400 running at 3.2~ghz 9x 355. You can tweak out the timings below the normal ones and that gets you alot of boost. I think mine are set to like 1,2,2,,,5 something like that. I was getting like 6500mbs then I tweaked those other non normal timings the ones after the cas and all that and wulah crankin now. There are still bugs in the bios though that they need to fix like the prd phase adjustment under the memory timings is all out of wack the mother board shows them as changing all the time and my scores on like 3dmark06 are not consistant I have noticed and not in a little way but, a more pointing towards issues kind of way. I was getting 7001 score consistant and then for like two days I was getting 6500~ then my score jumped back up again then down again,,,,.
October 29, 2007 4:47:22 AM

Your settings are correct. What is the brand/part# of RAM? You might try going into MIT and increasing your ram voltage to +4 which will bring you to 2.2V. leave the timings where they are for now and run the bench again. Post your results.
October 29, 2007 4:57:57 AM

akhilles said:
Zorg, not everyone wants to overclock. Some even vehemently don't want to.
Your kidding right? Are you scolding me? Don't you think that it is better to actually see the screen caps of CPU-Z to ensure that there is no confusion. Did the OP give you any indication that he didn't want to OC or more importantly that he was vehemently opposed to any OC? Because if you saw that anywhere please post the quote that I missed.
October 29, 2007 10:52:25 AM

Where in that quote did i say he? lol.
October 29, 2007 4:16:55 PM

akhilles said:
Where in that quote did i say he? lol.
I did like the word vehemently you must have been really angry. I wasn't going to say this but anyone that doesn't want the "free" OC to 3G is just paranoid. I'm not saying bring it to 3.4G, just a mild 3.0. With a good HS and checking temps it is impossible to damage the CPU or mobo or anything else for that matter. It's a free, really easy additional 400Mhz. With a quad that's 400 x 4 or 1.6G OC. Yeah, I know you can't just multiply the cores like that. Completely safe and easy as pie, whatever that means. ;) 
October 30, 2007 10:39:31 AM

Hey Guys,

Thanks again for all the help. I appreciate it, since without it i'd be lost trying to figure out whats up.

I will try putting the voltage up in the MIT, though could anyone suggest the right setting to use. Gigabyte seem to have some weird numbers in there and I want to make sure i select the right one.

Just to help narrow down other factors, I installed a new faster hard drive in my system and did a clean install of XP Sp2 and a fresh up to date install of all my drivers. Just to make sure it wasnt anything related to that. Still seem to be getting the laggy feel on the desktop and with games though.

Will going up to 4 gig on the board help ? I have been tracking the fourms and it seems some people have been experiencing unstable machines when using 4 sticks on this motherboard. Anyone got any experience to know how likely that is, or should it be ok, assuming it would benefit me ?

Btw I am using 2 1 gig sticks of Crucial Ballistix pc2-6400 memory. I did make sure to have them in the dual slots on the board.

Thanks again guys.
October 30, 2007 6:18:42 PM

marachai said:
Hey Guys,

Thanks again for all the help. I appreciate it, since without it i'd be lost trying to figure out whats up.

I will try putting the voltage up in the MIT, though could anyone suggest the right setting to use. Gigabyte seem to have some weird numbers in there and I want to make sure i select the right one.

Just to help narrow down other factors, I installed a new faster hard drive in my system and did a clean install of XP Sp2 and a fresh up to date install of all my drivers. Just to make sure it wasnt anything related to that. Still seem to be getting the laggy feel on the desktop and with games though.

Will going up to 4 gig on the board help ? I have been tracking the fourms and it seems some people have been experiencing unstable machines when using 4 sticks on this motherboard. Anyone got any experience to know how likely that is, or should it be ok, assuming it would benefit me ?

Btw I am using 2 1 gig sticks of Crucial Ballistix pc2-6400 memory. I did make sure to have them in the dual slots on the board.

Thanks again guys.
I my earlier post I covered this. Set it to +.4v, so that will be 1.8v + .4v = 2.2v

I would like to see your temps. These instructions are from another post.

