help with overclocking q6600

[masterosok]

Here is how I have my overclock:

3.2ghz (400x8)
CPU-DRAM ratio: 1:1.25
Vcore: 1.3025
DDR2: 2.0v
VTT: 1.2375
ICH: 1.50
MCH: 1.25
GTL: 67%

temps at load are 55-57%

note: I live in texas so ambient room temp is kind of high (specially in may )

I just upgraded from ddr2-800 to 1000 and the only think I changed was the cpu-ddr ratio from 1:1 tp 1:1.25.....

What voltages should /settings should I change first from here to get it stable? It ran prime95 small fft for about 6 hours (on the test after the 48k) and then the system crashed

 

[DSF]

Specifically what RAM are you using, and how do you have the timings set? My advice would be to run the RAM at 1:1 with loose timings like 5-5-5-15 and see if that changes anything. It's a good idea to get the CPU stable before you worry about the RAM.

 

[masterosok]

Thanks for the advice... My specs are in the link in my sig, but for reference I am running 4000 MB of G.Skill F2-8000CL5D DDR2-1000 @ CL5-5-5-15 ... Im not really planning on overclocking the memory honestly. I am just trying to get my cpu stable at the moment... I am just curious what I should try first to get it stable at atleast 3.2gHz. I only upped the ratio to the memory would be running at stock instead of understock. I was running small fft in prime which says it doesn't test much memory so I am thinking the CPU o/c caused the crash, just not sure what to adjust next.

 

[Tweakin]

Just be aware that you may not get that quad stable at your desired freq...they really put a demand on your system resources. 3.1~3.3 is where the system resources really start playing a part on the OC.

As said, kick your ram back to 1:1, make sure it's at 5-5-5-15 and then retry.

 

[ShadowFlareX]

I'm with DSF and Tweakin, if you want to know if 3.2GHz is truly stable, set that RAM back to 1:1 for now, test Prime95 again to see if it holds up. This way you can be sure whether the CPU is really stable at that speed or maybe RAM or something else is needing attention.

 

[Drsignguy]

In your sig you state that you have 4 GB of ram. Is this 2x2GB or 4x1GB? Reason is that if you have 4x1 sticks, your banks are full ( adds stress to NB ) and you just may have a much more difficult time getting to your 3.2 OC. Tweakin knows this all too well, as do I. I know we can get the Q6600 to OC well but the higher amount of memory you have can and or will cause instability. Testing your CPU first @ ram set to 1:1 is first priority. If unstable and by overvolting to try to get stable will be a hurdle. I had to settle @ 3.0 due to voltage issues.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i'm in the same exact place as you, q6600 + ddr2 1000.

my current settings are:
CPU: 400 x 8
RAM: 400 x 2.5 = 1000mhz (400 x 1.25 = 500mhz DDR)

what can i increase that would make my system faster?

i know my system is stable under p95 for 24 hours, OCCT ram + CPU stable for 2 hours each.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
i'm in the same exact place as you, q6600 + ddr2 1000.

my current settings are:
CPU: 400 x 8
RAM: 400 x 2.5 = 1000mhz (400 x 1.25 = 500mhz DDR)

what can i increase that would make my system faster?

i know my system is stable under p95 for 24 hours, OCCT ram + CPU stable for 2 hours each.

At this point you would need to bump your vcore and mch voltage up. This might get you another 100Mhz. Then you would bump your vcore up again, and this might get you another 75MHz...

You are right at the point of diminishing returns...you are going to start throwing lots of vcore at your chip to get a couple of hundred MHz out of her. Life of your chip goes down, life of board goes down, heat goes way up and so do your electrical bills

I always lean to the "less is more" theory...I don't care about the fastest, but I will take what Intel will give me. I will always test my chip and see what it can do, and then make a decision as to the additional wear and tear on the system for 200~400MHz.

If you look at my sig, I have taken that chip to 3.8 but the cost of the additional 300MHz is just not worth it to me. At that speed even my Ninja was having a problem dealing with all the thermals the chip was throwing out. Bottom line, if you want to go faster, bump up the voltage and let her rip.

 

[masterosok]

I just need a little more vcore voltage..bumped it up to 1.32v and its running solid now.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: TweakinI always lean to the "less is more" theory...I don't care about the fastest, but I will take what Intel will give me. I will always test my chip and see what it can do, and then make a decision as to the additional wear and tear on the system for 200~400MHz.

Exactly. I've got my E4500 at 2.93GHz. Not the world's most impressive overclock, but it handles everything I throw at it since I'm not doing video work or folding. I can hit that speed, which is a 33% overclock, while running below the stock voltage. Seems like a good deal to me.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: DSF

Originally posted by: TweakinI always lean to the "less is more" theory...I don't care about the fastest, but I will take what Intel will give me. I will always test my chip and see what it can do, and then make a decision as to the additional wear and tear on the system for 200~400MHz.

Exactly. I've got my E4500 at 2.93GHz. Not the world's most impressive overclock, but it handles everything I throw at it since I'm not doing video work or folding. I can hit that speed, which is a 33% overclock, while running below the stock voltage. Seems like a good deal to me.

Yup...I'm all about taking what Intel or AMD will give me for free, and I'll bump the juice a little and see where it can go, but in all my years of OCing, all that extra voltage and thermals is just not worth the gain of 200~400 MHz.