Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 Observation

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
April 21, 2008 12:01:52 AM

There is a pattern I have noticed while overclocking my Q6600 B3. The same core always fails first in prime95 during stress testing. Does this mean there is something defective of the chip or do other people notice this sort of thing as well? For what its worth, it's the second core that always seems to fail the stress tests first.

More about : q6600 observation

April 21, 2008 12:04:45 AM

lex-luther said:
There is a pattern I have noticed while overclocking my Q6600 B3. The same core always fails first in prime95 during stress testing. Does this mean there is something defective of the chip or do other people notice this sort of thing as well? For what its worth, it's the second core that always seems to fail the stress tests first.

It's normal. The weakest link has to be somewhere. I get this on g0 Q6600.
April 21, 2008 12:15:32 AM

i got this problem with my G0 Q6600 as well.its called a "bum core".i cant overclock mine one at 3.6ghz,because one of the core will fail at prime straight away.doesnt matter how much volt i give it.

it cant b solved.its not a manufacture defect.so you cant replace them with Intel since as intel saids its "design" to work at "stock" speed.but when all the cpu is made of the same chip.
Related resources
April 21, 2008 1:09:30 AM

It makes sense too, once you think about it. There's 4 cores, and chances are they all won't be the same. The only other possibilities are one core being higher or lower than the other, and so that "bum" core will hold back the rest.
April 21, 2008 1:47:33 AM

if you get fed up you need to smack that "bum"!!!lol note:you will need to buy a new cpu then!haha
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2008 2:07:01 AM

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

I love it how u guys cry and call it a 'manufacturer defect' when u cant OC ur q6600 to 3.6Ghz

BOOOOOHOOOOO!

Uhhh hello!
Where does Intel PROMISE 1+Ghz OC's on their chips?

THEY DONT!!!

U buy a 2.4Ghz chip, and thats exactly what u get. Does the chip work as advertised? Yes. Have u got a defective chip? No.

Overclocking is a bonus. Not a right.
April 21, 2008 2:21:01 AM

I didn't have that issue but I only went to 3.0GHz. My weakest link was my mind telling me to buy a cheap PSU. During my minimal voltage testing it was a different core every time. The only core that never failed was the coolest one (core 3, 4th) I guess I have 3 bum cores and one lazy one! It's always 6C cooler. That SLACR!
April 21, 2008 2:24:16 AM

^sounds more like improper heatsink contact
April 21, 2008 2:39:59 AM

Likely. Couldn't be bothered to lap it. As long as it's under 50C 99% of the time I'm cool with it. :D 
April 21, 2008 2:55:53 AM

:) 

--Lupi
April 21, 2008 2:57:18 AM

How much of an overclock do you get before one of the cores holds it back?
April 21, 2008 3:40:43 AM

gamecrazychris said:
How much of an overclock do you get before one of the cores holds it back?

Every chip is different. But 1.3V VID G0 chips tend to top out around 3.6GHz (and around 1.5V) with temperatures reaching the thermal limit of 71C on air cooling. With water more is possible.
April 21, 2008 2:00:11 PM

Andrius said:
Every chip is different. But 1.3V VID G0 chips tend to top out around 3.6GHz (and around 1.5V) with temperatures reaching the thermal limit of 71C on air cooling. With water more is possible.



Vcore is probably more of a wall than heat. I got VID 1.3125 Q6600 to 4ghz prime95 stable at 70/70/68/68 stablized full load on air cooling, but only at 1.65vcore.
April 21, 2008 11:07:30 PM

dagger said:
Vcore is probably more of a wall than heat. I got VID 1.3125 Q6600 to 4ghz prime95 stable at 70/70/68/68 stablized full load on air cooling, but only at 1.65vcore.


I wish I had your courage!
I'm affraid to go over 1.25V :heink:  and my VID is 1.3V.
50ish temperatures make me uneasy. 60ish and I'm in terror. 70 and I'd faint :sol: 


April 22, 2008 2:13:33 AM

Andrius said:
I wish I had your courage!
I'm affraid to go over 1.25V :heink:  and my VID is 1.3V.
50ish temperatures make me uneasy. 60ish and I'm in terror. 70 and I'd faint :sol: 



Only ran it for a hour, for prime95 testing. Tuned it back to 3.6ghz right afterwards. That's not gonna be healthy for the chip. :p 
April 22, 2008 7:05:56 AM

dagger said:
Only ran it for a hour, for prime95 testing. Tuned it back to 3.6ghz right afterwards. That's not gonna be healthy for the chip. :p 
1.65V for 1 hour. I'd say you shaved a year of it's lifespan :D 
If you upgrade every 24months or so you're good.
I'd sell the chip this summer and get a Q9450...
The powers that be call me a pesimist.
April 22, 2008 11:57:07 PM

Andrius said:
1.65V for 1 hour. I'd say you shaved a year of it's lifespan :D 
If you upgrade every 24months or so you're good.
I'd sell the chip this summer and get a Q9450...
The powers that be call me a pesimist.


Does that mean I'd be able to kill it in 2 more hours? :D 
April 23, 2008 12:00:52 AM

If you tried hard enough, of course.
April 23, 2008 6:57:22 PM

dagger said:
Does that mean I'd be able to kill it in 2 more hours? :D 


Let's AssUMe a 10 year lifespan at VID.
Assume every 2% points above 10% (average tolerance for chips) the rate of decay doubles.
1.65V is a 26% overvolt (based on your VID) ... :sweat: 
2^13 would be around 8200
1 hour burn time * 8200 would be close to 1 year.

I doubt it would die in two hours at 1.65V ... but it'd probably die in a week :o 
With all the a-s-s involved in this assumption I wouldn't try it unless someone offered me a new Q6700 in case my Q6600 dies :heink: 
!