The Corsair User Forums  

Go Back   The Corsair User Forums > Corsair Product Discussion > Memory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 04-23-2008, 04:51 PM
TomGu TomGu is offline
Registered User
TomGu's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 89
POST ID # = 344480
TomGu Reputation: 10
Default

In your post #15 of this thread, you specified a "Refresh to ACT Delay" of 0. However, in the Advanced Timing Control section of the BIOS, there is a column of numbers in white text beside the parameters then there is a column in yellow text in line with the other parameters that have no white column of values, like this (white text is the numbers and yellow text is the word "auto")

Advanced Timing Control (White Text) (Yellow Text)
ACT to ACT Delay (tRRD) 3 auto
Rank Write to READ Delay 3 auto
Write to Precharge Delay 6 auto
Refresh to ACT Delay 42 auto
Read to Precharge Delay 3 auto
Static tRead Value 7 auto
Static TRead Phase Adjust 0 auto

Pressing "enter" on the "auto" beside Refresh to ACT Delay brings up a dialog showing "Min 0", "Max 255", with instructions to "key in a DEC number". When I key in 0 and press enter, the dialog closes and I am returned to the BIOS screen where the value for Refresh to ACT Delay is still shown as "auto". How do I change the value for Refresh to ACT Delay to 0 as you suggested?
Reply With Quote


  #32  
Old 04-24-2008, 02:53 AM
TomGu TomGu is offline
Registered User
TomGu's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 89
POST ID # = 344547
TomGu Reputation: 10
Default

Was able to run memtest (15 passes, no errors) by using a memtest floppy instead of a memtest cd. Since this memtest was run with the 400 mhz FSB and 800 mhz (4,4,4,12) ram settings, I assume the memtest must now be repeated after adjusting the BIOS settings to 445 mhz FSB, the Vcore to 1.35v, and the DDR2 to 890 mhz (5,5,5,15) before entering Windows and running OCCT on the CPU. Is this the correct sequence of events?
Reply With Quote


  #33  
Old 04-24-2008, 03:21 AM
DerekT's Avatar
DerekT DerekT is offline
Registered User
DerekT's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: White Rock, British Columbia
Posts: 10,168
POST ID # = 344549
DerekT Reputation: 10
Default

Set Refresh to ACT Delay = "1". Yes, that would be the correct sequence.
Reply With Quote


  #34  
Old 04-26-2008, 06:28 AM
TomGu TomGu is offline
Registered User
TomGu's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 89
POST ID # = 344857
TomGu Reputation: 10
Default

Set FSB to 445, DRAM at 890, 5, 5, 5, 15 on the latencies, DRAM OverVoltage Control at +.3v, (G)MCH at +.1v, VCore to 1.3225.
Booted to MemTest floppy and ran two passes with no errors.
Rebooted into Windows and took 3-wide screenshot of CPU-Z and shot of OCCT / RealTemp together - both attached.
Ran OCCT test on CPU for one hour. Screenshots halfway through and near end are attached.
Why the large discrepancy between the temps reported by OCCT and RealTemp? Which should I believe?
Are my temperatures during OCCT (67/63 or 57/53, depending on which set you believe) too high? Is a 20 degree increase from idle to load abnormal? Is the quick return of the core voltages to "normal" when OCCT lowered the CPU to "idle" during the final 4 minutes of the test a good sign or is that to be expected?
Based on the VCore voltage graph generated by OCCT (attached), the voltage was between 1.29 and 1.30 except at the beginning and end of the test. If so, it is valid to infer the system might be stable with a lower VCore, maybe 1.30 or even lower?
Would reducing the VCore voltage to 1.30 or lower reduce the core temps significantly under load?
Thanks for the help.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cpuz_3wide_4005.jpg (164.7 KB, 280 views)
File Type: jpg occt_realtemp_4005_beforeOCCT.jpg (126.0 KB, 288 views)
File Type: jpg occt_realtemp_halfwayocct_4005.jpg (128.0 KB, 307 views)
File Type: jpg occt_realtemp_endocct_4005.jpg (131.5 KB, 287 views)
File Type: png 2008-04-26-05h53-VCore.png (17.4 KB, 303 views)
Reply With Quote


