Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU is being throttled / low 3D Mark score

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 12, 2008 11:49:43 PM

So I'm a total newb at homebuilt systems; this is my first. I probably only know enough about hardware to be dangerous, and that's about it.

I've built what should, in theory, be just about the ultimate system (though I'm sure you seasoned folks out there laugh when you see someone say this).

eVGA nForce 790 Ultra SLi DDR3 ATX motherboard
Intel Core2 Extreme QX9650 CPU, 3.0 GHz
4GB Corsair Dominator DDR3 1800 (PC3 14400) RAM
BFG GeForce 9800 GX2 (512 MB RAM x 2), 600MHz PCI-E 2.0 x16
2 WD Raptor X 10,000 RPM HDs configured in a RAID 0 array
Antec TruePower Quatro 1KW PSU
LITE-ON DVD/R/W+DVD-RAM etc. etc. etc.
Creative Soundblaster Audigy sound card
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit



But when I run 3DMark 06, I get only 13814 marks. Actually I got 14000 and change the first time, then I updated my video driver and my motherboard's nForce driver, and got a lower score. Go figure.

Anyway, the CPU tests in 3D Mark are failing miserably; I'm surprised they don't error out. They never exceed 2 FPS and usually only 0 or 1 FPS. But I don't know why that should be, and I don't know where to begin troubleshooting.

My system information shows the processor correctly, but has what seems like an odd thing:

Intel Core2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.0 GHz 2.67 GHz

Is it normal to show two different speeds there (like the first part is part of the model name and the second part is the speed it's running at)?

When I reviewed the hardware details from the 3DMark results, it showed the CPU internal speed at 2.7 GHz and the maximum internal speed at 2.7 GHz. It also showed the level 1 cache at 32 kb and level 2 at 0kb, but this particular CPU is supposed to have 12MB L2 cache if I'm not mistaken.

I haven't tried Crysis yet because I'm afraid to do so under the circumstances. But in the 4 year old WoW, I get 60 FPS most of the time, but it sometimes drops down to 19-20 FPS or even lower, which I don't think should happen on this hardware.

Any ideas on how I can further troubleshoot and correct the problem?
April 13, 2008 4:09:49 AM

Thanks for your help. I'm starting to learn a little bit. :) 

I ran CPUZ and it says the multiplier is 6x. But to be honest, I don't know what that means. I couldn't tell whether or not SpeedStep is enabled.

I think it's safe to say I'm in a bit over my head. :( 

I noticed that the core speed listed in CPUZ is 2000.x MHz, which seems mighty slow given that the CPU is designed to run at 3000 (3GHz). Does that mean speedstep is on? If so, how would I disable it?

The core temps seem ok. Two cores were at 115 F and the other two at 108 F. If I understand Intel's product specs correctly, the thermal specification for this CPU is 64.5 C, which translates to 148.1 F. So heat shouldn't be a problem... do I have that right? :D 

CPUZ had a few other interesting things to say. It says the bus speed is 333.4 MHz; rated FSB is 1333MHz of course. By "bus" I'm assuming it means the frontside bus... or am I making an ass out of me? If not, why would the bus speed be 1GHz below it's rated speed? (Hmm.. 1GHz is also the difference between the core speed and the designed speed for this CPU....)

On the Memory tab, CPUZ shows my DRAM frequency at 666.xMHz, and it says FSB : DRAM = 1:2, which kind of follows given the FSB of 1333MHz. I don't know whether the DRAM frequency should be higher than that, but these particular modules are rated at 1800MHz without overclocking, if I understand correctly. I would have thought they'd run around that speed without any kind of overclocking. I can ask Corsair about this if need be.

Finally, I noticed that the SPD tab shows the Max bandwidth on each of my four memory modules as PC3-10700H (667 MHz). The part number listed is more or less correct, though. Am I misunderstanding or overlooking something obvious about these readings?

Thank you very kindly for taking the time to read this, and for any advice you can offer.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2008 4:53:25 AM

Clive Staples said:
Anyway, the CPU tests in 3D Mark are failing miserably; I'm surprised they don't error out. They never exceed 2 FPS and usually only 0 or 1 FPS. But I don't know why that should be, and I don't know where to begin troubleshooting.