Quote:
I want to be sure your temps are accurate. Download Core Temp and Prime95 25.5. Run Prime95 while monitoring your temps with CoreTemp. Preferably post a screen shot of CoreTemp or at least give us the temps.
This will help you post a screen shot of Coretemp if you want. Download Analogx Capture. Set Capture to capture the active window and get a capture/screen shot of CoreTemp. Then upload it to TinyPic . Then copy the address (entry #2) and post it so we can see exactly what CoreTemp is reporting.
October 31, 2007 5:31:01 PM

4gb will not help you I recently took out two of my crucial ballistix tracer ddr2 1066 sticks because of latency issues it slows the memory through put down a little not much actually like 400mbs maybe at most. I just thought 4gb would help but, I was wrong. I said above that if you have not tweaked the memory timings below the normal ones like cas ext. then, you will not see full potential of the memory/motherboard. I am actually seeing higher through put then the sites reviewing the board because they obviously have not tweaked the memory settings either. I will also add that I have done alot of testing and the higher the frequency of the memory the better performance you will get because the board will not alow you to step down to 1T even if you are running the memory at lower speeds like 800Mhz you need to put it at the 3.2 or 3.33 setting if possible on the latter because I have had issues setting mine to the 3.33 with my E4400 over clocked as high as it will go which is 3.2~Ghz with a 9 multi. I can do 3.3 with 10 but, higher performance with the 9x 355Mhz.
November 3, 2007 10:41:55 PM

Hey All :) 

I tried nudging up the voltage on the memory, and then tested it again using Sisoftwares Sandra, but the numbers didnt really move.

Just for a test, I took my memory out and tried it in 3 other machines. I installed my version of Sandra on each, and then tested both there memory and my own. All the memory was rated the same, it being pc2-6400 4-4-4-12 800. In all three machines my memory scored around 6000, and their own memory tested between 5500 to 6300. Two of these machines are using gigabtye boards almost exactly the same as mine, so pretty close over all.
Just for laughs I then tested two other peoples memory in my machine, again similar spec, and both times their memory rated like mine around 2500. I also tried running games etc and still was having the lag issues.

So I am not sure where to go now. The lag is really annoying. I have contacted gigabyte direct with the question, but they really are dragging their heels on this.

Not sure what to try next. I'd prefer not to over clock, I'd just like to get the memory scoring what it should, and does in other peoples machines.

Any way guys, thanks for all the help and advice. You've helped me understand things a ton more.
November 4, 2007 2:47:21 AM

There is a new bios for the GA-P35-DQ6 and it is a hell of alot more easy to use. They put the speed of the processor depending on what settings you set and the memory timings are accessable now without cntrl+i. I'm telling you though man tweak the settings below the regular ones cas .... they are the sweet spot. Tweaking those settings is not over clocking the memory just so you know by the way.
November 5, 2007 4:50:10 AM

At the main menu press <Ctrl>+<F1> and you can go into MIT and set the timings to 4-4-4-12 from 5-5-5-18 but I don't think it will make that big of a difference. Maybe you do have a bad board, although I find that hard to believe. Your settings look correct, except the looser timings. I still would like to see temps, but oh well.
November 5, 2007 9:28:06 AM

Hey Zorg,

I grabbed the temps you wanted to see. Posting them up now. I ran the testing program for 11 minutes and all 4 cores were working at 100% or close enough. I use a 3rd party fan on my cpu, as I really dont like the ones that come with the intel box. I also use gigabytes I-cool program, which tends to only step up the fan as needed.



This First is my system at rest. I-cool has the fan down to 30% for noise reduction.



This was the hottest things got during the test. Once the first core hit 66, I-cool stepped in quickly and powered the fan up to 100% and the temps calmed down to what you see in the last pic.



I do have a quick question. During my initial setup of the system I was forced to use the Optimised defaults on the bios. By any chance could that have set something involving the memory off or low ?