  #35  
Old 04-26-2008, 07:13 AM
DerekT's Avatar
DerekT DerekT is offline
Registered User
DerekT's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: White Rock, British Columbia
Posts: 10,168
POST ID # = 344858
DerekT Reputation: 10
Default

The issue with thermals is that OCCT and most other software is following previous tjunctions and not the correct ones for 45nm. Real temp is correct at the maximums, but it does seem that there is no clearly correct idle temps, so follow the Real Temp full load temps.

Research:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=179044

You have a good CPU if you can make 4.0Ghz fully stable with 1.30V. Keep in mind that the stock maximum is 1.25V so you are hardly above that voltage. You can try for lower voltages if you wish but you will not find any real difference in temperatues (my personal opinion, not fact).

It seems to be a good overclock. I would now run OCCT for ~12 hours for a full stable test. It seems that there can be errors in the later hours when you have a very low Vcore. Be certain this is not the case with a good 12 hour OCCT.

1.3225V in BIOS and ~1.3v in Windows gives you a Vdrop of .0225v which is quite minimal.

You should be happy for such a clocking and thermals. I find 1.344v (Windows) with 58C full load temps at 4.05Ghz. I am quite pleased with this result and your CPU is better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TomGu View Post
Set FSB to 445, DRAM at 890, 5, 5, 5, 15 on the latencies, DRAM OverVoltage Control at +.3v, (G)MCH at +.1v, VCore to 1.3225.
Booted to MemTest floppy and ran two passes with no errors.
Rebooted into Windows and took 3-wide screenshot of CPU-Z and shot of OCCT / RealTemp together - both attached.
Ran OCCT test on CPU for one hour. Screenshots halfway through and near end are attached.
Why the large discrepancy between the temps reported by OCCT and RealTemp? Which should I believe?
Are my temperatures during OCCT (67/63 or 57/53, depending on which set you believe) too high? Is a 20 degree increase from idle to load abnormal? Is the quick return of the core voltages to "normal" when OCCT lowered the CPU to "idle" during the final 4 minutes of the test a good sign or is that to be expected?
Based on the VCore voltage graph generated by OCCT (attached), the voltage was between 1.29 and 1.30 except at the beginning and end of the test. If so, it is valid to infer the system might be stable with a lower VCore, maybe 1.30 or even lower?
Would reducing the VCore voltage to 1.30 or lower reduce the core temps significantly under load?
Thanks for the help.
Reply With Quote


  #36  
Old 04-27-2008, 06:52 AM
TomGu TomGu is offline
Registered User
TomGu's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 89
POST ID # = 345025
TomGu Reputation: 10
Default

Kind words but you and RamGuy (early on) get the credit for any progress.
Had concerns about "overtesting" the CPU - actually found a thread online about it and the associated "degradation" some think they have experienced from extensive / extended testing.
Understanding one must test to confirm a stable system, but since benchmarking is not my pursuit, I am trying to find a "low" VCore where the system will support my normal computing activities (no gaming) but might show an error on the most rigorous benchmarking tests over an extended time period.
Set VCore to 1.28125 at boot this morning (wanted 1.28 but BIOS did not offer it) and the system booted normally.
This seems to be a "low" VCore for the system's current performance level (4 GHz) so I am thinkg of 1 -2 hours of OCCT to "confirm stability"at this setting.
I realize that 1 -2 hours of OCCT (or Prime95) is NOT measuring by the "gold standard" that ultimate overclockers use and am
interested to know if you feel this is a major mistake.
Thanks again.
Reply With Quote


  #37  
Old 04-27-2008, 05:37 PM
DerekT's Avatar
DerekT DerekT is offline
Registered User
DerekT's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: White Rock, British Columbia
Posts: 10,168
POST ID # = 345071
DerekT Reputation: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomGu View Post
I am thinkg of 1 -2 hours of OCCT to "confirm stability"at this setting.
I realize that 1 -2 hours of OCCT (or Prime95) is NOT measuring by the "gold standard" that ultimate overclockers use and am
interested to know if you feel this is a major mistake.
It depends on how you use the system. For a system running 24/7 or longterm tasks and rebooted only days or weeks, there can issue singular errors that are cumulative and degenerative.

