weird cpu frequency reading for my Q6600

[kevinali]

So here goes,

I usually NEVER OC my processor, but after reading the various forums, i said to my self, what the heck lets try it

Specs:

Gigabyte X38-DQ6
Q6600 B3
4 gb of samsung DDR2-667 ram
EVGA 8800 GTS

i decided to add a mild OC on my processor and have set the following

FSB = 333
Multiplier = 8X
Speed = 2664 Mhz

Vcore set to 1.300V
Vid = 1.2875

using the gigabyte tuning software, it reports a speed of 2664
using CPUZ, it reports a speed of 2664
using Core Temp, it reports 2992 (374 x 8)????
under vista it reports Q6600 @2.4 Ghz then has a 3.0 Ghz beside it

Who do i believe....the bios reports 2664 upon POST

Gigabyte utility reports 37 C idle and 52 load...so assuming this is right, the temps are not that bad for a B3 with a 264 Mhz OC

 

[firewolfsm]

We get so many threads about EIST and C1E it's pathetic.

The rule is:

IF you use a different that stock multiplier for your overclock, disable both of those options in your BIOS.

IF you use the stock multiplier but overclock the FSB, disable it, test for stability, then enable it to save power, then test for stability with the new settings. You should be fine.

 

[kevinali]

I have turned both off in my bios

If your logic hold true about EIST and C1E being enabled then i should get the following frequencies

333 x 6 = 1998 (as EIST and C1E sets the multiplier to 6)
333 x 9 = 2997 (with EIST and C1E off or to a multiplieer of 9 for the Q6600)

Where then does 2664 (as reported by CPU-Z and the Gigabyte EZ Tune software) fit into your reasoning

Kevin

 

[firewolfsm]

Because you tried to set the multiplier to 8 but EIST probably bumped it up to 9.

 

[kevinali]

i did a double check in the bios

I see the C1E disabled
but strange enough...i lost the EIST entry...even though it is listed in the manual and i have seen and disabled this entry before

Before OC...CPU z showed the speed flux between 1600 (266 x 6) and 2400 (266 x 9) and i indeed disable these settings to run max

Weird

Kevin

 

[firewolfsm]

Maybe it's not the best solution but I think you should just use the 9x multiplier for your overclock. Then keep C1E on and save a lot of power.

 

[kevinali]

Yeah

But i do not like the idea of running at 333 x 6 = 2Ghz

Perhaps Gigabyte will release more stable BIOS, as this board is only "Days" old...so to speak

Thanks for your input

Kevin

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: kevinali
Yeah

But i do not like the idea of running at 333 x 6 = 2Ghz

Perhaps Gigabyte will release more stable BIOS, as this board is only "Days" old...so to speak

Thanks for your input

Kevin

You don't like the idea of saving power, thus saving on your power bill? 😕

You do realize Speedstep clocks the CPU back up to full speed the instant you need that extra horsepower?

Keep in mind, it's quite likely that 90% of the time your PC is running it is not utilizing anywhere close to 2 GHz worth of power, nevermind 3 GHz, etc...

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: kevinali
Yeah

But i do not like the idea of running at 333 x 6 = 2Ghz

Perhaps Gigabyte will release more stable BIOS, as this board is only "Days" old...so to speak

Thanks for your input

Kevin

You don't like the idea of saving power, thus saving on your power bill? 😕

You do realize Speedstep clocks the CPU back up to full speed the instant you need that extra horsepower?

Keep in mind, it's quite likely that 90% of the time your PC is running it is not utilizing anywhere close to 2 GHz worth of power, nevermind 3 GHz, etc...

Unless you're folding.. 😀

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: jmmtn4aj
Unless you're folding.. 😀

In which case it would never be running at 2 Ghz, anyway. SpeedStep doesn't "kick in" unless the cpu is idle.