Thanks all for the help :) 
November 5, 2007 11:04:49 AM

truehighroller said:
There is a new bios for the GA-P35-DQ6 and it is a hell of alot more easy to use. They put the speed of the processor depending on what settings you set and the memory timings are accessable now without cntrl+i. I'm telling you though man tweak the settings below the regular ones cas .... they are the sweet spot. Tweaking those settings is not over clocking the memory just so you know by the way.



Don't listen to him, get the newer bios for it f7b and no more cntrl+f1 crap. I have said I don't know how many times now change the settings below the cas and ras and all the normal ones. The refresh time has been added and another option to I believe now with the f7b bios. I have the damn board I know what I am talking about here. I got so much of a boost with tweaking thos settings. I am getting solid 7250~ mbs now. I was getting like 5400~ mbs I believe.
November 5, 2007 11:44:41 AM

Hey truehighroller :) 

I truly appreciate the advice your giving me on tweaking my settings, and honest mate I will follow your advice just as soon as I figure out my base problem. I'd like to figure out why my scores are half anyone elses before I start tweaking.

I know tweaking like you have done will bring the numbers up, so in the end I may need to do that just to get the memory to perform the way it should normally.

I've contacted gigabyte direct and am trying to get some sort of answer out of them. I don't see how my memory can be scoring 6000+ on 3 other machines using the same testing software, and scores only 2500 on my own.

Just for future reference, Can you tell me exactly which things in the bios I will need to alter to tweak my settings like you are suggesting ? I looked at them yesterday and i could see the timing ones, which were 5-5-5-15 ... but there were a while bunch underneath it too, and had no idea if those should be touched when i do tweak :) 

Thanks again bro.
November 5, 2007 12:42:51 PM

Your temps are not the cause. Technically your system should run properly with optimized defaults. Except the RAM voltage, and your RAM claims to run at 1.8V, and you also set it to 2.2V. Unless you have something loaded on your HD that is really strange, I have to say bad mobo. I set the BIOS to optimized defaults to test it for you. The following is the test I ran for you, with screen shots to verify settings and BIOS revision. Before I sent the mobo back I would update the BIOS to F6 or the latest BIOS just for grins. Do not use the @BIOS use Q-Flash it's safer. Copy the BIOS file to a floppy or burn it to a CD, I think you can use a flash card as well. That's pretty much all I can think of. As you can see below, the RAM should give better results with opt. def., and you already tested the RAM. That leaves PSU and mobo. I don't know the PSU, but a really underpowered PSU would probably cause crashes, so that leaves the mobo.

BIOS set to optimized defaults with no changes of any kind, including voltage, using Crucial Ballistix 2GB DDR2 800

Benchmark Results
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 5356 MB/s
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 5370 MB/s





November 5, 2007 12:49:08 PM

This is certainly not your problem, only posted to answer your question. Here is a picture of the settings to change for future use. You can also get the setting to change from CPU-Z.

November 5, 2007 1:55:20 PM

Quote:
I am getting solid 7250~ mbs now. I was getting like 5400~ mbs I believe.

Sure - but the OP is attempting to first reach the 5400 mbs. Capish? He says he is getting ~2500 mbs.
Any memory bandwidth beyond the CPU is not useful anyway, not important and is not why your rig feels 'laggy'...
Clearly the situation is with your mobo as memory migration gives constant results.
This approximately 1/2 memory bandwidth could be explained by single-channel memory operation...?
I would wonder about your BIOS settings and believe there are some answers to be found in there.
But it's a strange one, eh guys?
Regards
November 5, 2007 2:01:55 PM

Very strange. I did some benches with single channel and dual channel earlier, and I didn't get anywhere near double the bandwidth. As a matter of fact the increase was seriously disappointing. Also, he has installed his RAM in a few other systems with proper bandwidth results, so we have to assume has has them in the right slots.

