My first OC ;)

[Abaregi]

12

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Looks good, temps aren't bad, vcore is OK. But your not quite stable if it rebooted after 3hrs, either back off the speed just a little or give it a touch more vcore. It should be able to last at least 12hrs or overnight

Actually it should be able to prime indefinately if its completely stable, but for the non critical things I do on my oc'd machines I call it good after a 12 or 24hr run.

 

[KBTuning]

if mine doenst crash during anything i do, then its stable.. untill then i dont fool with it. lol

 

[humanure]

looks good, temps are fine. I usually let prime run for 24 hours. JEDEC is an organization that sets standards for RAM and many other electronics, those numbers are the standards for ddr2 at the specified frequency.

 

[Abaregi]

Ahh firts i thought the Jedec was my timings at different Vdimm or something hehe.
Was a bit unsure thx for clearing that up!

7h stable now, bit annoyed i can't run 8x400
8x390 hasn't been a problem but no matter how a change Vcore, or other voltage and my timings i can't get it to post at any higher.
Guess it's my limit.
Thx for the help, i'm very pleased with this either way

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Abaregi
Ahh firts i thought the Jedec was my timings at different Vdimm or something hehe.
Was a bit unsure thx for clearing that up!

7h stable now, bit annoyed i can't run 8x400
8x390 hasn't been a problem but no matter how a change Vcore, or other voltage and my timings i can't get it to post at any higher.
Guess it's my limit.
Thx for the help, i'm very pleased with this either way

Looks like you've hit the FSB wall on your particular chip, but 8 x 390 / 3.12GHz is not bad. Why are you using the 8x multi though, you should be using a higher multi (like the default 10x ) so you aren't FSB limited when trying to achieve the max overclock.

 

[M1A]

Same question here as Harp ask. Why use the 8x mult is your chip is 10 default? Please explain?

 

[Abaregi]

Ahh, i thought runing the RAM at 1:1 was more beneficial. Seems there is alot of oppinions about that.
Keeping heat and such down, so i wanted a higher FSB. Also thought higher FSB was overall better/faster for system as a whole.
I'll try some att higher multipler see what speed i can attain.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: Abaregi
Ahh, i thought runing the RAM at 1:1 was more beneficial. Seems there is alot of oppinions about that.
Keeping heat and such down, so i wanted a higher FSB. Also thought higher FSB was overall better/faster for system as a whole.
I'll try some att higher multipler see what speed i can attain.

You'll probably keep heat lower (if it really matters) by raising the multiplier and lowering the FSB. You can run the RAM at 1:1 no matter what your FSB is, and the performance impact will be minimal or even nonexistant most of the time.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: Abaregi
Ahh, i thought runing the RAM at 1:1 was more beneficial. Seems there is alot of oppinions about that.
Keeping heat and such down, so i wanted a higher FSB. Also thought higher FSB was overall better/faster for system as a whole.
I'll try some att higher multipler see what speed i can attain.

You will put less strain on your system if you up your multi to 10 and go for 300+. The memory is nice to run 1:1 at the correct freq, but cpu speed is still king. I always go for highest cpu speed within my heat/vcore comfort zone, then look at how to get there using my memory at the fastest bus I can....just remember there are always tradeoffs...

 

[Abaregi]

I tried for 10x320 and had to move Vcore up 3 steps to get stable (havn't primed yet) but just to get windows working properly.
Ran Everest memory bench and lost about 1mb in read/write and about 8ns higher latancy. Runing the RAM at 800 now. (was 780 @ 1:1 before)

Seems the extra 80Mhz for that much more juice and worse RAM performance isn't worth it. I havn't tried for higher yet, got a bit disappointed on the ram bench, but those figues maybe don't have such a big impact. Hard to know what they really mean in real world applications..

Think i'll stick with 8x390 for now since it has been stable at those lower voltages. I'm not really after the absolut highest clock if i have to feed the system so much more voltage. Seems the chip won't go any higher than 3.2 anyway.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: Abaregi
Seems the extra 80Mhz for that much more juice and worse RAM performance isn't worth it. I havn't tried for higher yet, got a bit disappointed on the ram bench, but those figues maybe don't have such a big impact. Hard to know what they really mean in real world applications..

That's kinda what I was trying to say by finding the "sweet spot" on your board with your gear. Looks good so far...

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Abaregi
Ahh, i thought runing the RAM at 1:1 was more beneficial. Seems there is alot of oppinions about that.
Keeping heat and such down, so i wanted a higher FSB. Also thought higher FSB was overall better/faster for system as a whole.
I'll try some att higher multipler see what speed i can attain.

Actually a higher multi will keep things running cooler.

Firstly, it lowers the FSB level, which means a cooler running chipset.

Secondly (this only applies if you have enabled Intel Speedstep) when your chip idles, it reverts to the 6x multiplier. This means a higher FSB will mean the chip also idles at a higher speed. Considering PCs are idle most of the time (unless you run distributed computing) you'd want the lowest possible idle power for maximum power savings.

A higher FSB does have a very slight impact on performance, but we're talking about a 2.4% difference for a 25% increase in FSB speed, which is pretty negligible. You can easily make up for this difference by running at a higher clockspeed.

For example, if you run your current chip at 10 x 320 3.2GHz instead of 8 x 390 3.12GHz, you will essentially get the same or better performance, yet you are still a long way from hitting the FSB wall. Your idle clockspeed will also be reduced to 1.92GHz instead of 2.34GHz (again, only if you enable the Intel Speedstep aka EIST in the BIOS).

EDIT - just read your previous post, if it takes a lot more voltage to get 3.2GHz stable then obviously the power savings argument is rendered moot.

However, the theory is still sound if you run at 10 x 312 for an identical clockspeed to 8 x 390, yes you will get *slightly* lower performance but at least you won't be redlining your chip at the FSB wall.

 

[Abaregi]

Changed it to 10x316 @ 1.344v Been stable for 2h now. Think i dropped a few degrees to, maybe 2-3. Was hovering about 54 on load before and seems to be 50-52 now.
Tried 10x320 again but it really doesn't like it. Was up at 1.42v before i could even use windows normally, sure i could crank it up some more, but i guess that would be quite alot just for the nice number of runing 3.2Ghz and the added heat i get from it..

Running ram @ 4:5, think the small increase i saw i Everest on the ram bench (when i had 1:1) really won't matter anyway.
Seems i got the Higher FSB & 1:1 a litle wrong as to the temps. Thought that was the more "ideal" way to do it. Speedstepping makes some more difference now, and as mentioned my comp does idle quite alot ^^
thx for help & info

 

[harpoon84]

Yeah, as Tweakin said there is a certain 'sweet spot' for a CPU after which it takes a lot more voltage just to get small gains. It looks like you've found it at around 3.16GHz.

4:5 has a very minor improvement over 1:1, something like ~1%, you won't really miss it.