That's not a fail, that's actually quite good. Even at 4+GHz that CPU wouldn't break 3-4FPS on the CPU tests. The CPU architecture is not designed for 3D rendering, that's why it's so slow and also why we have other hardware for that purpose ;)  It would be good to list all of the scores that you got (3DMark score, SM2.0, SM3.0 and CPU) so we can find the culprit. From the look of it, your CPU isn't being a problem, but we'd need to know the CPU score to know for sure.

Clive Staples said:
My system information shows the processor correctly, but has what seems like an odd thing:

Intel Core2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.0 GHz 2.67 GHz

Is it normal to show two different speeds there (like the first part is part of the model name and the second part is the speed it's running at)?
Probably a bug. 2.67GHz implies an 8x multi, which is never used unless you set it yourself. Speedstep uses a 6x multi.

Clive Staples said:
When I reviewed the hardware details from the 3DMark results, it showed the CPU internal speed at 2.7 GHz and the maximum internal speed at 2.7 GHz. It also showed the level 1 cache at 32 kb and level 2 at 0kb, but this particular CPU is supposed to have 12MB L2 cache if I'm not mistaken.
3DMark isn't detecting it right. If you had no L2 cache, my old A64 3700 could probably beat your QX9650.

Clive Staples said:
I haven't tried Crysis yet because I'm afraid to do so under the circumstances. But in the 4 year old WoW, I get 60 FPS most of the time, but it sometimes drops down to 19-20 FPS or even lower, which I don't think should happen on this hardware.
Sounds more like driver bugs to me.

Clive Staples said:
I ran CPUZ and it says the multiplier is 6x. But to be honest, I don't know what that means. I couldn't tell whether or not SpeedStep is enabled... I noticed that the core speed listed in CPUZ is 2000.x MHz, which seems mighty slow given that the CPU is designed to run at 3000 (3GHz). Does that mean speedstep is on? If so, how would I disable it?

If it says 6x (and that means 6*333FSB ~= 2000MHz), speedstep is enabled. As long as it jumps to a 9x multi when under load, there is no reason to worry. Use something like prime95 (or any intensive task) to test if it goes to a 9x multi when under load.

Clive Staples said:
The core temps seem ok. Two cores were at 115 F and the other two at 108 F. If I understand Intel's product specs correctly, the thermal specification for this CPU is 64.5 C, which translates to 148.1 F. So heat shouldn't be a problem... do I have that right? :D 

They are fine, but that's at idle I assume? What are the temps under load? Btw, use Realtemp instead, it is likely more accurate than Coretemp for your CPU and should read a good 5C or so cooler. Of course, software is never going to be that accurate.

Clive Staples said:
CPUZ had a few other interesting things to say. It says the bus speed is 333.4 MHz; rated FSB is 1333MHz of course. By "bus" I'm assuming it means the frontside bus... or am I making an ass out of me? If not, why would the bus speed be 1GHz below it's rated speed? (Hmm.. 1GHz is also the difference between the core speed and the designed speed for this CPU....)

The FSB actually does run at 333MHz. But put simply it transfers data 4 times per clock, so it's effective speed is 1333MHz.
April 13, 2008 6:16:14 AM

[google it next time] ur pc is faulty. the whole thing.[/google it next time]
April 13, 2008 4:04:09 PM

Go to bios and turn off speedstep. They may call it different things. In Gigabyte board, I believe it's simply called "performance throttle" or something like that. For Asus, it's C1E and EIST, one throttles multiplier, the other fsb. Turn them both off to stop throttling.

Also, that idle temperature while still at 6x is not good. You should get an aftermarket cooler and apply thermal compound. Test using prime95 for full load temperature.
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2008 4:29:41 PM

and you should have gotten vista 64, since you are using 4 gigs of ram...

and you need to manually adjust those rams to the desired manufacturer specified settings... voltage, memory divider(ratio), timings
April 13, 2008 7:35:27 PM

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply, and thanks for the education, folks. :)  I appreciate it.

randomizer wrote:
Quote:

It would be good to list all of the scores that you got (3DMark score, SM2.0, SM3.0 and CPU) so we can find the culprit. From the look of it, your CPU isn't being a problem, but we'd need to know the CPU score to know for sure.


