Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PCI-E Overclocking.... super bad idea or good solution?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
December 1, 2008 9:59:43 PM

I had another topic that sort of dealt with this area. However, it was more about some other things I had to deal with.


I found that my CPU refuses to allow the PC to boot fully at speeds higher than 224fsb as long as the PCI-E frequency was 100mhz (stock speed)

However, when I raised the PCI-E frequency to 120mhz, the CPU's FSB was allowed to go to 266fsb.

I would really like to have the extra speed. However, I am not experienced in this area and I am not sure if it will kill my GPU in the long run.




E2160-stock cooler.
4gb kingston pc5300
ATI HD3650
Intel i945g/gz Asrock Conroe 1333-D667
December 1, 2008 10:05:35 PM

Raising the PCIE value can result in higher overclocks. I've found it to depend on the chipset.

EDIT: I have run my PCIE at 115-118 for months at a time in the past with no damage.
December 1, 2008 10:52:15 PM

Just noticed you have the 945g chipset. That is the chipset I have found to achieve higher overclocks by increasing the PCIE value. 8)
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
December 2, 2008 5:41:31 PM

it doesnt damage ure gfx card as much as it might damage other pcie cards or even ure hard drives
December 2, 2008 5:48:23 PM

The red-line on PCI-E overclocking is 120Mhz, anything higher and you will corrupt the data on your hard drives
a b K Overclocking
December 2, 2008 8:13:31 PM

there is a plus side to pci-e overclocking and thats that it makes ure gfx card run alot faster
December 2, 2008 10:07:20 PM

Should I then raise my PCI-E value to only 112mhz?

I have 2 overclocking modes- pcie-sync and asynchronous mode.

In pcie-sync, the pcie raises itself 1mhz for about every 3mhz that the fsb goes up.

Should I just overclock my cpu to 2.2ghz (244fsb) and have my pci-e frequency at about 112- or around that... give or take 2?

2.4ghz (266fsb) causes my PCIe to run at 120mhz.

Is this still safe? It's the limit before data corruption occurs apparently. However, I noticed no data corruption when I had it running for about 30 minutes like that. I didn't notice any higher temperatures either in CoreTemp. I think I ran the far cry 2 benchmarking tool a few times during that overclocked time. I didn't notice anything bad.

PS: Is the 200mhz speed increase worth it? Will I notice an increase in frame rates in crysis or far cry 2? (PS: I run crysis at only 1280x720... That way I can have a mix of high and medium details while still getting 22-28fps- which is playable for me in Singleplayer- multiplayer is 40fps or higher of course.)

What about 400mhz increase?

So.....


Here's a Poll:

OPTION A: Should I go with 2.2ghz CPU speed and a 112ish pcie frequency? (which would put my E2160 @ E2200 speeds- or even slightly better since my fsb is 22% higher.)

OPTION B: Should I go with 2.4ghz cpu speed and 120 pcie frequency? (That would put my E2160 @ E2220 speeds- or even slightly faster since my fsb would be 33% higher)

OPTION C: Should I leave my CPU at 2.02ghz and leave the PCIe frequency alone. Is better safe than sorry a good moral to live by in this situation?

a b K Overclocking
December 3, 2008 2:35:54 AM

Option D: None of the Above, and OC your CPU to at least 3ghz, which is quite easily done.

I have my e2180 at 3ghz at a low voltage, though to get higher than that I have to pump in more voltage just for a small increase and more for another small increase, which I didn't see as worth it, as I want to be able to pass this computer down to my little nephew when I upgrade in a few years.

I would also throw in a new video card, say something that performs good but is cheap, like an 9600gt(or ati equavlent forgot the name), or something cheap from the 8800 line, my current card the 320mb 8800gts performs quite well with my computer after I OC the CPU to 3ghz. After all is said and done you probably can throw down about $100 and set your computer up quite well and get a great deal of performance out of your machine that you didn't know you had. (price was guestimate of decent videocard and good/cheap heatsink)

One more thing, I recomend actually overclocking your video card than just raising your PCIe frequency, I remember there can be a few bad consequences when you screw up with one.
December 3, 2008 2:45:27 AM

The 945g hits a wall unless you move the PCIE to 115-120. This discussion is nearly threee years old on THG. I would go with A or B. That's what I did with my 945G.
December 3, 2008 3:06:03 AM


Here is just one discussion about the 945g/PCIE Frequency from June of 2006. I still have this system. I can drop the 805 Pentium D in to this day, hit a wall, then move the PCIE frequency to 115-118 and get a 900MHz. overclock 2.6 to 3.5 GHz. on air. If I leave the PCIE frequency locked at 100, 3 -3.2Ghz. is tops. There are other discussions about this regarding the 945g. OP like I said, I ran the system OC'd like mentioned for months at a time.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/188445-28-chip-smith-...
December 3, 2008 9:56:46 PM

THANK YOU BADGE....

2.2ghz or 2.3ghz it will be when gaming.... normal conditions I'll keep it at 2.02ghz.

Assassin32,

I'm in Canada- gpus are a lot more expensive here.

I don't need to play games at highest possible settings- crysis runs fine on my 3650 @ 720p resolution.

The whole point of overclocking is to save money.

Buying a 9600gt when I just bought this video card a month ago would be a waste... especially since I have no other computers which I can give my 3650 to when I am done. (Only- one p4 2.4ghz pc with an AGP slot)

I'm not insulting your intelligence... it's just that best buy is super overpriced for pretty much everything except the 4870s that have just come in recently.
!