Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q9550 vs. E6600 No difference at all!!!!!!!!!! What???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 12, 2008 7:26:08 PM

So I use to have the E6600 and thought that there would be a huge improvement by upgrading to the Q9550 especially for games like Flight Simulator X. So far I haven't notice a bit of difference and it is sooooo frustrating. I cant believe there would even still be lag with this awesome CPU in games. So what am I doing wrong? I still believe there should be a noticeable difference between the two CPUs but dont know why I am not getting it. Heres my specs below.

My Specs:
Quad Core Q9550 2.83GHz 1333Mhz 12MB cache 45nm
EVGA 8800GT 512MB Superclocked (Core 700, Mem 975)
2GB Corssair XMS2 DDR2 800 (4-4-4-12) 2.1 volts
EVGA 780i Mobo
700w OCZ GamerXStream PSU
320GB Hard drive 16MB cache 7200RPM
Sound Blaster Audigy SE
Windows XP

More about : q9550 e6600 difference

November 12, 2008 7:31:51 PM

It's probably your video card and RAM that are giving you lag. You would probably only see a difference in benchmarks. I'd recommend returning to your E6600 and spending the cash on a better video card and 2GB more of RAM.
November 12, 2008 7:37:05 PM

yeah your e6600 had a good bit of speed to it. I wouldn't expect your framerates in any games to improve at all after getting the Q9550 with an 8800gt. If you want better fps in flight sim you needed to upgrade both the cpu and vga.
Related resources
November 12, 2008 8:06:56 PM

For one FSX doesn't care what card you have as long as it's 8800 or up, like literally better cards can score less. As for the cpu, despite the patches to add multicore support it hasn't really made much of an impact. It's just a terribly coded game. As for other games... I have to say the benefits of cpu upgrades have been vastly exaggerated. I went from a 939 opteron at 3 Ghz to a e6550 at 3 GHz, no dif. in games like Crysis. Then I clocked it up to 3.5 GHz... no dif. still. Then I went to a Q9450 at 3.4 GHZ.... no difference at all on a supposedly quadcore optimized game. Even my core2 based Celeron @ 2.4 GHz does well in Crysis. So just stick to the vga upgrades and games that are properly coded.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2008 8:18:56 PM

I noticed a difference going from a e6420 to a q9550... your obviously not running programs that utilize a quad core... thats why your not noticing that much of a difference
November 12, 2008 8:27:00 PM

What LAN_deRf_HA said.
November 12, 2008 8:34:30 PM

I think a big issue with it is that you are playing FSX in xp not vista and with only 2gb of ram. I noticed a huge difference from my amd x2 6400 in xp versus my q9450 @3.4 ghz in vista. I don't know why anyone would want to play FSX in dx9 it looks so much better and is smother in dx10. Just my opinion. But I would not attempt vista with only 2gb of ram.

I play at max settings with a 9800gtx q9450 8gb ddr 800 on asus striker 2 formula consistantly at 32 FPS and get much better if I back down the traffic alone.

November 12, 2008 8:51:13 PM

As far as i Know, no game use a Quad at this momment.
November 12, 2008 9:04:15 PM

boulard83 said:
As far as i Know, no game use a Quad at this momment.


You are incorrect.

Supreme Commander, Crysis (series), Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead (demo and full will as well), Flight Sim actually does as well, Unreal Tournament 3. Far Cry 2 and Left 4 Dead use it quite well actually. Thats all I can think of off the top of my head, no its not alot, but far from "no games". In Far Cry 2 a Q6600 @ 2.4ghz runs the same as an E8400 @ 3.0ghz. Not to mention it will make the overall vista experience much better.

Best,

3Ball
November 12, 2008 9:37:03 PM

Thanks guys, I am going to keep messing around with it and tweeking it. Do you think I would drastically imporve in games if I just got another 8800GT in SLI?