I registered the 3DMark 06 product so I could see the detailed results, and ran it again. Here's what I ended up with:

3DMark Score: 13707 (this gets worse every time I run it, lol)
SM2.0: 5030
HDR/SM3.0 Score: 6745
CPU Score: 3947

I can post the detailed results if that would be helpful.


Quote:

Probably a bug. 2.67GHz implies an 8x multi, which is never used unless you set it yourself. Speedstep uses a 6x multi...
Sounds more like driver bugs to me.


Interestingly, 3DMark also reports the processor speed at 2.667GHz. The video card is new enough that this could be driver bugs, I'm sure, but I have the latest drivers installed (did this yesterday). What else can/should I do?


Quote:

What are the temps under load?


I'm not sure the best way to efficiently check the temps under load--I don't really get the prime95 thing; the page says it takes a month to complete a single cycle but doesn't affect system performance--but basically I figured if the symptom I'm trying to troubleshoot is lower-than-expected framerates, then maybe it's sufficient to duplicate the symptom and then test the temps in that condition. So I did, and the variance was fairly slight.

The cores measured in at 36 degrees C each, or 96.8 F - well within the specification.

dagger wrote:
Quote:
Go to bios and turn off speedstep.

I'll definitely look into that, thanks.

Quote:
Also, that idle temperature while still at 6x is not good. You should get an aftermarket cooler and apply thermal compound. Test using prime95 for full load temperature.


The CPU kit actually included thermal compound pre-applied to form that thermal seal, though it's good for only one use obviously--if I were to remove the CPU and reinstall it, I'd need a new layer of thermal paste I gather. Or is the layer provided with the CPU not sufficient?

Overall, I think/hope my cooling is sufficient absent overclocking (though I may want to do so in the future). My case is an Antec Nine Hundred with a 200mm fan mounted in the top, a completely ventilated front panel and 120mm fans in each drive cage, plus another in the back of the case. It's like a wind tunnel (to say nothing of the massive CPU heat sync and the 3 mini fans/heatsyncs included with and mounted over the RAM). Or might this not be enough cooling?

Kari wrote:
Quote:
and you should have gotten vista 64, since you are using 4 gigs of ram...

I thought about that, but I was concerned about compatibility issues with Vista 64. The 32-bit is supposed to handle 4GB, isn't it? Prior to SP1, it would only recognize ~2.5GB, but now with SP1 it shows all 4GB (though 3DMark still doesn't).

Quote:
and you need to manually adjust those rams to the desired manufacturer specified settings... voltage, memory divider(ratio), timings

Thanks for addressing that. That's one area where I am (even more) distressingly ignorant. Can anyone recommend a site with information where I could learn more about those types of adjustments?

night_wolf_in wrote:
Quote:
[google it next time] ur pc is faulty. the whole thing.[/google it next time]

[check yourself next time] No thanks for your snide remark, night_wolf_in. Even though you were born with complete knowledge of hardware configurations and troubleshooting, and never had to learn anything or ask anyone for help, you may not have realized that unfortunately, not everyone is as omnipotent as yourself. Seems you do need to learn something about understanding and communicating with human beings, though. [/check yourself next time]
April 13, 2008 7:41:59 PM

For memory, 32bit OS cannot use all 4gb. It's a trick by Microsoft. Windows will see 4gb, but cannot use all of it due to 32bit limit.

Not sure if the cooling is enough. You should run prime95 and see how far the full load temperature shoots up, after all, load temperature is what matters.
April 13, 2008 8:04:29 PM

dagger said:
For memory, 32bit OS cannot use all 4gb.


True.



dagger said:
It's a trick by Microsoft.