It's up to you where you go, but be clear, lower voltages can create eletromagetic effects that are as dangerous as overvolting. There MUST be a sweet spot and it is NOT that your system "seems" stable. If it is somewhat stable, then it is very possible that your system is suffering from electrostatic migration, transitory discharge (higher voltage) or drop/droop instabilities leading to corrupt data and longer term physical damage as both the overvolt and undervolt can raise issues that are cumulative and degenerative. This is doubly so in the system that is seldom turned off for any real length of time.

My advice is not to run into the obsessive action of undervolting and not testing for a single extended run. If your CPU can not take this kind of testing, then it is dysfunctional. However, you have learned enough now to go your own way and accept the ramifications of any choices you decide to make.

I personally believe that overclocking and undervolting has damaged many CPUs. DOUBLY so when undervolting with such a high overclock as yours and not testing for long term instability. Look at the more extreme overclockers. They perform SuperPi, etc. Not long term stabilities. Do you think most test for 12 hour stability for no reason? For fun? LOL

If you are longer term instable, then it is certainly possible that longer term degeneration will come about. Remember that these 45nm CPUs are far too new to know about any of the longer term degenerative effects that were seen with 65nm.

I can make 4.5Ghz unstable (longer term) and 1.28v @ 4.0 unstable (longer term) as well. I need more voltage for longer term stability and this will lengthen the life of the CPU as long as it is well cooled for load.
Reply With Quote


  #38  
Old 04-28-2008, 03:43 AM
TomGu TomGu is offline
Registered User
TomGu's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 89
POST ID # = 345127
TomGu Reputation: 10
Default

Good reply, and helpful.
Downloaded and ran SuperPi and it completed 24 interations of [32M] in 13 min 45 sec (see attached). However, I am unsure what this reveals. The system is "short-term" stable? If yes, then we still need a 10-12 hour OCCT or Prime95? If yes, which?
One comment concerning "well cooled for load" - I disabled "CPU Smart Fan Control" in the BIOS then turned the rheostat knob on the Zalman fan speed control up to max which increased the fan speed from about 2150 to about 2450. Not a huge change but maybe every little bit helps.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg superpi.jpg (53.8 KB, 271 views)
Reply With Quote


  #39  
Old 04-28-2008, 06:12 PM
DerekT's Avatar
DerekT DerekT is offline
Registered User
DerekT's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: White Rock, British Columbia
Posts: 10,168
POST ID # = 345284
DerekT Reputation: 10
Default

I would not think that a Dual Core CPU could even be considered short term stable with a single 32m 24 iteration run. You can consider it stable enough to work a multi-thread with your two cores at ~50% for 13 minutes.

It all depends on your definition of stable, either short term or long term. Short term stable to me is 100% of all cores working at ~100% of full load for a good two hours. Long term stable to me is 100% of all cores working at ~100% of full load for ~12 hours.

