Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 overclock

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
January 13, 2010 10:49:46 AM

Hey everyone, I've been trying to get into overclocking so I'm still relatively new to it. I have a q6600 quad core and it's always ran at stock settings. I've decided to try and overclock it a bit more for gaming. I'm not looking to get some insane OC out of it just want to maybe get it to 3.2. Currently I have it at 3.2 stable but I have a few questions if someone would be so kind to answer.

1.) Is going 3.2 with a 8 multiplier better than going with a 9 multiplier?

(I know that the lower the multipler the higher your FSB will be that's not really a problem for me I just was wondering if maybe one ran more stable than the other? I'm guessing the 9 because your FSB is less so not as much heat?)




2.) By changing the cpu voltage just a few steps is that really going to affect lifespan drastically or will I still get a decent run from it?




3.)Once I figure out what to set the CPU to should I set it to auto voltage and then try going down little by little to get it to run on the lowest voltage?



4.) I have my memory set to 1066 but when I change my cpu frequency the ram starts to go up. Does that mean that it's linked? If so I'm not sure how to unlink it I haven't seen any option for it. I am on a Rampage Formula Bios.



Those are pretty much the questions I have. This website is kickass for noobs like me and I appreciate any responses from anyone thanks!

More about : q6600 overclock

a b K Overclocking
January 13, 2010 4:43:43 PM

1) Yes 400 MHz x 8.0 multiplier is the best for the OC you want.
2)You may not need to raise the voltage at all to get this OC, but theoretically yes it reduces lifespan. But will you care about this cpu in 5-6 years anyways?
3)No, don't use auto settings. Pick a voltage and test with it. Prime95 and orthos are good for turning your processors on full blast.
4) Yes the FSB links to the RAM. RAM speed is usually = to FSB * RAM switch.
Example:
Stock chip = 266mhz FSB, with RAM at "1066Mhz" really its just specifying the RAM to run at 4 * the FSB, which equals 1066. If you kept the RAM the same, and just raised the FSB to 300, your RAM would run at 1200Mhz. This is why you compensate for the new RAM speed by specifying a slower speed because you're going to raise the FSB. Basically, you need to know how fast you want to run the RAM and reverse calculate what you need to do that.

In your case, I recommend dropping the speed to 667mhz, then you can run at 1066mhz with the FSB at 400mhz.

Use CPU-Z to verify the non-doubled speed of the RAM to confirm it's set right.
m
0
l
January 13, 2010 5:52:58 PM

How is the 8 multiplier better for the 3.2 OC is it because it just gives you a different listing of memory settings?

Also I understand now what you mean about setting the memory back to 667 so when you get up too 400 its raised up to 1066.
But what if I can't get my ram to exactly 1066 is it ok if my ram is set to say 1053 or even like 1093 does that cause instability or would that affect performance?

Thanks
m
0
l
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
January 13, 2010 6:09:06 PM

The 8.0 multiplier is better because it lets you get the FSB higher. I particularly like running 400 FSB since my RAM is ddr2800, it makes it easy and the memory is synced with the FSB at 400mhz. This has been debated by many to be better, but I can't say how.

If you can't get your ram to exactly the speed you need, don't worry. You should test the memory with Memtest86 with the system overclocked before you do any benchmarking or testing from windows. A lot of people's overclocks fail not because of the CPU but because their ram was set wrong and it makes them think the CPU is at fault.
m
0
l
January 13, 2010 7:26:16 PM

Yeah I ran memtest to like 280% with no problems. Now I'm just trying to set my cpu voltage seems that whatever I choose gives me a BSOD. When I set to auto it shows up on the monitor as running at 1.24 but when I go in and manually set it to get the monitor to show 1.24, I have to set it to 1.3v. Like the selection of what to set it at is slightly off making it more difficult to figure out what to run it at.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 13, 2010 7:57:20 PM

check out my Sig, got mine to 3.6 with out even a flinch so far on air cooling.

What kind of motherboard do you have?
What kind of heatsink/fan do you have?
m
0
l
January 13, 2010 7:59:43 PM

I have a asus p5e MB flashed to Rampage Formula Bios and an arctic freezer 7 pro.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 13, 2010 8:36:38 PM

scatmanwfm said:
1.) Is going 3.2 with a 8 multiplier better than going with a 9 multiplier?

2.) By changing the cpu voltage just a few steps is that really going to affect lifespan drastically or will I still get a decent run from it?

3.)Once I figure out what to set the CPU to should I set it to auto voltage and then try going down little by little to get it to run on the lowest voltage?

4.) I have my memory set to 1066 but when I change my cpu frequency the ram starts to go up. Does that mean that it's linked? If so I'm not sure how to unlink it I haven't seen any option for it. I am on a Rampage Formula Bios.

1) You will get virtually identical performance either way.
I personally would run at 400Mhz FSB just to sync the RAM speed.

Don't expect it to run at 3.6Ghz on air with reasonable voltage either.
Just because some golden chips can do it does not mean all of them can.
For reference, my Q6600 requires 1.55v to stably run at 3.6Ghz and goes past 65°C on water when doing so.

2) No, as long as you keep it at 1.5v or lower and your temps are fine, you do not have to worry about your CPU's lifespan.
Try to get it stable as close to stock voltage as you can though.
Why waste the power and heat when you do not need to ;) 

3) Manually set it, auto almost always dumps to much voltage into your chip.
Start at 1.4v and test your way down using prime95.
Once you find the point you start getting errors, raise it a notch or two in the BIOS and leave it.
You should be able to run it pretty close to your VID with your intended overclock.