Outright lie.
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2008 2:55:04 AM

I think he thinks (no... you think? :kaola: ) you meant that the memory limitations of 32-bit OS's is a trick by microsoft :heink: 

@clive: Prime95 is actually not designed as a stress tester, it is a program you run to find Mersenne prime numbers (google it). Most people don't use it for that though. Make sure you get the beta here so that it generates the right number of threads (4, one for each core). Ignore all the rubbish they talk about. Just run the program, pick "just stress testing" in the dialog box at startup and then run the Small FFT test for 5-10 mins to see how hot it gets.
April 14, 2008 3:47:46 AM

randomizer said:
Ignore all the rubbish they talk about.
There was a lot of stuff flying about in this thread wasn't there?
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2008 3:51:19 AM

Ramdonizer - Question; Is prime95 any better than running orthos for loading cpu?

Also I know you really didn't mean
"Of course, software is never going to be that accurate."
As I had to write software to display temps of some 20 J-type thermisors loadrd on a subsystem undergoing thermovacuum testing. The science guys do not like inaccurate temps.
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2008 6:33:30 AM

Zorg said:
There was a lot of stuff flying about in this thread wasn't there?

Aye.

RetiredChief said:
Ramdonizer - Question; Is prime95 any better than running orthos for loading cpu?

Orthos is prime95 (minus the uploading and downloading of work from the server as prime95 is designed to do when not in stress testing mode) with a better GUI, but it's a very old version of it. It is great for single and dual cores, but it can only generate one or two threads, so for more than 2 cores prime95 v25.x is best. The original reason orthos was made was so that you didn't need two instances of prime95 when using a dual core, but that reason has been negated. Ironically, you need two instances or Orthos for a quad core which is why you simply wouldn't use it.
RetiredChief said:
Also I know you really didn't mean
"Of course, software is never going to be that accurate."
As I had to write software to display temps of some 20 J-type thermisors loadrd on a subsystem undergoing thermovacuum testing. The science guys do not like inaccurate temps.

I don't think the maker of CoreTemp or RealTemp are science guys ;)  Plus you probably knew all the details regarding the thermistors, these guys are going off inferred information since Intel is very vague with thermal specs beyond TCaseMax.

April 14, 2008 6:47:40 AM

Orthos also uses Prime 95 for its stress tester as well, but it only runs 2 instances. This is fine for dual cores, but for quad cores Prime95 25.6 will run four instances.

Randomizer beat me to it again.
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2008 7:00:38 AM

Zorg said:
Orthos also uses Prime 95 for its stress tester as well, but it only runs 2 instances. This is fine for dual cores, but for quad cores Prime95 25.6 will run four instances.

Randomizer beat me to it again.

i iz farstr dan u cuz i iz kittah!
April 14, 2008 7:02:26 AM

randomizer said:
i iz farstr dan u cuz i iz kittah!

:lol:  :lol: 
April 14, 2008 8:20:03 AM

ugh...

Dagger dagger, what to do with your comment?
Quote:
I thought about that, but I was concerned about compatibility issues with Vista 64. The 32-bit is supposed to handle 4GB, isn't it? Prior to SP1, it would only recognize ~2.5GB, but now with SP1 it shows all 4GB (though 3DMark still doesn't).


Quote:
"To be perfectly clear, this isn't a Windows problem-- it's an x86 hardware problem. The memory hole is quite literally invisible to the CPU, no matter what 32-bit operating system you choose."


32Bit operating systems can only address 4 GB of memory for this reason:

232 = 4,294,967,296

4,294,967,296 / (1,024 x 1,024) = 4,096

Quote:
I thought about that, but I was concerned about compatibility issues with Vista 64. The 32-bit is supposed to handle 4GB, isn't it? Prior to SP1, it would only recognize ~2.5GB, but now with SP1 it shows all 4GB (though 3DMark still doesn't).


((also this 4 GB refers to all system memory, not just your RAM-chips in your memory banks. Meaning memory is mapped in your OS for your Graphics Card, sound card(s) etc etc and the total of all this mapped memory cannot exceed 4 GB. Typically you'll see in the system properties that the system utilizes only about 3.12 GB of memory. Effectively throwing almost the full 4th GB out the window.))