Another thought, am I bottlenecking my CPU because of my GPU especially for Flight Sim X?
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2008 10:27:07 PM

I haven't looked at Tom's benchies since they screwed them up...... a year ago ? But from what I remember, Flight sim was one of those games that nothing could make happy.
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2008 10:44:45 PM

Yes, most of your games would run better if you got another 8800GT to run them in SLi, but probably not your flight sims. I recommend you overclock your CPU to get the full benefit of adding another 8800GT to run them in SLi, and maybe get some more RAM since flight sims generally use more system memory.
November 12, 2008 11:10:10 PM

So here's the update:

Computer starts up slightly faster and in windows things happen slightly faster, but things seem to be more unstable and I am getting lock ups when exiting games and some programs.

My Flight Sim X has seem to increase in performance by 5% or so. I know that because I am now able to increase some of the graphics slightly and still have a smooth frame rate.

Surprisingly Crysis has actually decreased in performance by 40%. This sucks. I have an increasingly amount of lag now in Crysis where before with my E6600 smooth as butter on all maxed out with DX10 patch with no ailising(sp?). Now feels like I put in an old CPU from way back in the day.

Also surprisingly COD4 has increased by 50%. I now can run with 4x ailising and still with flawless Frames.

So I dont know what to do at this point. I am contimplating sending it back and putting that money towards a new 8800GT. Or Should I keep it and just save for a new 8800GT with a combo of my Q9550 and 2 8800Gt's SLI?
November 12, 2008 11:43:10 PM

Hey guys is this all correct?

CPU voltage = 1.1v
Cpu GTL Vref boost Core 1 = 0.065v
CPU Freq. = 2,830 MHz
CPU Mult. = 8.5X
FSB = 333 MHz

Mobo:
FSB Freq = 1,332 (QDR) MHz
PCIe clock, Slot 1 = 5000 MHz (Gen2)
PCIe clock, Slot 2 = 2,500 MHz (Gen1)

Memory:
Mem Freq = 799 DDR2
Mem ratio = 1.2 x
FSB Freq = 333 MHz
CAS Latency = 4

Please tell me I need to change something and that is why I haven't seen the big increase that I was assuming I would see.

a b à CPUs
November 13, 2008 12:04:35 AM

I think your voltage is suppose to be like 1.3625V under load, and of course speed step lowers it when it's not. Go into the BIOS and just put those CPU settings on auto for now and see what happens. If your voltage is set to 1.1 in the BIOS, yeah I can see how that could give you problems :D .
November 13, 2008 12:17:06 AM

megamanx00 said:
I think your voltage is suppose to be like 1.3625V under load, and of course speed step lowers it when it's not. Go into the BIOS and just put those CPU settings on auto for now and see what happens. If your voltage is set to 1.1 in the BIOS, yeah I can see how that could give you problems :D .


Yeah everything is set to Auto right now.

So here are some problems I have noticed so far.

1. The computer freezes after I exit a game and some programs. Or it just loads for a long time and I dont have control and then control comes back after 2 minutes when exiting games.

2. Computer will not come back from sleep mode. Hard Drive and fans come on but no monitor.

Whats the deal?
November 13, 2008 12:19:59 AM

FSX is a game that has caps, using a decent gpu, and from there you need a nice cpu, unlike most games, even MT games, where a faster cpu shows results. In FSX, its your minimum fps thatll cause problems, not necessarily the max fps, as a good cpu SHOULD raise your minimum fps.

A super clocked GT like you have should meet the gpu requirements, so that leaves cpu or something else going on, or possibly, FSX doesnt like any of your ocing, be it the gpu or the cpu, which also is a possibility. Time to tinker some more, but keep an eye on the minimal fps, as thatll be where you need to boost, not max
November 13, 2008 12:28:10 AM

Here are the correct volts read from Bios.
CPU Core 1.2v
CPU FSB 1.08v
Mem 2.1v

Should I do any raising?
November 13, 2008 2:03:50 AM

Habita is Just right, as i TOLD a no game REALLY use quad technologie. i NEVER read anything about game that REALLY use Quad, like telling Proc 1 do that, proc 2 do that and .......

THATS why you see lotta Duo on top list of benchmark. And my OLD E6850 still rocking tha dance floor. ;) 
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2008 2:17:21 AM

Spitfire7 said:
So here's the update:

Computer starts up slightly faster and in windows things happen slightly faster, but things seem to be more unstable and I am getting lock ups when exiting games and some programs.