If your computer might be damaged running a Prime95 test for 12 hours, then it should be RMA'd because there are serious issues with that singular CPU. I perform a 24 hour Prime95 burn in on all my personal machines when I build them. First at stock, then at final overclock. Any issues that arise means RMA of whatever part fails. However, I have NEVER seen a CPU fail in this way. In other words, in all the overclocking I have done, there has never been a fail on a CPU with a 24 hour Prime95 burn in. I have been overclocking since the 286 and working with computers since the Commodore VIC 20. Work! That's what these CPUs were created for by the way and if your overclock is done well, then you have no worry. But stability is paramount with the long term viability of the CPU. Those who tell you that testing the CPU will damage it are, in my view, not at all understanding of the hardware. Poor overclocks, poor cooling, over-volting, undervolting are the killers of hardware. Those who correctly upclock and test for long term stability will not have issues. This is my opinion, whether considered by you or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomGu View Post
Good reply, and helpful.
Downloaded and ran SuperPi and it completed 24 interations of [32M] in 13 min 45 sec (see attached). However, I am unsure what this reveals. The system is "short-term" stable? If yes, then we still need a 10-12 hour OCCT or Prime95? If yes, which?
One comment concerning "well cooled for load" - I disabled "CPU Smart Fan Control" in the BIOS then turned the rheostat knob on the Zalman fan speed control up to max which increased the fan speed from about 2150 to about 2450. Not a huge change but maybe every little bit helps.
Reply With Quote


  #40  
Old 04-30-2008, 03:33 AM
TomGu TomGu is offline
Registered User
TomGu's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 89
POST ID # = 345551
TomGu Reputation: 10
Default

In the Prime95 "Run A Torture Test" dialog box, there are options for:
Small FFTs (maximum FPU stress, data fits in L2 cache, RAM not tested much);
In-place large FFTs (maximum heat, power consumption, some RAM tested);
Blend (test some of everything, lots of RAM tested);
Custom requiring settings for MIN FFT, MAX FFT, Run FFTs in-place, Memory to use, & Time to run each FFT size.
Which of the above is correct for testing my configuration?
Also, in the "Options/CPU/CPU Settings and Information" dialog, is it necessary to specify the amounts of "daytime and nighttime memory" or are the defaults acceptable?
Any other configuration parameters to be set before running Prime95?
Thanks.
Reply With Quote


  #41  
Old 04-30-2008, 03:46 AM
DerekT's Avatar
DerekT DerekT is offline
Registered User
DerekT's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: White Rock, British Columbia
Posts: 10,168
POST ID # = 345553
DerekT Reputation: 10
Default

Since I have already tested the DRAM to be stable, in place Large FFTs for the long term test is the one I use.
Reply With Quote


  #42  
Old 04-30-2008, 10:29 AM
TomGu TomGu is offline
Registered User
TomGu's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 89
POST ID # = 345570
TomGu Reputation: 10
Default

Is it necessary to run two iterations of Prime95 simultaneously if you have a dual core processor? Seen some postings that version 25.4 of Prime95 has the ability to test both cores with only a single iteration of Prime95 running but the latest version at mersenne.org is 24.14.
Reply With Quote


  #43  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:29 AM
DerekT's Avatar
DerekT DerekT is offline
Registered User
DerekT's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: White Rock, British Columbia
Posts: 10,168
POST ID # = 345583
DerekT Reputation: 10
Default

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/.../Prime95.shtml

This will run two iterations.
Reply With Quote


  #44  
Old 04-30-2008, 03:26 PM
TomGu TomGu is offline
Registered User
TomGu's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 89
POST ID # = 345660
TomGu Reputation: 10
Default

Did not do too well.
Is the proper response to increase VCore and try again or are there other steps to be taken before trying again?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg prime95one.jpg (362.0 KB, 262 views)
Reply With Quote


  #45  
Old 04-30-2008, 04:39 PM
DerekT's Avatar
DerekT DerekT is offline
Registered User
DerekT's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: White Rock, British Columbia
Posts: 10,168
POST ID # = 345672
DerekT Reputation: 10
Default

This is what I was telling you about. Had you listened to me and performed the proper voltage settings and tested, you would by now know your sweet spot. You wasted much time playing around with voltages far too low for stability. This is why I was forceful. I knew that you had dropped the Vcore far too low. Set Vcore to 1.32 and retest.

Last edited by DerekT; 04-30-2008 at 04:44 PM.
Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.