Meaning that by no means it is a "trick" by Microsoft or any other corporation, but simply the limit for any 32bit operating system (unless you tweak it somewhat to allow for alternate addressing beyond the 32bit limit, although after SP2 for XP and Vista this is no longer possible)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second off, you will NOT get a GREAT improvement in speed (if any) by going 64bit with "just" 4 GB of memory as running 4 GB dual channel and taking the loss of 0.8 GB of RAM due to the memory mapping issue in 32 bit OSs runs your system at the same speed or only a small margin slower than the 64 bit option. (as you are most likely an avid gamer I would say stick to 32 bits or get more memory and go 64 bits. (like 8GB in total for instance))

Anyhow I'll run my rant short and end it here... suffice it to say: "Think about what programs you want to run and what you want from your system."

And to all those who deem themselves "better than thou" please refrain from posting anything if you don't have anything constructive to add to the topic. People posting their questions here are looking for solutions, not yet another bloke to piss on their parade like so many others would.

Greetings,

Thurin

PS: We all start building, coding, gaming etcetera on some level and at some point. Don't fret and indulge in your hobby... Rock on matey !

PS2: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

April 14, 2008 8:39:46 AM

Hey if someone wants to believe that 32bit OS limitations have anything to do with microsoft. Guess I'll let them.

Dagger, before you tell other people though, at least research it. the 32bit limitation has nothing to do with any specific operating system. It's a limitation with the architectural standard.
April 14, 2008 9:02:55 AM

I think he was responding to the fact that Vista 32 shows the full 4GB which is really inaccurate, because as we all know some of the memory addresses are reserved for hardware. The only reason that they are now showing all of the memory and not just the available memory is because of all of the questions like "I have 4GB but windows only shows 3.2GB, what is broken?". They certainly aren't trying to get over on anyone.

For anyone that doesn't fully understand, read Ask Dan: What's with the 3Gb memory barrier?.
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2008 10:16:57 AM

Zorg said:
I think he was responding to the fact that Vista 32 shows the full 4GB which is really inaccurate, because as we all know some of the memory addresses are reserved for hardware. The only reason that they are now showing all of the memory and not just the available memory is because of all of the questions like "I have 4GB but windows only shows 3.2GB, what is broken?". They certainly aren't trying to get over on anyone.

For anyone that doesn't fully understand, read Ask Dan: What's with the 3Gb memory barrier?.

Agreed. Microsoft are doing this forum a favour. I haven't seen a "Why only 3.25GB??!!one!" thread for ages.
April 14, 2008 10:45:32 AM

I wonder when\in which year will we see 60 fps on that cpu bench from 3dmark 2006
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2008 10:56:29 AM

We won't. The OS's from that time period won't support this program.
April 14, 2008 10:57:41 AM

Clive, when you submitted your results what did the similar system comparison performance yeild?

With your current config, OS, Drivers and hardware about 13500+ on your platform seems ok if your not overclocking, which by the sounds of things you are not.

Normally speed step cuts out as soon as a high demand is experienced by the system. Anyway, this isn't setting your mind at ease about your score, so I'll throw in some comparisons for you here.

I have two systems and both handle Crysis no worries at all and run at 20 X 10 without AA enabled and set on high as Win XP will allow. Don't forget my scores stated here are higher than what is acheived under VISTA.

AMD 5000 BE 2.0Gb DDR2 800 on GeForce 8800GT (512Mb) = 9100 3D Marks 06
AMD 9600 BE Phenom 2.0Gb DDR2 1066 on ATi 3870 (512Mb) = 10439 3D Marks.

Both PC's are single GPU only. Comparatively they where on par with lower end C2D and Quads and mid to high end ones with lesser GPU power.

Given that the 9800 series is not a great deal faster than the 8800 series GPU to GPU. Having a large numbers of GPU's is subject to "law of deminishing returns." in other words each GPU after the first returns less performance gain, and by the time you get to the fourth it's basically no contribution.

The sad truth here is that your system is well ahead of the times and will need newer, specifically designed software to get the best out of it. The fastest system (record holder at over 30000) registed by 3D Mark is OCed to beyond 5 GHz, so there's every chance, even though your CPU is very powerfull, it is not capable, at 3.0GHz, of feeding 4 such veratious GPU's.