My Flight Sim X has seem to increase in performance by 5% or so. I know that because I am now able to increase some of the graphics slightly and still have a smooth frame rate.

Surprisingly Crysis has actually decreased in performance by 40%. This sucks. I have an increasingly amount of lag now in Crysis where before with my E6600 smooth as butter on all maxed out with DX10 patch with no ailising(sp?). Now feels like I put in an old CPU from way back in the day.

Also surprisingly COD4 has increased by 50%. I now can run with 4x ailising and still with flawless Frames.

So I dont know what to do at this point. I am contimplating sending it back and putting that money towards a new 8800GT. Or Should I keep it and just save for a new 8800GT with a combo of my Q9550 and 2 8800Gt's SLI?


I think u should not send back the q9550 cos it would be very futureproof if not for gaming but for other tasks...
I don know much about bios settings...but my simple idea would be to put in additional 2 gigs of ram and check hw the games play...cos at max resolutions that too in vista, i think it would be more hungry for ram ...then always like others said change the gfx card or go for another 8800gt..instead of goin for another 8800gt u can wait and save for a 4850 and crossfire it later (ie if ur board is crossfire capable..)when u got some cash...but my 1st try would be adding more ram...

sorry dint see ur mobo...i think u should save money n go for gtx260 and sli it later...spend on ram nw...save the money and buy the gtx ...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2008 2:30:20 AM

gkay is right... if your experiencing slow down on program exit/startup... your harddrive is page-filing... meaning you don't have enough ram to store all the data you need into with out storing part of it on the hdd

Try 2 more gigs

If that doesn't help come back.... but it sounds like its a ram issue especially since vista is a ram hog
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2008 2:45:33 AM

Another vote for adding more RAM first.
November 13, 2008 2:51:24 AM

habitat87 said:
If these games are really optimized to use multiple cores, then this benchmark along with others must be flawed... Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm confused as to where people are getting their info from.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q...


It doesn't matter how powerful the CPU is, or how many Cores the game utilizes if the VGA Card is the limit. You link shows just that.
November 13, 2008 3:21:37 AM

If it is crashing with the new cpu and not the old I would suggest you update the bios to your motherboard. I had to do this when I upgraded my to a q9450 to get it running as well as it is now. I never benchmarked games so I can offer no insight into that but stability is a world of difference.
November 13, 2008 4:06:04 AM

Get a better card. An Nvidia GTX or 4850 x2.
November 13, 2008 4:34:52 AM

as for stuff randomly crashing (i must confess that i didn't read all of this in depth, so correct me if i make any false assumptions), did you ever test the cpu for stability? i didn't see anything in here about prime95, regardless it would be a good idea to test (even at stock) and make sure everything is stable.

That being said i agree that you should get more ram, and if that doesn't do it then get another 8800 gt and throw it in sli, 2 8800 gt's perform splendidly in sli
November 13, 2008 5:47:11 AM

Hey everyone. So what if I send back the Q9550 and put that money towards two sticks of RAM and another 8800GT and put my old E6600 back in and overclock it to 3.2GHz? Good idea or bad?
November 13, 2008 5:52:27 AM

When I asked around and did some research I found that Flight Sim will utilize up to 8 cores if you got em. The more the better for that game and supposedly its a really core hungry game over GPU. But I hate to contradict myself, but I did just go from a dual e6600 to a Quad Q9550 and I dont see too much difference. So, I am going to try a friends 8800GT and see how SLI does for me. Will let you know.

p.s. If I own the 8800GT Superclocked version and my friend has the bottom model 8800GT can I still use his for SLI as long as I make sure the clocks and mem are overclocked or down clocked to the same?
November 13, 2008 7:31:40 AM

If you open Task Manager, Performance tab, it will show Max RAM use. If it goes above 2Gb, you need more RAM. If you stretch the Task Manager to full width, then minimise, Run FSX. When you exit FSX bring up Task Manager and look at CPU utilisation and see if all 4 cores were used. If not, it may be worth uninstalling and reinstalling FSX to make sure it knows about quad core. What HD do you have? Try running HDTune to see if there are problems.

