Post Your Overclock Results.

[Fumz]

What makes the biggest difference is reading.

Maybe I should look at your post again in the morning with fresh eyes, because right now it's not making much sense to me? It sounds like you're saying that you could not get the board to post with default voltage, and while you haven't said it, I assume this is at stock speeds?

 

[Mr GRiM]

No stock speed is 2.13Ghz so this is not a bad overclock and it does make a big difference to the windows base score as it was only 5.4 at stock and I get a 5.8 at this clock and here is the temp it is running at and its air cooled!
System spec.jpg

 

[Mr GRiM]

I think the stock specs are 1.35v, 266Mhz bus, 1066Mhz FSB @ 2.13Ghz

 

[Fumz]

Don't take it personally when I say the OC isn't great; it's just that it isn't. It does not matter what the stock speeds are of any line of cpu's. All cpu's of the same line have the same ceiling. Within that line, all cpu's when overclocked, if done correctly, and with a bit of luck, should reach the same ceiling. The only reason why your cpu starts off faster or slower than another cpu is because of the multiplier it has; everything else is pretty much the same.

Average Conroe overclocks are 3.4GHz-3.6GHz. Conroe stock speeds are irrelevant to achieving this result. Results may vary, but like I said, 3.19GHz is the lowest OC I've seen. You may have seen others lower, I may have not looked at enough?

Having said that, you may very well have problems reaching this now? It's all a question of how long you've been pumping high volts into the core, how well you've kept it cool, and how your core reacts to all this? No need to reply back on that point, nobody could give you an answer, that's all up to the core. It's going to degrade on its own terms.

 

[xguntherc]

ya if stock is 2.13 and your running it at 2.4, thats not much of an OC at all. and to be running that at 1.5v. thats CRAZY. I'm at 1.384 with a 3.5 GHz OC on a Quad. those volts are way way to high. are you sure somethings not wrong. You should set all the voltage back to auto. and the CPU to stock. then try slowly going up higher on each at a time. see if you can get the same oc, at a lower voltage.

Also the e8400 is a Great CPU. if moneys not the issue. I have freinds with there e8600's running 4.6 GHz with great temps on Air.. My buddy does his 3DMark06 tests on his e8600 at 4.9 GHz, on Air. so they are great.. I want to get one. I just might snag a e8400 somewhere just for some fun. not sure yet tho.

 

[Mr GRiM]

ya if stock is 2.13 and your running it at 2.4, thats not much of an OC at all. and to be running that at 1.5v. thats CRAZY. I'm at 1.384 with a 3.5 GHz OC on a Quad. those volts are way way to high. are you sure somethings not wrong. You should set all the voltage back to auto. and the CPU to stock. then try slowly going up higher on each at a time. see if you can get the same oc, at a lower voltage.

Also the e8400 is a Great CPU. if moneys not the issue. I have freinds with there e8600's running 4.6 GHz with great temps on Air.. My buddy does his 3DMark06 tests on his e8600 at 4.9 GHz, on Air. so they are great.. I want to get one. I just might snag a e8400 somewhere just for some fun. not sure yet tho.

If you look at my first post you will notice that the CPU speed is @ 3.2Ghz, the multiplier changes down to 6 when there is no load and idles @ 2.4Ghz.

Here is the current specs

Lower OC.jpg

I have set it back to a multiplier of 7 now anyway, I am still happy with that and at least the FSB is still at 1600Mhz and I still get my 1:1 ratio with my ram!!

 

[Fumz]

If you're under the impression that running at a higher fsb is better than running a higher cpu frequency, please let me dissuade you of that notion now. Perhaps you're using so many volts because your focus has been too much on memory speed and not on the big picture? Higher cpu speeds is much better than high memory speed.

If you could get 3.5GHz on the cores, even if you had to run the RAM at 800MHz to do it, it would run circles around your current setup.

 

[johngalt]

It would.

Trust me.

I OC'd my CPU from 2.4 to 3.2 (33%) and left my RAM as it was being read at 800 MHz - and my system go a nice boost in responsiveness.

I then took the RAM to specs at 1000 MHz and the only thing I can really notice different is that my WEI memory index score went from ~5.4 to 5.9....

 

[xguntherc]

Yup, I've been reading that RAM from 800 to 1000 or even 1066 isn't that big a difference. Really at all other than WEI.. So I'm now going higher on my OC's and leaving the RAM synced at 800 or so. Then I can keep the volts down cuz not runnin at Spec'd 1000, and even tighten timings.

OK, So I have some New OC results for you John and everyone else.
I finally hit 3.7 GHz BOOYA!


I've been runnin this Q6700 with the 10x Multi. and I've never been able to get the system to load above 3.66 GHz, but today I read in eVGA's forum that some people can't get there 10x or anything higher to work. So I tried a 9x Multi. and I got to 3.7 GHz in my first try. So next I'll try for 3.8 GHz. hehe

Also I ran another Mark06 with that OC down to 3.66 GHz. and got a slightly higher score, not much higher. but it is higher so Here's that also for everyone.



Overall I'm pretty happy with getting to 3.7 GHz. But the fact that I'm more stable at a 9x than a 10x make's me think that getting a QX would not give me much for great results. So my new upgrade might just end up being the Q9550

 

[skunksmash]

nice clocks!!! Gunther...

your correct about the RAM mate...... my gskill will do 1140mhz @ 5-5-5-15 but its actually faster @ 800mhz 4-4-4-12

i tried to find a balance between the two @ 1050 4-4-4-12 ..2.2v
but one stick died recently ...should of left it @ 800mhz

 

[xguntherc]

ya thats no good. For a while there I was thinkin maybe my RAM is holding me back. I was trying to use a weird divider and I couldn't get above 3.66 GHz. but now if I go to a 9x multi. and get the FSB higher, then the 1:1 in Sny'd mode is very easy to acheive. and thats in the end. a more stable, and said to be a better OC. so thats what I did. and sure enough it worked.