And in the end it is the weekest point that breaks the number that can be achieved by any one sytem. To get those numbers north of 20000, which is possible with your setup, but you will be forced to overclock quite highly to realize it.

The low number in WoW is probably caused by your GPU's waiting idle for information to process caused by the recompositing process with each GPU being asked to do very little work, but having to wait to get info from the others to complete the frame. More is not always more if you get my drift.

There is no need to run SLi in this game with those GPU's. Worse still is that the game is not well optimised for SLi so I'm not too surprised you have taken a big performance hit here. Below is a typical SLi gamers experience in WoW,

"One last thing I forgot to mention, WoW does not officially support SLI. Sure theres a WoW profile, but it doesn't mean that WoW is program to take advantage of SLI. As for the stuttering, that's usually a dual core cpu bug, that they still didnt fix. It seems they fixed the 64 cap on BC, but not the stuttering issue. Running SLI for WoW got me another 30 fps, versus single, then again I also run everything at max. Even with my machine, it still drops to the 30's in org, with alot of people around, so don't think that SLI will solve that issue. Posting your system would help greatly in dealing with your problems guys. Most of the people that have been on the net a long time usually put their system in their sig, like mine."

This post has been edited by DaddyD302: Jan 21 2007, 03:52 PM


--------------------

INTEL C2Q Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz
eVGA N680i A1
2 eVGA 8800GTX SLI
X-FI XTREME
2G OCZ DII1066
2 Seagate 500G Raid 0
PC Power & Cooling 1 KW Turbo Cool Quad SLI
CM 830 Evo
Gateway FPD2485W
ThermalRight SI-128
(end of quote)
-------------------------------------

Remember also that not every driver revision increases performance. More often than not they are fixes and those fixes can sometimes impact negatively on performance, so that will need to be judged over time.

200 to 400 variation in 3D Marks is also quite common between runs with the same sytem and drivers and that is to be expected as this type of benchmarking is not an exact science, and in fact is quite subjective.

I'd simply suggest trying a mild overclock to say 3.2 GHz and study the results. If you're getting around 15000 then I'd say your hardware is good to go, and then it's up to you how far you're prepared to push the envelope.

Last pearl of wisdom. At 13000 or 20000 3D Marks Crysis will run very well indeed.
April 14, 2008 6:17:20 PM

harna said:
..... and then it's up to you how far you're prepared to push the envelope.
The question is not, "how far?" The question is, "Do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far as is needed?" :sol: 
April 14, 2008 9:37:55 PM

What are all you people talking about? Microsoft used the Service pack to display the full memory instead of actual usable amount. They know the average joe won't be able to realize the limitions of 32bit OS and the impossibility of the amount displayed. Did you guys even read the thread I linked earlier? People were clearly tricked:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248647-30-vista
Microsoft know this would happen, it's likely their intention to begin with. Why are you people all so eager to defend Microsoft? :sarcastic: 
April 15, 2008 12:11:32 AM

Here's an update in case anyone is curious. :) 

I went into the BIOS and confirmed that Intel SpeedStep was already disabled by default.

Strangely, the CPU multiplier was set at 8x. So I set that 9x and now of course I'm seeing 3.0GHz like I ought to. Now I'm tempted to bump it up some more.... But I'd better check the core temps under heavy stress first.

If I decide to OC, would I increase the multiplier, or increase the voltage (or both? or neither)?

The BIOS shows my memory at 1333MHz, which seems to be in contrast to what CPUZ says about the memory speed (667MHz). I still need to learn about memory settings and timings, I guess.

Anyway, with the 9x multiplier a fresh run of 3DMark 06 gave me 14988 Marks, which is a bit better.

SM2.0 Score: 5767
HDR/SM3.0 Score: 7068
CPU Score: 4367



April 15, 2008 12:51:47 AM

I've now run Prime95 for roughly 28-30 minutes, with RealTemp running the whole time. During that stress testing, Core #2 seemed to run the hottest, but never exceeded 51 degrees celsius. According to the tech specs shown on Intel's site, the thermal specification for this CPU is 64.5 degrees. Does this mean my cooling is sufficient?