Mike.
November 13, 2008 7:37:57 AM

habitat87 said:
Lucuis. Okay, then this brings me to my next point, if there is no difference how can people claim any difference between quad and dual? They have the best graphics listed... I've also seen benchmarks with multiple graphics. There are neglible differences and they didn't even bother to push the oc of the dual. I think that's a bit weird.

Also, the difference between them could have been from the quad having double the cache. The same difference that the core 2 duo's share, except were not talking about twice the amount.

It's funny how nobody can explain the weird performance trades that the quad and dual have. Then, these people can perfectly point out and break down the performance difference in the core 2 duo's by cache to the percentage! They ignore the fact that it has double when it switches to quad cause they don't want to believe they spent more money on something that oc's less. And I really like how sites just show how much they like to bench those e8600's at there full potential. :sarcastic: 


Well in terms of gaming, there's little to no difference. My theory on why a dual core can match a quad even in multi-threaded games is efficiency. With current code it's more efficient to get 2 cores to do it then 4. This would be in addition to the cpu not be the bottleneck. But of course it's just a theory.

You raise a good point, the performance difference could very well be because of the varying cache sizes. Which points again to efficiency, although not quite the same as code.

One thing i'll will always regret. A long while back my dad was purchasing a Dell XPS 600. It gave a choice of a 3.4ghz prescott, or a 3.0ghz dual-core for the same price. We talked a bit about which would be better. I was thinking cool it's like 2 processors! Then he said, "Yeah, but no games support 2 cores and probably won't for a while." So we went with the Single Core. Doh! We still use that same pc, and it still plays games quite well. But i'd almost guarantee we'd see a performance increase if we'd gotten the dual. That's one of the reason i bought a Quad Core nearly a year ago. I'd rather not have a lesser performing pc because games finally made use of all cores efficiently.

Multitasking is one thing a Quad Core can do better. I personally like being able to do...well anything at the same time on my pc. A Dual Core would likely experience a slowdown sooner.
November 13, 2008 7:50:44 AM

mike99 said:
If you open Task Manager, Performance tab, it will show Max RAM use. If it goes above 2Gb, you need more RAM. If you stretch the Task Manager to full width, then minimise, Run FSX. When you exit FSX bring up Task Manager and look at CPU utilisation and see if all 4 cores were used. If not, it may be worth uninstalling and reinstalling FSX to make sure it knows about quad core. What HD do you have? Try running HDTune to see if there are problems.

Mike.

Good idea. So it is using all 4 cores with a nice almost even spread maxed out. Where do I check for the Ram usage? Is that the Page File Usage history? If so, its just hanging around 1/4 the way up and while playing FSX it only went up just a tad, not much. whats interesting when I check the RAM usage in my Nvidia System's tools monitor it says its at 75% just while game on pause and I type this. As I checked again, it said it did go above the 100% line according to the nVidia monitor which I think is more accurate.

So you think I am getting all this lag because I am out of memory? If I get more will that increase CPU performance?
November 13, 2008 7:51:30 AM

can I even get 4GB out of Windows XP Home 32Bit?
November 13, 2008 9:04:20 AM

nope, not all 4GB. it'll probably recognize about 3.5
November 13, 2008 9:48:10 AM

It'd still make a big difference. I remember having RAM issues with Crysis when i had 2gb, noticed a major difference when i added 2 more gb.
November 13, 2008 5:27:55 PM

lucuis said:
It'd still make a big difference. I remember having RAM issues with Crysis when i had 2gb, noticed a major difference when i added 2 more gb.

What if I just got one more 1GB stick totaling 3GB? I hate buying something that I cant really use like that extra 4th GB stick.
November 13, 2008 6:57:44 PM

Alright this is beginning to piss me off and is getting really frustrating. I borrowed my roommates 8800Gt and installed it to run SLI. So now I have a Q9550 with two 8800Gt's in SLI. So the first test I wanted to do was to run Flight Sim X. Ok you ready for this? NO fricken difference. My $319 Quad and an extra $150 8800GT total of $469 didn't do a darn thing for FSX. That game is really pissing me off. What does it take for that game to even run on high? What do the developers have? Bunch of bull!!!!!

