Q6600 Overclocking with 8 GB RAM

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Drsignguy
It is interesting, as I too have my Q9450 @ 3.4 with my 8Gb of ram at 850Mhz.......But wtih my Q6600 on this very same board, could NOT get over 3.2 with 8Gb of ram..Got it to 3.4 with 4Gb....As I said earlier, there have been others that had the same problem with the Q6600 with 8gig.

Do you think it's safe to categorize this more generally as a Kentsfield vs. Yorkfield difference or do you feel it is more likely due to specific SKU's (Q6600 vs. Q9450).

On a related note, do you think you'd see similiar issue using Cloverfield vs. Harpetown Xeons (the LGA775 versions) on your exact same setup?

That extra XEON screening/qualification has to count for something, shouldn't it?

Well this is another great question. If I were to categorize the 2, and based on the information that I have gained, Then yes, It think that the Kentsfield has a more difficult time utilizing 8Gb of ram above 3.2 just by the stress alone that the Q6600 adds to a system. Seems to me that when over clocking the Q6600, it was more of a challenge to get to a certain point on the FSB, just by adding more voltage to FSB ratio as opposed to the Q9450, even with 4Gb of ram or lower. When I was testing, the Q6600 over clocked well but I could tell the "draw" or "stress" that the system was taking. As for the "draw" or "stress" that a Q9450 adds, it is not as noticeable, at all really. This is just my opinion from my experiences with these two chips. I am also guessing that most of the reports I have read about is with 4Gb of ram or lower. But as memory (DDR2) has become much more inexpensive and DDR3 has come into the scene, more and more are purchasing DDR2 at lower costs with higher amounts for their systems.

As for the Cloverfield and the Harpertown Xeon chips, I haven't experienced nor have I read any reports of this kind as of yet. Most likely, because these chips are not as widely used as the mainstream of desktop chips.

 

[n7]

8 GB truely stable = lots of luck & tweaking involved. If you want to be able to heavily overclock CPU & RAM w/ 8 GB & not spend a lot of time in the bios, you're likely outta luck.

I've went through three boards this year because of 8 GB.

My old P5B Deluxe could only do 1:1 or 2:3...couldn't hack the other ratios.
My DFI UT P35-T2R truely hated my 8 GB. Hated everything but 2:3.

And now i have a P5Q Deluxe.
It's easily the best mobo i've used with 8 GB so far.

Very flexible; all ratios work stably without needing tons of NB voltage.

That all said, on all three boards i could stably do 3.5 GHz...CPU clocking wasn't really affected by the RAM, but you have to get the RAM stable obviously to be able to clock the CPU, which is likely more of what this thread is about.

As far as i am concerned, this has little or nothing to do with the CPU.
(Though quads are harder than duals of course.)

Of importance regarding OCing & 8 GB:
1. Motherboard.
There are many craptastic motherboards out there that will not handle 8 GB without all kinds of issues, or that need so much tweaking you will go insane trying to get things stable.

2. Knowledge. You might get lucky & find getting your 8 GB overclocked & stable is easy.
Most likely, you won't though, & without spending a lot of time messing with things in the bios, you'll be limited at least somewhat.

3. RAM itself, though as long as the motherboard has enough adjustable subtimings, you can generally get things going.

 

[hydeprogrammer]

I can only hope someone writes an article as to why this is the case... My first guess is that this is a motherboard issue... I think I am going to have to get an x48 board somewhere so I can try this out myself.

 

[n7]

I'm by no means a guru, but it's pretty much summed up in my above post.

I've run 8 GB on three different motherboards now (P965/P35/P45) & have a pretty decent amount of experience messing with things; it's certainly mostly a motherboard issue if you know what you are doing.

But i also can tell it's partially a user issue, since i see a lot of people who aren't able to/willing to mess with the bios to figure out why they cannot get things stable.

hydeprogrammer, i'm not really familiar with all the options in MSI's bios.

If you can post pics of the related areas in the bios (voltage; timings, & subtimings), i can see if something jumps out at me.

One thing i've tried on all my board is manually loosening every timing.
I never ever see anyone mention they tried that.

Loosening the top four (5-5-5-15) does not cut it at all.

You may need to loosen quite few other subtimings, though unfortunately, i can only tell you two specific ones to worry about; the others will vary board to board (which is why i loosen EVERYTHING sometimes to try things).

tRFC must be loose.
In general, most 8 GB configs will do fine with 52+ even in the DDR2-1000 to 1100 range, but you should always keep that way loose initially. (55-60+).

tRD aka Performance Level is usually okay at auto on most boards, but it's certainly possible it could be set too tight.
MemSet will show the value its at if your bios does not (cheaper mobos won't have adjustable tRD )

Other performance enhancing values will have different names in different bioses, but they too can have a big effect on things.

In general, all subtimings & other RAM related settings all set to auto is not going to work out so well with 8 GB, at least not in my experience.