Edit: Based on his CPU-Z screen shots he has them in slots 1 & 3, which is correct.
November 5, 2007 2:17:59 PM

It may seem like a stupid question, but is the RAM supported my the mobo? just a thought
November 5, 2007 2:30:35 PM

Upgrade your BIOS to version F6, there were a number of memory enhancements and fixes.
James
November 5, 2007 3:35:56 PM

Then f7b way better bios.
November 5, 2007 3:40:25 PM

I will take a picture of my settings and how I have them set when I get home tonight from work. You will be able to see how the new bios f7b looks as well compared to the old ones. It looks alot better trust me. The performance is the same as the others as well with my testing. They might have even fixed some issues as they don't always say everything that they have fixed in their bios upgrades.
November 5, 2007 3:47:32 PM

james_8970 said:
Upgrade your BIOS to version F6, there were a number of memory enhancements and fixes.
James
F6 apparently just fixes problems with the PCI ROM. Lower than F5 should be updated. As I said I would update before RMA anyway, but don't do F7b.
truehighroller said:
Then f7b way better bios.
F7b is a beta BIOS. Apparently the important update in that BIOS is the Yorkfield support. If you don't have a Yorkfield then it would be wise to wait for the official release to avoid any bugginess. I know you already have it, I was referring to the OP. The bottom line is, flash the BIOS if you need what is offered and never flash to a beta, unless you really need it.
November 5, 2007 3:49:52 PM

truehighroller said:
I will take a picture of my settings and how I have them set when I get home tonight from work. You will be able to see how the new bios f7b looks as well compared to the old ones. It looks alot better trust me. The performance is the same as the others as well with my testing. They might have even fixed some issues as they don't always say everything that they have fixed in their bios upgrades.
The new format is probably nice, I will update as soon as they remove the beta designation. I shouldn't have to wait long.
November 5, 2007 6:10:21 PM

OMG what is it with people not reading what I post lol. I have it on my pc there is no issues with the bios. I have tested and tested again there is no difference they never put everything that they have fixed on the explanation of the new bios. They could have made improvements to the memory timings as well as I have noticed some bugs being fixing in it like the prd precharge glitch that there was in the last four that they had put out.
November 5, 2007 6:38:32 PM

truehighroller said:
OMG what is it with people not reading what I post lol. I have it on my pc there is no issues with the bios. I have tested and tested again there is no difference they never put everything that they have fixed on the explanation of the new bios. They could have made improvements to the memory timings as well as I have noticed some bugs being fixing in it like the prd precharge glitch that there was in the last four that they had put out.
OMG dude :bounce:  Maybe you should read my earlier post where I said
Quote:
I know you already have it, I was referring to the OP.
Do you know that your configuration is the same as mine or the OPs? Obviously you don't. Take a Valium. If the OP is trying to clear a problem it would be foolish to install a beta BIOS update. F6 works just fine, I know because I have it on 3 machines right now. I can wait a week or two for that BIOS to be released from beta. So get a grip on yourself.
November 5, 2007 7:44:51 PM

I'd have to agree, I also have a similar configuration. While a beta BIOS could potentially solve a problem, it's more likely to cause more problems then solve. After all, there is a reason why it's still in beta.

Also, I knew the memory improvements were in F4, however if your updating your BIOS you might as well go straight to the most current BIOS (F6) as you've already started the process.

Why would they ever make a BIOS look better, though I'm kinda interested in what Gigabyte is up to, please post some pictures when you get back from work. As you can see I don't install beta's, I take stability over everything else.
James
November 5, 2007 8:26:59 PM

Ight I will be right back with pics sorry I went off, long day at the helpdesk today.
November 5, 2007 8:45:38 PM

Ok here are the pics of what the new one looks like and you can see what my settings are that I tweaked as well.





