Something interesting I noticed about the new batches of C2Ds

[The Sauce]

I just sold off my "F" batch proc and replaced it with an "A" batch. In testing the "F" proc I ran Orthos dozens of times. In all of those times I never got a "STOP" error in Orthos - it would either crash out to a Error Report screen in Windows or it would reboot the system. Since I changed to the "A" batch, now I consistently get "STOP" screens when I have o/c'ed too high. With both procs I overclocked methodically in small increments (5 fsb or so) so I don't think that it was too big of a jump to explain the odd behavior with the "F" batch.

This makes me wonder if there are fundamental differences between the cores. Maybe some sort of new anti-overclocking technology?

 

[PCTC2]

yeah. the F batch was notorious for it's inability to OC very well. read around the forums. something about Intel and binning. wasn't really paying attention. ha.
EDIT:: Yeah. I've got an A batch too.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Intel doens't want to stop you from overclocking, don't worry,

They only want to make sure it isn't simple and reliable enough that 'everyone' can do it.

Actually, they *really* only want to make sure that no IT department will find it reliable enough that they start OCing business systems with no repercussions.

If anything, your new processor is recovering from errors better than your old one, which is a mixed blessing, because when you're trying to create a completely stable system, you *want* it to crash when it's not stable.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
I just sold off my "F" batch proc and replaced it with an "A" batch. In testing the "F" proc I ran Orthos dozens of times. In all of those times I never got a "STOP" error in Orthos - it would either crash out to a Error Report screen in Windows or it would reboot the system. Since I changed to the "A" batch, now I consistently get "STOP" screens when I have o/c'ed too high. With both procs I overclocked methodically in small increments (5 fsb or so) so I don't think that it was too big of a jump to explain the odd behavior with the "F" batch.

This makes me wonder if there are fundamental differences between the cores. Maybe some sort of new anti-overclocking technology?

My current "B" E6600 does the exact same thing.

It never fails Orthos; rather, it simply crashes the PC.

Kinda weird, since my E6400 & E6300 didn't do that; they errorred out.

 

[The Sauce]

I prefer it when it gives you the "STOP" message. Makes it easier to overclock. Otherwise you dont really know what is going on. You come back andhave a blank desktop.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
I prefer it when it gives you the "STOP" message. Makes it easier to overclock. Otherwise you dont really know what is going on. You come back andhave a blank desktop.

I have a password on my Windows account, so if it crashes out, the system just sits there waiting for the password. Then I know what happened.

 

[Shimmishim]

i always check task maanger to see how long my computer has been idle if it crashes. then i can calculate how long ago it crashed.

 

[imported_yes]

I've been using the 'F' model & tested using Orthos. I've never had random reboots while running this program. Touch wood. They just failed. Reboots happened while gaming. Setting PCIE freq, increasing FSB termination voltage helped in my case.

 

[Mallet]

When I oc my ram too much (or even just wrong timings or voltages) I get stop errors in SP2004, and error messages in programs.

When I oc my cpu too much I get system crashes/random reboots, with SP2004, and my games.

 

[Rafael]

Mine is batch F too and does not restart. I get the STOP screen too.