Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Am I in Sync?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
July 29, 2009 8:27:57 PM

My goal is not to overclock, but to optimize what I have.

Components:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 – 3.0GHz, FSB:1333
M/B: Gigabyte GA-EP45C-UD3R – FSB:1600/1333/1066/800
Memory: G.Skill DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)

Current BIOS settings:
CPU Multiplier: 9
FSB: 333MHz
Mem Freq.: 1333MHz

Everything is running fine and I believe the CPU, FSB, and Memory are all synced up at appropriate speeds. However, there seems to be room for improvement since the M/B and Memory can run at higher speeds. So…

Proposed BIOS settings:
CPU Multiplier: 7.5
FSB: 400MHz
Mem Freq.: 1600MHz

Will this work? If so, would I be better off or would this be worse because of frequencies not matching?

P.S. Would there be any additional benefit to overclocking for the purpose of using an even multiplier of 8? I know there would be a very small improvement in CPU speed of .2GHz, but is there also a benefit for using an even CPU Multiplier?

More about : sync

a b K Overclocking
a c 86 à CPUs
a b } Memory
July 29, 2009 8:44:48 PM

Your system would be mildly overclocked if you use 8 instead of 7.5, but thats about it. You would be at 3.2GHz instead of 3.0. Hardly pushing it by any standards, and shouldn't need a voltage bump. Your motherboard should handle 400Mhz as well, you shouldn't need a voltage bump there either. You'll get a bit more memory bandwidth, I doubt you'll see any "real" improvements. Bench before and after with whatever tasks you do to see if its worth it.

If you could leave the multiplier at 9 you'll be at 3.6. You'll see improvement due to the extra half gigahertz. Will probably require a small voltage bump. You'll also see some extra heat, more if you are using the stock HSF.
m
0
l
July 29, 2009 8:45:42 PM

It does not matter if the multiplier number is even or not, It could be 8.5 and it'll work.

If you want to have the FSB @ 400, why not let the multiplier at 9, and have the cpu running at 3.6GhHz? you can do that without changing volts.

as for your proposed bios settings, you won't see any difference in performance with that set up, from 1333MHz to 1600Mhz in memory frecuency the performance increase is so low you won't notice it.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
a c 86 à CPUs
a b } Memory
July 29, 2009 8:57:05 PM

Quote:
Those parts underlined are not correct, default multiplier is 9, so he's lowering the multiplier and increasing the FSB so he can hit 3.0GHz.


Might want to wash the egg off your face and recheck your math. The parts underlined are correct, 400MHz times 8 = ??? (3.0 by your math?)
m
0
l
July 29, 2009 9:02:33 PM

You should just lower the RAM speed to 1333MHz and lower the timings. Then you'll see better performance with no overclocking needed.
m
0
l
July 29, 2009 9:14:05 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
Those parts underlined are not correct, default multiplier is 9, so he's lowering the multiplier and increasing the FSB so he can hit 3.0GHz.


Might want to wash the egg off your face and recheck your math. The parts underlined are correct, 400MHz times 8 = ??? (3.0 by your math?)


chill out man, his proposed bios was 7.5*400Mhz and that's 3.0GHz, I misread yours

as for your post, yes, everything is correct. But it confused me for a sec, sorry I'm at work atm.
m
0
l
July 29, 2009 9:54:04 PM

paranoidmage said:
You should just lower the RAM speed to 1333MHz and lower the timings. Then you'll see better performance with no overclocking needed.


I hadn't thought about doing that. I've got the factory memory settings of 8-8-8-21 and 1.66v right now. I really want to make sure that my system is reliable more than being the absolute fastest. I'm running on the stock CPU cooler too.

I thought it might be important to coordinate the speeds between the CPU and the Memory but it sounds like that is not the case.