4) That is normal, the RAM speed is set at a ratio to the FSB.
As you raise the FSB with out changing the ratio your RAM speed will also rise.
If you have the FSB set to 400Mhz you should be able to run your RAM exactly at 1066Mhz.
If it need to be ran at a lower speed don't worry, there will be NO drop in performance.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 14, 2010 12:48:21 PM

Looks like outlw6669 covered it, some chips are better than others, mine is running the following:

Intel Q6600 - G0
Multi = 9x
FSB = 400
Core Voltage = 1.432
All on air with a Xiggy HDT -s1283

Temps idle are usually between 24 - 26*c
Temps load are usually between 45 - 51*c

I guess i really am truly lucky with this chip. 50% OC FTW!
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 14, 2010 1:58:03 PM

Yeah, that is a really good chip!
You are running it at 3.6Ghz with less voltage than it takes for me to run at 3.5Ghz.

With my chip I need:
1.325v = 3.2Ghz
1.45v = 3.51Ghz
1.55v = 3.6Ghz

Have you tried taking it further?
With temps and voltage like that, you can probably get 3.8-4Ghz out of it.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 14, 2010 2:16:54 PM

Well, i have considered it, but don't want to overstep my bounds, i figured i am lucky enough to have such a good overclock... Would i have much gain going from 3.6 to 4.0?

as for the FSB, i know my motherboard will support higher than 425 as i used the same motherboard to push an E8400 to 4.2 or some such (for testing reasons)

Interestingly enough, i didn't really play with the OC on this Q6600, i basically installed it and booted up @ stock, Win seven required a restart, then i booted up @ stock again, then on the3 next reboot, i just upped the FSB a little and i was instantly @ 3.0

From there, i just upped the voltage to 1.44 in the BIOS, upped the FSB to 400 and a couple RAM tweaks and i was running @ 3.6 & 1:1, never even had one problem with it since...

think i should try to lower my voltage a little to see if i can? i mean, i really don't even know if i actually need 1.44
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 14, 2010 6:06:18 PM

You will probably gain a little performance with a higher overclock.
More just to see if it can be done than anything else :D 

Might be worth testing at lower voltages.
If it works and is cool enough now, I would not consider it a top priority.
If you can get it stable at a lower voltage, you can probably shave a few °C and a few ¢ on your electric bill.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 14, 2010 6:18:09 PM

oh man, now you've got me all curious to see how far i can push this thing on air, and i'll bet i can get just shy of 4.0, then i'll want 4.0 so i'll end up buying a liquid cooling system to push it further and prolly get a new vidoe card in the process! you sir have awoken a sleeping giant!
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 14, 2010 6:20:11 PM

LOL

Well then, make a fun weekend of it :D 
Also, make sure to post the results!
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 14, 2010 6:35:37 PM

i will definately post results on Monday or Sunday night
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 197 K Overclocking
January 15, 2010 8:25:57 AM

jonpaul37 said:
oh man, now you've got me all curious to see how far i can push this thing on air, and i'll bet i can get just shy of 4.0, ...

Hate to rain on your parade. The ACF7P is, by today's standards, an average heatsink. I know. I have one. :) 

My Q6600 ran at 3.0 GHz at stock VID with the stock cooler. An ACF7P and a voltage increase to 1.32 volts got me to 3.3 GHz with load temps just under 70C. A ThermalRight Ultra 120 Extreme and core voltage of 1.425 volts got me to 3.6 GHz with load temps of 61 - 66 C.

I haven't seen anyone come close to 4.0 GHz, not with CPUZ validation.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 15, 2010 10:37:12 AM

I had an ACF7P on my GF's E6600 build.
Even at stock it ran hot and noisy.
I could just barely get it to 3.2Ghz @ stock voltage without overheating (sitting around 70°C load).
Agreed that it is an overrated cooler I do.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 15, 2010 12:39:05 PM

jsc said:
Hate to rain on your parade. The ACF7P is, by today's standards, an average heatsink. I know. I have one. :) 

My Q6600 ran at 3.0 GHz at stock VID with the stock cooler. An ACF7P and a voltage increase to 1.32 volts got me to 3.3 GHz with load temps just under 70C. A ThermalRight Ultra 120 Extreme and core voltage of 1.425 volts got me to 3.6 GHz with load temps of 61 - 66 C.

I haven't seen anyone come close to 4.0 GHz, not with CPUZ validation.



jsc, i'm not using an AFP7P, i have the Xiggy HDT s1283

Wish me luck reaching 4.0 on air, i'll post the validation on Sunday

just to double check, the Q6600 can be pushed to 1.55 voltage-wise, right?
m
0
l
January 16, 2010 7:30:43 PM

Yeah I was finally able to get mine stable at 3.2 running 1.184v runs surprisingly cool still like a few degrees higher than before. 22-24c idle and 37-39c load. To get it to run on 3.6 I had to up the voltage to 1.3 and the temps got a lot hotter 32- 33c idle and highest it got underload was 53. Figured I'd just keep it at 3.2 I'm happy with that especially not having to change the voltage much and it running at low temps. Thanks for the help man I sure Appreciate it. :) 
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 16, 2010 7:32:28 PM

Looks good, enjoy the overclock!
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 197 K Overclocking
January 17, 2010 11:41:19 AM

Sorry, jonpaul. I must have misread who had the ACF7P.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
January 17, 2010 12:09:13 PM

jonpaul37 said:
Just to double check, the Q6600 can be pushed to 1.55 voltage-wise, right?

Intel Lists a 0.85V-1.5V safe voltage range.
As long as you keep the CPU properly cooled, there will be no issues running it 0.05-0.1V over this.
If you start having any temp issues, make sure to immediately lower your voltage and aim for a slightly lower overclock.

Best Luck!
m
0
l
!