Ok the good news. Crysis improved dramatically. With only one 8800GT I turn off Ailising(sp?) and have somewhat good frame rate. Now with two 8800Gt's WOW! Now I can put the ailising to 2x and it begins to run like I had only with one card. So with ailising off dramatic improvement. With it on 2x it back to the frame rate as when i had one if that makes since. So I would call that a 35 to 40% improvement. Not bad.

That Flight sim thing is still a bunch of bull.
November 13, 2008 6:59:45 PM

Spitfire7, just go for the 4GB. To go 3GB and stay in dual channel mode (Faster RAM access) you would need to add 2 x 512MB sticks and they are not that much less than 2 x 1GB sticks. When I had my E6600 and 2GB RAM I had the load and unload lag you mention in many games such as Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, ARMA, Crysis and some in BF2. When I went to 4GB I was usually one of the first in and out of online games in the above mentioned. I don't do FSX but in my experience I usually maxed or was close to maxing both cores a lot by playing games. I maxed the cores and lost FPS in games when encoding movies for my HTPC library. When not encoding, I run Folding@Home, which also maxes out the CPU. Which brings me to:

habitat87, I had an E6600 that I maxed the cores and would get long encoding times and lost frames in games when running both at the same time. No, not going crazy trying to bog it down with many nonsensical programs, but just 2 programs running at the same time. This is a common workload for true PC enthusiasts. I upgraded to a Q9450 not too long ago and guess what?!? My FPS in games were back to their previous numbers and my encoding times dropped significantly, 70-80% faster while gaming and 50% faster running solo. I can now also run a stand alone server for ARMA along with my game client for my group of friends. I usually ran my E6600 at 3.35 and run my Q9450 at 3.1. I could have gone higher on both but was comfortable with the low noise of sane cooling for my gaming/HTPC box. I have ran higher OC speeds with all my fans cranked to max, just to see if it is stable and see the speed difference. Later!

Medic....Out!
November 13, 2008 7:06:08 PM

killermedic said:
Spitfire7, just go for the 4GB. To go 3GB and stay in dual channel mode (Faster RAM access) you would need to add 2 x 512MB sticks and they are not that much less than 2 x 1GB sticks. When I had my E6600 and 2GB RAM I had the load and unload lag you mention in many games such as Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, ARMA, Crysis and some in BF2. When I went to 4GB I was usually one of the first in and out of online games in the above mentioned. I don't do FSX but in my experience I usually maxed or was close to maxing both cores a lot by playing games. I maxed the cores and lost FPS in games when encoding movies for my HTPC library. When not encoding, I run Folding@Home, which also maxes out the CPU. Which brings me to:

habitat87, I had an E6600 that I maxed the cores and would get long encoding times and lost frames in games when running both at the same time. No, not going crazy trying to bog it down with many nonsensical programs, but just 2 programs running at the same time. This is a common workload for true PC enthusiasts. I upgraded to a Q9450 not too long ago and guess what?!? My FPS in games were back to their previous numbers and my encoding times dropped significantly, 70-80% faster while gaming and 50% faster running solo. I can now also run a stand alone server for ARMA along with my game client for my group of friends. I usually ran my E6600 at 3.35 and run my Q9450 at 3.1. I could have gone higher on both but was comfortable with the low noise of sane cooling for my gaming/HTPC box. I have ran higher OC speeds with all my fans cranked to max, just to see if it is stable and see the speed difference. Later!

Medic....Out!


Good point killermedic.

So since we are kind of in the same ballpark, help me in lamins(sp?) terms how to easily overclock my CPU up to about 3.2 give or take.

I was able to OC my e6600 up to 3.2 and that seemed pretty easy, but now with this quad can you give me a quick tip on FSB, Voltage, and so on? Thanks man. I am getting more RAM today.
November 13, 2008 10:31:44 PM

habitat87 said:
I had a good post too!

Oh well, Lucuis, this was your lucky day. LOL! I'll just give the what you need to see.