I think I'll have to do some benchmarking and see if it's better to boost the CPU and FSB a little or drop the memory timings.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a c 86 à CPUs
a b } Memory
July 29, 2009 10:38:41 PM

If you do that, please provide the results. I always like reading about real people giving real results.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2009 3:00:54 AM

> My goal is not to overclock, but to optimize what I have.


Lots of good advice above:

My 2 cents: if you stick with stock CPU and RAM settings,
and enable SpeedStep, your CPU will automatically bump
the multiplier whenever it gets busy, and drop back down
when it's idle again.

We find that this one "tweak" makes a very noticeable
difference in our day-to-day workload, mostly Internet work:

Our Q6600 alternates between 333x6 (2GHz) and 333x9 (3GHz).

Our browser caches are also moved to ramdisks
using RamDisk Plus from www.superspeed.com .


Enabling SpeedStep is arguably THE single most effective
optimization you can enable with Intel CPUs.


There is nothing magical about a 1 : 1 FSB : DRAM ratio;
and, on your o/c settings that ratio will be 1 : 2 (i.e. 400 : 800).

Confirm this ratio by running the CPU-Z program.


MRFS
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2009 3:10:04 AM

http://america.gigabyte.com.tw/FileList/Manual/motherbo...


CPU EIST Function (Note)

Enables or disables Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST).

Depending on CPU loading, Intel® EIST technology can dynamically and effectively lower the CPU voltage and core frequency to decrease average power consumption and heat production. (Default: Enabled)


(Note) This item is present only if you install a CPU that supports this feature.
For more information about Intel CPUs' unique features, please visit Intel's website.

[end quote]


MRFS
m
0
l
July 30, 2009 5:47:42 AM

4745454b said:
If you do that, please provide the results. I always like reading about real people giving real results.


I absolutely could not get the Memory up to 1600MHz. I tried a lot of different things and it always beeped like crazy at me. It looks like there is some issue with high speed DDR3 and this M/B as I have found other messages about the same problem. But... I could get the FSB up to 400MHz by also changing the Memory Multiplier to 3.33D.

I also tried lowering the Memory Timings and ran some benchmarks. I'm running Vista 64bit and couldn't find a decent (and free) benchmarking software. All I found was something called Cinebench. Here's some numbers I got:

Configurations:
1) 3.0GHz, 333FSB, 8-8-8-21 Timing
2) 3.0GHz, 400FSB, 7-7-7-18 Timing
3) 3.2GHz, 400FSB, 8-8-8-21 Timing
4) 3.2GHz, 400FSB, 7-7-7-18 Timing

Benchmarking Results:
CB 1CPU : CB XCPU : CPU Ratio : OGL Std
1) 3671 : 7193 : 1.96 : 4970
2) 3663 : 7186 : 1.96 : 4808
3) 3915 : 7639 : 1.95 : 5142
4) 3908 : 7563 : 1.94 : 5262

If I'm interpretting this correctly, the lowered memory timings actually reduced the speed in most cases. Looks like I'll be sticking with configuration #3 unless I can find out what's going on with the memory speed. Not that the performance gain would amount to much. Probably equivalent to adding wind spoilers to your cars windshield wipers.

m
0
l
July 31, 2009 3:53:02 PM

Update:

I have found that I can set the Memory divider to auto (4.00) and boost my FSB up to 370MHz before things get unstable. At 380MHz, the board will beep like crazy and reboot.

One other note... When I run the memory at 1333MHz (400MHz FSB, 3.33D Divider) and set the memory timings to Auto, I get faster timings than the factory profile (as reported by CPU-Z). I get 8-7-7-18 instead of factory timings of 8-8-8-21.
m
0
l
August 5, 2009 12:37:33 AM

Latest Update:

G.Skill gave me a bunch of settings and voltages to change but it still does not work.

Gigabyte gave me a generic response about not supporting overclocking. :ange:  Like the slight CPU overclock had anything to do with it. I changed the CPU divider to 7.5 so I was running at 3.0GHz and was not surprised to find that it changed nothing.
m
0
l
!