 

[Mr GRiM]

Here are my new results for the E8500 I just got today.

Now I just need a better graphics card, hmm...

A GTX280 would be nice or two!

 

[Fumz]

Was 1.4 volts something you just entered, or did you find you had to go that high to stay stable? That's a lot for a Wolfdale doing 4GHz. I would hate to see your chip suffer an early death.

 

[Mr GRiM]

I have read that 1.45v is the maximum safe voltage, but the only reason I have it at 4v is because Orthos would fail after a couple of minutes any lower than that. Other than that everything else seemed fine at a lot lower voltage, also when using Orthos voltage drops to 1.35v is this normal?

And the other thing I am worried about are my temps they are a bit high under stress, got to 70-80 and about 40 while idle, need some serious cooling if I want maintain some good clocks with this one!

 

[xguntherc]

uhh... ya you need to NOT do that, those e8500's are great chips. and they OC like mad. but question. are you on stock cooling. Sounds like it. Many people can get those chips to 4 GHz and above on air cooling. but not stock cooling. you need to invest in a good cooler if your going to clock that high.

I'd recommend the TuniqTower, I have one. works great. or the TRUE.
thermalright ultimate extreme. it's supposed to be the best. what do you use?

Also 1.45v -1.5 is ok for the 65nm chips. but I believe it's a little lower for your chip. your chips voltage recommended Max voltage is 1.3625 so I'd recommend staying in that area. and yes when you run orthos it should drop so it running 1.35 at full load is normal. when I run 3.7 GHz on my Quad in BIOS i set it for 1.4812, but when full load it shows up as 1.448

You need better cooling. as the CPU should never go above 70c. most people say an overclock is only considered stable if it stays under 65c at full load. so I'd tone that down a bit until you get a better cooler. and try not running so many volts.

 

[Mr GRiM]

Thanks for the advice, I was using stock cooler but I went out today after work and got the best one I could find in this area. I bought the ASUS Silent Knight II and running Orthos again the temp is back down to 60c and I think that is fairly safe. I was reading on the overkill forum that 4.5v is the maximum safe voltage to run on the 45nm chips, are you sure it is 1.3625v? By the way I was going to get the Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme but nobody had one.

 

[Fumz]

If nobody has the True, you can always opt for the 120+ or the Ultima-90. Surprisingly, the Ultima-90 performs incredibly well: AnandTech: Thermalright Ultima-90: Small Wonder? Those 2 additional heatpipes seem to really make a difference.

1.45 volts is too much for a 45nm core. What you read are, at best, optimistic estimates based on the fact that 1.45 hasn't immediately fried a chip yet, for most people. It's still too soon to say whether or not these cores can handle it. I'd stay under 1.4, and never attempt it with stock cooling.

 

[xguntherc]

ya you'll be ok with that cooler probably. if your able to stay around 50C at MAX during load, then your ok. no more though. maybe 63C at most.

and the TRUE is the Thermalright Ultimate Extreme. they have a normal one called the Thermalright Ultra 120, and the extreme is the TRUE hense the E. it's better, like fumz said, if you can get the 90, or the 120. I'd strongly recommend it. or get it shipped. I know plenty of AU peeps that have them. I use a Australian Forum also.

if you cant find that look for the Tuniq Tower.
Also give this a look for the complete correct Thermal design limits and voltage limits for your CPU.
Filter Summary

Acording to this, the e8500 just like I said, max should be 1.3626. you could probably do 1.4v and be ok, but thats when you might be betting on the life of the CPU. but thats a small ammount over it, don't take my word for it. but it's the people going an entire click over the design limit like you said that are Gambling. I'd not go anywhere above 1.4 like my Q6700 can be up to 1.5v and the higest I've gone yet is 1.4812. I've yet to try 1.49, i think that could get me to 3.8

oh and on that same page i linked to. I found some really cool, and interesting info. Most intel CPU's Max temp limit is 70c, and above that they can be damaged and even have automatic shutdown for protection. but apparently these new 45nm chips can handle more. and thats really really cool. the e8500 with C0 stepping. (Whats ur stepping?) can handle a thermal
design power limit of 72.4 C. thats 2.4 higher than the 65nm chips. that makes a difference in OC's. and even better, the newer e8500 with the new and improved, and great overclocking E0 stepping has a better thermal rating of 74.1 C thats not to shabby, but either way. I'd not go above 65C just to be safe.

 

[Mr GRiM]

Thanks for the advice xguntherc, the cooler I have now seems alot better but could you tell me if the ASUS thermal paste is ok to use or would I be better off using one with silver in it, like Artic silver? I ask because I have some, not Artic silver it just has silver in it, but I read that it can be harmful if you aply it wrong, something about shorting out components.

Also whats the best way you know of apling it?

To answer your question my stepping is 6 and I would say that the temps dont go much over 50c under normal load, it only goes higher when I use Orthos for about 1 hour and the temps max at 60c at night and 65c during the day.

Also I know that my voltage is a bit high but if it stays cool and its stable, will the damage and threat to the life expectancy be fairly minimal?

Please let me know about the thermal paste as I am thinking of tring it out soon!

THanks in advance!!

 

[mpcrsc562]

not too serious oc (2.8 to 3.2). temp stays fairly consistent ~33 degrees C, gets up to 48 degrees C when encoding video. thermaltake silent 939 cooler. as far as that gpu-z shot, i don't know what's up with that! all i can say is that i just installed catalyst 8.9 on 9-20-08--maybe that's the cause (?)