Here's why getting the Pentium 4 MIGHT have been a mistake. It was a mistake either way in my eyes. You had the right thinking, it was two processors and I like that optimistic view. The Pentium 4 obviously had more power up front as you say. The Pentium D even took a small performance hit clock for clock. With the two cores, it handled multitasking better. There's no denying that. Now, if you wanted all the power you can get for games, I'd say the 3.4 was better at that moment. If you wanted an all around performance cpu and didn't mind the small performance hit, the Pentium D was what you should have got. But I'm not going to say what you wanted, only you know this.

Here's where people messed up. They had the thinking that going from 2 to 4 cores would be a lot like going from a single to a dual core. Not true at all. Here's why... The upgrade from single to dual core already gave us the jump we needed to run our computer smoother. Now, I can't even get my e5200 close to it's potential on multitasking and I don't see it happening anytime soon. Now I could do it on purpose by running multiple heavy programs at the same time and keep opening stuff for no reason on purpose, but I'm not going to do that in real life situations... Besides, I'd still have trouble, and I think I'd run out of processing power before that. Oh wait, don't the duals clock higher? Hmmm... And people, if you run down your dual cpu and actually make it lag or even on a quad for this matter, please tell us what you are doing. Yes, I would be very curious to know what on earth you are doing. And anyone can do it purpose, give me some real life ****. No bs. Although, even that's tough I believe... But I don't bs, so I wouldn't know.

Here's the article that will show you what I mean. It's from 2005, and again, your lucky I lost my other post. LOL!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-d,1006-12.h... <--- I set it on the beginning of the benchmark page for you to take a look at.


Exactly my thinking, i would have dealt with a minuscule performance loss then to have better performance now. But you live an learn i guess, eh? Now i have a Quad and even though it's not being used to it's full potential most of the time, i'd rather have it then not.

Agreed, for the most part anyway. Dual Cores are enough for gaming, whereas the cpu is not the bottleneck. But if you start doing other stuff in addition to playing a game you'll notice a greater performance hit then on a Quad, depending on the load of course. I can't say what would bog down a Dual Core CPU as i've never owned one, i just know i've never had a problem with my Quad.
November 13, 2008 10:37:23 PM

Guys. I ran everything in Prime95 for a good 30 minutes at max load and there were no problems. On a side note, I am still getting lockups when trying to look at motherboard settings, temperatures, trying to come back from system standby, etc.

Are the tests telling me the CPU is good, but the board may be bad? When i first got my mobo it was a refurbished and there was problem after problem of nothing registering. The EVGA team talked me through it and with a snap of the fingers it worked. Still many lockups. What do you think?
November 13, 2008 10:41:28 PM

Sounds like it could be a hinky board, or a number of other things. Outdated drivers could also do it. I've heard of issues with system standby before, most end up turning the feature off.

Just to be safe, if you can, return the board for a new one.
November 13, 2008 11:25:38 PM

Spitfire7,

Here ya go. First here is my system so you can see any similarities or differences (or ideas!)

Vista X64 SP1
Antec 1200 case, top and rear fans: low speed, front top: low speed, front mid and bottom: med speed.
OCZ GameXtreme 700 PSU
Gigabyte GA-X48-DQ6 mobo using onboard Digital sound to Logitech Z-5500 5.1 speakers
Q9450 cpu (C1 stepping)
XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 cpu cooler w/ AS5 paste, with the fan removed, case airflow is adequate for real good temps
4GB RAM - 2 x 2GB GSkill DDr2 1000 (blue heat spreader), another 4GB kit waiting to go in and test
EVGA 8800GT 512 SSC running 717 core 1035 mem
Seagate 7200.10 320GB x 2 in RAID 0 (2 x WD 640 Black's waiting to go in) OS, Pagefile, Game Data each in seperate partitions
Samsung F1 750 for data
E-sata external device w/ 2 swapable WD10EACS for HTPC files, soon to be replaced w/ 5 or 6TB RAID5
Lite-On DH-4O1S-11 Blu-Ray player on sata
Samsung SH-S182D DVDR-DL on IDE