Ok the static tread phase adjustment is the one I noticed is not glitching out any more. That thing used to jump around to different numbers all the time under the auto settings part. It hasn't done this to me since I flashed it. I think that they added the refresh to act delay as well. I don't think that was there on the old ones. Because that is one of the settings I had to change with memset before I flashed it I swear..
November 5, 2007 9:00:48 PM

I also forgot to mention that my memory auto timing when left on auto used to be wack but, now they read the way they should as far as the right timings at the right volts and what speeds and what not. I wll also add this and this is the wierdest part,,,, Cpu-z actually shows the RIGHT VOLTAGES ON THE CPU NOW!! That is a miracle by itself if you ask me lol.
November 5, 2007 9:50:28 PM

My guess is that the mobo is doing you a favor and ignoring some of your insane settings. The only one that I noticed immediately is a tRAS setting of one.

Maybe it wasn't the F6 BIOS that was causing the problems but the board trying to function with the insane timings. See the following quote.

techPowerUp! :: Memory Timings Explained

Quote:
tRAS Timing: Min RAS Active Time. The amount of time between a row being activated by precharge and deactivated. A row cannot be deactivated until tRAS has completed. The lower this is, the faster the performance, but if it is set too low, it can cause data corruption by deactivating the row too soon.

tRAS = tCL + tRCD + tRP (+/- 1) so that it gives everything enought time before closing the bank.

e.g.: 2.5-3-3-8 The bold "8" is the tRAS timing.

(The 2.5-3-3-8 figure is just an example for memory timings.)

November 5, 2007 10:03:47 PM

I check it with memset and it is set to 1 in memset as well. I have no performace issues to my knowledge.
November 5, 2007 10:08:06 PM

I haven't had any issues my self at all by the way. Just figured I would mention that.
November 5, 2007 10:17:56 PM

That is because the mobo is ignoring at least your tRAS. If it didn't you would crash immediately. You might want to do some research and verify and tweak your timings.
November 5, 2007 10:22:00 PM

I swear man you suck lol. My settings are sticking your motherboard won't ignore settings it will crash period no second chance I will ignore,, crash. I know this you can trust me on that.
November 5, 2007 10:29:25 PM

truehighroller said:
I swear man you suck lol. My settings are sticking your motherboard won't ignore settings it will crash period no second chance I will ignore,, crash. I know this you can trust me on that.
Ok, rock on.
November 5, 2007 11:05:55 PM

Lol ok you were right sorry. I could have sworn it listened to me the last time I checked it. I'm sorry ok I said it lol. I did get it to set this though.



I'm sorry :p 
November 6, 2007 3:19:52 AM

LoL truehighroller, that's like the world's most serious E4400 memory - you've got that stuff running 1183DDR? Heheh...
So it's a good mobo then? What's going on with OP's rig then, I wonder.
He's not set up right; I say it's BIOS setup.
L8R
November 6, 2007 9:16:00 AM

Hey Guys :) 

One of the first things I did when I installed the MB was too update to the F6 bios update. So its that I've been running on since I installed the O/S.

My feeling is that it has to be bios related. I have tested my memory in other peoples machine, who also run gigabyte boards and its scoring 6000+ in the memory bandwidth tests on Sisoftwares Sandra. I can even take their memory, put it in my system and watch it drop to 2500 too.

I've looked over the bios settings alot, but I just dont know enough to spot anything beyond the obvous. So if its a setting, I dont know which.

I have the memory for sure in dual mode. I tried both slots 1 & 3, and 2 & 4, but that did little for me.

Would it help if I hit the Optimised default option again to make sure everything is set right ? I actually had to hit that option the first time I installed the board because I *thought* i had screwed up a fan control setting. So did i accidentally set something low or off when i used the optimised perhaps ?

Again, thanks for all the help. Gigabyte has been close to useless. They want me to Rma the board .. and this is my second one of these in 6 weeks, and I dont want to have to Rma if i dont need too. 2 to 3 weeks without my pc makes me pissy :) 
November 6, 2007 9:48:40 AM

Did your friends have a Gigabyte P35 mobo? Give me a link to your ram. Not just the fact that it is PC6400. Your settings appear to be correct. You can cetainly try Opt def again, but I thought you already did that with no success. Opt def should work. Link to your RAM.
!