Tom's Hardware > Forum > Overclocking > CPUs > Overclocking P5Q with 8gb ram?

Overclocking P5Q with 8gb ram?

Forum Overclocking : CPUs - Overclocking P5Q with 8gb ram?

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Word :    Username :           
 

Im currently running a e8500 at a stable 4.8ghz with 4 gb mem, im thinking about getting another 4 gb (yes im running vista 64 bit) I just wonder if i can maintain this overclock with 8gb ram. My board is Asus P5Q Pro. Anyone running an overclocked Asus with 8gb?

Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

Thats supposed to be 3.8 ghz! maybe nobody replied coz they thought i was lying? lol

Reply to Homeboy2

well there's no reason to get 8GB RAM unless you are doing like heavy video encoding or something... just in games, they will not use 8GB of ram.
also, the overclock will likely be less stable because the motherboard then has to supply double the voltage for the ram that it did before! still, i reckon it would be stable at 3.8ghz..

can you tell me/us (lol) wat ram speed,voltage,timings etc you have and are possibly getting?

Reply to V3NOM

Double the voltage should not be the problem, doesnt the voltage get supplied to each ram module seperately?

Reply to Priv

yes, but that just takes more voltage... i don't know how to explain it but it's proven that its just not as stable with more DIMM's in..

Reply to V3NOM

The reason for that is I believe that no chip is the same, it could be that for example one of the modules has a max OC at 1100, but one of the other modules cant go above 1080. I believe that is the reason of stability issues. 4 modules just increases the chance of having a chip that isnt as good ocable as the other ones.

Reply to Priv

I have Corsair ddr 800. dont know if its a ram limitation. I can hit 4.3 completely stable. Any more, than that it shows errors in Prime or bsod's. I figure 3.8 should be no problem but i was wanting to see someones personal experience

Reply to Homeboy2

timings 4-4-4-12 but running at 5-5-5 15. voltage 2.1

Reply to Homeboy2

What modules are you using and what frequency is the RAM?

Reply to Priv

i think it's just the fact that the northbridge has to supply double the voltage.. this is obviously more difficult for it to maintain without voltage fluctuations. voltage fluctuations=instability... two sticks ftw.

Reply to V3NOM

im clocking p5Q deluxe , 8 gig corsair dominator ram and running vista ultimate 64 bit, vista is using all 8 gigs for something called superfetch, its making ur entire ram act like cache, so the moment u boot up it does its best to put everything u might need into memory

here's my thread, maybe ull find some info u need:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/249644-11-vcore-stable-q9550

Reply to x3mgamer

I have a E8400, which is the CPU one step down from yours, cranked up to 4ghz stable. I could pull 4.5 but then it crashes so I just decided to stick with 4.


I got the same mobo as you, so I think you can. I have 6 GB of some Patroit PC-8500 RAM (2 2GB sticks and 2 1GB sticks).

Reply to xwinx

Hell yes! why would you run four? It's slower to run all four slots.

X3mgamer, no, it's called a failed feature and poor memory usage. Read up on it, they are trying to fix this with Windows 7.

Xwinx, turn up voltage if you want. That might help if you didn't already try it. If you you don't want to go higher, then that's your preference. Plus, try take out the extra 1 gig sticks. You'll actually notice a difference if I'm not mistaken.

Reply to habitat87

If/when you use extra memory capacity for cache, then OBVIOUSLY usage goes up. And Obviously the information has to come from the HDD, so yeah - It spins more than it used to. So actually, the "Fail" here is the ignorance on the part of people who apparently believe that system resources should remain UNUSED for some unfathomable reason.

A little real information:
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1532.html



Clearly there's stuff to bitch about - UAC is annoying by intent, Microsoft moved things around which makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and it does make your computer work harder compared to XP (nevermind that every OS ever made 'suffers' by those measures when compared to it's predecessor). But Superfetch/Readyboost actually do work. The OS actually *does* work.

If you don't 'like' it and/or dont' want to use it, then don't. It's a free world, and everyone is perfectly free to keep using whatever they like. But there's no need to make thing up to justify your position either.

------------------------------ Which Chip? Well, it depends on which set of thieving b@stardz you choose to support: The ones who use insider trading to enrich themselves while running their company into the ground? Or the ones who illegally pay vendors to not support the first group?
Reply to Scotteq

Yep, and I won't use it. Even Gates himself said it wasn't supposed to be released so early and that it was unfinished. It's the worst OS since ME. And, ME was an example of a poor OS being slower then the next os.

Windows 7 is basically what Vista should have been. And if it's not a fail, why are they focusing so much on that feature and admitting they screwed up? Gates doesnt like to take credit for the OS fully because his people panicked and were going by a timeline which they shouldn't have, according to his plan. Which is why windows 7 is going to take a while. Also they are going to fix the memory usage problem.

Yes, there is a lot to bitch about when using an incomplete OS that they admit to. If you can't see that right away when using it then your an idiot.

The only reason why I'd use Vista for is eye candy which is not enough for me to put with it. Now if I was a heavy gamer and I needed direct x 10 which XP supposively doesn't support, then that's a bit more reasonable. Correct me if I'm wrong on the direct x 10 thing.

I guess your right, failed feature isn't really the correct term then. It's an unfinished feature that actually "works". That makes the OS look even worse. I think people have the right to bitch about an unfinished OS.


Message edited by habitat87 on 11-13-2008 at 02:06:14 AM
Reply to habitat87

well, im using vista 64, my kids are using it, one on a notebook, several friends, no problems runs fine. It wont run on a 486 with 512meg ram

Reply to Homeboy2

I didn't say it didn't run fine with the fixes they did overtime. I admit it got a lot better. I was on Vista since the beta release, rc1, rc2, final rc, and the 64 bit. They were impressive at the time for a beta. But when they released it as is, it was the biggest mistake they had ever made. In fact, it was supposed to have a new file system and other features, but they had rushed it out instead. They had to get something out there I guess. Fact still remains, it's incomplete. Which is why I don't bash it like I want to. As for why a multi billion company would do this? That remains untold. They could of at least did some refining to the system to the final rc before they released it though.

Windows 7 might not even be out in 2010 because they aren't going by a timeline and they actually want to take their time because of Vista and how damaging it was. A release date is unknown so it could be sooner or later. But at least it looks promising and not just hype.

Reply to habitat87

I never go to a new os til the first service pack. I held off til recently because of all the rants. Then my kids told me they had no problems so i tried it with sp1, and i have no complaints.

Reply to Homeboy2

I admit, I was actually quite impressed with the sp1 upgrade. I just find XP a lot smoother and the interface is really easier to use. I took the time to try and become familiar with it, and it's nowhere near as smooth as the XP interface.

Again, it's eye candy with a nice interface, and for heavy gamers that need to have that direct x 10 for the newest stuff. And as for opening apps a few seconds faster with prefetch?... I don't need to comment about this. *shakes head


Message edited by habitat87 on 11-13-2008 at 03:34:46 AM
Reply to habitat87

I use both on a daily basis - and XP's isn't "easier", you're just used to it. No more, no less.



Oh - You also might want to check some headlines:



http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inqu [...] over-winxp


http://www.computerworld.com/print [...] 76,00.html


http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18821819


http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0 [...] 00.htm?r=8


http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/X [...] Years-End/


Message edited by Scotteq on 11-13-2008 at 12:10:46 PM
Reply to Scotteq
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Overclocking > CPUs > Overclocking P5Q with 8gb ram?
Go to:

There are 794 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them