Ok my bios setting for OCing:
RAM timings 4-4-4-12-2T
3.04ghz: FSB: 380, Mem multiplier: 2.0(B) (=1:1 ratio), Mem Voltage: +.20 (2.00v), (G)MCH: +.025, CPU Voltage: 1.20v
3.20ghz: FSB: 400, Mem multiplier: 2.0(B) (=1:1 ratio), Mem Voltage: +.20 (2.00v), (G)MCH: +.050, CPU Voltage: 1.235v

I bumped the voltages up a tad for LONG term stability. I have ran some settings lower but have had sporadic crashes after 24-72 hrs of usage. I have speedstep and other power management still enabled and works great for those times I am not loaded down. Hope this helps, and if not, ask for more......

Medic....out!

edited to add,

OOPS, missed the last few posts while typing this, sounds like a flaky mobo is very possible!
November 14, 2008 2:11:27 AM

killermedic said:
Spitfire7,

Here ya go. First here is my system so you can see any similarities or differences (or ideas!)

Vista X64 SP1
Antec 1200 case, top and rear fans: low speed, front top: low speed, front mid and bottom: med speed.
OCZ GameXtreme 700 PSU
Gigabyte GA-X48-DQ6 mobo using onboard Digital sound to Logitech Z-5500 5.1 speakers
Q9450 cpu (C1 stepping)
XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 cpu cooler w/ AS5 paste, with the fan removed, case airflow is adequate for real good temps
4GB RAM - 2 x 2GB GSkill DDr2 1000 (blue heat spreader), another 4GB kit waiting to go in and test
EVGA 8800GT SSC running 717 core 1035 mem
Seagate 7200.10 320GB x 2 in RAID 0 (2 x WD 640 Black's waiting to go in) OS, Pagefile, Game Data each in seperate partitions
Samsung F1 750 for data
E-sata external device w/ 2 swapable WD10EACS for HTPC files, soon to be replaced w/ 5 or 6TB RAID5
Lite-On DH-4O1S-11 Blu-Ray player on sata
Samsung SH-S182D DVDR-DL on IDE

Ok my bios setting for OCing:
RAM timings 4-4-4-12-2T
3.04ghz: FSB: 380, Mem multiplier: 2.0(B) (=1:1 ratio), Mem Voltage: +.20 (2.00v), (G)MCH: +.025, CPU Voltage: 1.20v
3.20ghz: FSB: 400, Mem multiplier: 2.0(B) (=1:1 ratio), Mem Voltage: +.20 (2.00v), (G)MCH: +.050, CPU Voltage: 1.235v

I bumped the voltages up a tad for LONG term stability. I have ran some settings lower but have had sporadic crashes after 24-72 hrs of usage. I have speedstep and other power management still enabled and works great for those times I am not loaded down. Hope this helps, and if not, ask for more......

Medic....out!

edited to add,

OOPS, missed the last few posts while typing this, sounds like a flaky mobo is very possible!


Awesome, I am going to try that. Hey, I use to have a 680i board with my e6600 and I installed the new 780i and the Q9550 without reformatting my Hard drive. Could that be the issue? I did reinstall windows though, but no full formatting of hard drive.

Also, on your clocks, what is your multiplier? Mine is 8.5x. So does that mean that my numbers will be slightly different?
November 14, 2008 4:21:46 AM

Spitfire7,

The OS re-install should be sufficient. I just did the quick format last time and all was good. I went from an ASUS 975x board to a Gigabyte X48 board. In fact I booted with the old install after the rebuild just to see if it would work and it did. I eventually got some driver errors so wiped clean and started over.

Oh, and remember that my CPU is 8.0x FSB and yours is 8.5x FSB so your setting would be lower for hitting 3.2ghz.

habitat87,

All these posts here and not one addresing the OP's problems?

Vid is PCI-E, edited it to add the 512 nomenclature.

I see your point on my example being bad. :non:  I do think I run out of memeory and the lag is from pulling something from the pagefile. That is where I am going next with the additional RAM. I guess that is what I get for trying to help too much while waiting for my pain killers to settle down, Taylor Spatial Frame (tibia) for those in the know!!! I really do know what multi-tasking is, I promise!!!
!