And, tee hee, if you were me, would you deem it reasonably safe to OC the processor a bit? :) 
April 15, 2008 2:10:11 AM

Any one else?
a b à CPUs
April 15, 2008 5:49:51 AM

Clive Staples said:
I've now run Prime95 for roughly 28-30 minutes, with RealTemp running the whole time. During that stress testing, Core #2 seemed to run the hottest, but never exceeded 51 degrees celsius. According to the tech specs shown on Intel's site, the thermal specification for this CPU is 64.5 degrees. Does this mean my cooling is sufficient?

And, tee hee, if you were me, would you deem it reasonably safe to OC the processor a bit? :) 

The thermal specification refers to the "case" temp, or the temp reported by the sensor in the Integrated Heatspreader. It is not the maximum temp for the cores themselves, which is significantly higher (or so it is believed). If those are indeed the temps, then overclocking should be alot of fun for you.

I do recommend that you read the Temp Guide sticky at the top of this section. CompuTronix put hundreds of hours of work into that, and it's constantly being updated - unlike the rest of the stickies.
April 15, 2008 7:31:54 AM

Quote:
The BIOS shows my memory at 1333MHz, which seems to be in contrast to what CPUZ says about the memory speed (667MHz). I still need to learn about memory settings and timings, I guess.


Here's the answer you are looking for:

DDR - Double Data Rate

Quote:
Describing the speed of a double-pumped bus can be confusing. Each clock edge is referred to as a "beat", with two beats (one upbeat and one downbeat) per cycle. Some people talk about the basic clock frequency, while others refer to the number of transfers per second. Careful usage generally talks about "667 MHz, double data rate" or "1333 MT/s", but people will refer casually to a "1333 MHz bus", even though no signal cycles faster than 667 MHz.


As for the Overclocking:

BE CAREFUL

- Make sure you have sufficient room in temp when the cpu is under load.
- Make sure you use something other than the stock cooler unless you intend to make a very tiny OC.
- Make sure you do not up the voltage too much as this WILL crash your pc or make it unable to boot.

BE CAREFUL

But have fun !
April 15, 2008 7:33:25 AM

randomizer said:
That's not a fail, that's actually quite good. Even at 4+GHz that CPU wouldn't break 3-4FPS on the CPU tests.


Yep, when I do the CPU tests, I get 0-1 fps. It's like why do they even have that test? Who does 3D rendering on their CPU? It's the most irrelevant part of 3D Mark.

Clive Staples said:
But when I run 3DMark 06, I get only 13814 marks. Actually I got 14000 and change the first time, then I updated my video driver and my motherboard's nForce driver, and got a lower score. Go figure.


That's a good score. I know, benchmark sites claim higher scores, but I've seldom got exactly what they say my card should do. You have a great system, a great CPU. I'm a bit CPU limited now, at 1280 x 1024, so I'm only getting a bit over 9000 or so with mine. Since I'm not home right now, I can't check. I'll run it again tomorrow.

Review sites got much higher with the 3870x2 with an EE Intel quad, so go figure. Your 9800gx2 seems about right. When you get another one, you can give quad SLI a try (if the drivers work).
April 15, 2008 7:58:08 AM

dagger said:
What are all you people talking about? Microsoft used the Service pack to display the full memory instead of actual usable amount. They know the average joe won't be able to realize the limitions of 32bit OS and the impossibility of the amount displayed. Did you guys even read the thread I linked earlier? People were clearly tricked:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248647-30-vista
Microsoft know this would happen, it's likely their intention to begin with. Why are you people all so eager to defend Microsoft? :sarcastic: 


Since when did the 32bit architecture limit have anything do with microsoft at all?

To the OP... Glad you got it figured out. I would also be very tempted to OC. Just take it in baby steps, you'll have the computer for a long time if you do tiny gains and let it run for a week or two between each increase.
a b à CPUs
April 15, 2008 8:17:36 AM

What have you people got in your puffer? Put it up to 1.85V and see what she can do :D  Just kidding, 1.45-1.5V is as high as you'd want to go for 24/7 use on a 45nm chip, regardless of temps. Now benchmarking is another story.
!