hikman Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 i have a 2.4 Ghz core 2 quad processor, geforce 7600 gs 512 mb graphics card and 1024 mb of ddr2 667 twin2x1024-5400c4 ram could u guide me how to overclock all of these stuff to the max (in the bios though) i even got an asus silent knight cpu cooler which is pretty good for cooling oh yea and i have a 600 watts cooler master psu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Download CPU-z: http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpu-z-141.zip Download Core Temp: http://www.thecoolest.zerobrains.com/CoreTemp/CoreTempBeta.zip Run both. Please post your CPU Revision from CPU-z and your VID from Core Temp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 what did u mean by post your CPU Revision from CPU-z and your VID from Core Temp. firstly the core temp doesnt work ill tell u from my bios utility its cpu temp is 27 degrees Celsius and is runnin at 1.200volts i dont know but in nvidia monitoring tool it shows my cpu voltage as 1.3000 and in the asus pc probe 2 it shows 1.28volts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I need both the CPU revision and the VID. to give you good advice. CPU-z will give you either B3 or G0. Do you have your CPU box? Check the FPO/Batch number. What is it? Check the sSpec on the box. Is it SL9UM or SLACR? Are you running a 64bit OS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 hey man on the box it says SLACR and by running the cpu-z i found out that its revision is G0. whats the difference b/w G0 and B3 is G0 better than B3?? and no im running Windows XP Profesional 32 bit OS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 G0 is a better revision. You are going to be held back somewhat by your DRAM. High overclocks of the CPU with a drastic divider down on the DRAM will likely show some instability and will slow a high overclock down. FSB - Memory Clock Mode: Unlinked CPU FSB: 333 CPU Multi: 9 DDR FSB: 667 tCL: 4 tRCD: 4 tRP: 4 tRAS: 12 Advanced Memory Settings tRRD: Auto tRC: Auto tWR: Auto tWTR: Auto tREF: Auto Async Latency: Auto CMD: 2T CPU Spread Spectrum: Disabled PCIE Spread Spectrum: Disabled MCP PCIE Spread Spectrum: Disabled SATA Spread Spectrum: Disabled LDT Spread Spectrum: Disabled CPU Internal Thermal Control: Enabled Limit CPUID MaxVal: Disabled Enhanced C1 (C1E): Enabled Execute Disable Bit: Enabled Virtualization Technology: Enabled Enhanced Intel Speedstep Tech: Enabled LDT Frequency: 5x PCIEX16_1 Frequency (Mhz): 101 PCIEX16_2 Frequency (Mhz): 101 PCIEX16_3 Frequency (Mhz): 101 SPP<->MCP Ref Clock, Mhz: 201 -- Voltages -- Vcore = 1.30v - 1.35v Vdimm (DRAM Voltage) = 2.1v 1.2v HT: 1.3v NB Vcore: 1.35v SB Vcore: 1.50v CPU VTT: 1.30v This will start you with an ~3.0Ghz overclock. Test with Prime95. Prime95 v25.2 Ready to Download : OS: 9x/Me/NT/2k/XP ---> Download v25.2 Run for ~ 8 hours to be certain of CPU Stability. What are your load temps after at least an hour of Prime95? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 why do u recommend prime 95 what about nvidia's monitoring tools??? and how will i beheld back by my DRAM?? and is this the maximum it can go to so far with these specs,,, and are the latency thingy the optimal values u mentioned i mean it doesnt get better than that right??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 why do u recommend prime 95 what about nvidia's monitoring tools??? and how will i beheld back by my DRAM?? and is this the maximum it can go to so far with these specs,,, and are the latency thingy the optimal values u mentioned i mean it doesnt get better than that right??? I don't know what you mean by latency "thingy". Prime95 is the best program to test your system stability. This is not about monitoring the systems voltages and thermal outputs, it is about stressing the system to be certain it is stable. Yes, you will very likely overclock higher if your staiblity and thermals are good at this level. You can't just jump to the highest level as it is a ladder step up approach. By being held back by the DRAM, I mean that your dram can only go so high and it is rather lower end DRAM. This is not the maximum but you will have to test the system throughput to see when you are choking off your CPU with the lower DRAM speed. Running the CPU very fast does not help if it is running on a low speed bus pathway. There will be a point of diminishing returns with your Quad core and this DRAM. You might wish to go to http://www.overclock.net for more understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 what i meant was the latency timer if u increase it what happens and if u decrease it what'll happen, my cpu temp has risen from 37 to 49 im gettin a little worried. and it seems stable to me 4 now i mean bout 30mins have passed and tell me whats the difference b/w SL9UM and SLACR which one is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 now my cpu temp is going up to 59 degrees am i in trouble?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 I dont know if this is correct but before the overclock and after the overclock i checked the asus pc probe 2 bios utility software and its says warning 1.2 VHT=3.09V SB Core=0.14V CPUVTT=0.26V DDR2 Term=0.02V NB CORE=0.00V Memory=4.08V tell me if this is correct or wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Those numbers can not be right. G0 is a newer revision and runs cooler. It also has less micro errors than the previous B3 version. I told you what to do with Prime95. Please do it. Download Core Temp. It should work fine. If it does not, then there is something at issue with your system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 prime 95 has been running since last night uptill now thats like 8 hrs at least have past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 [Oct 22 07:50] Test 3, 13000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M6198241 using FFT length 320K. [Oct 22 07:57] Self-test 320K passed! [Oct 22 07:57] Test 1, 17000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M5120737 using FFT length 256K. [Oct 22 08:04] Test 2, 17000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M5030735 using FFT length 256K. [Oct 22 08:07] Test 3, 17000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M4980737 using FFT length 256K. [Oct 22 08:11] Test 4, 17000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M4980735 using FFT length 256K. [Oct 22 08:14] Self-test 256K passed! [Oct 22 08:14] Test 1, 160000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M662593 using FFT length 32K. [Oct 22 08:16] Test 2, 160000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M659457 using FFT length 32K. [Oct 22 08:18] Test 3, 160000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M655359 using FFT length 32K. [Oct 22 08:20] Test 4, 160000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M644399 using FFT length 32K. [Oct 22 08:22] Test 5, 160000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M638977 using FFT length 32K. [Oct 22 08:25] Test 6, 160000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M630783 using FFT length 32K. [Oct 22 08:26] Test 7, 160000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M622593 using FFT length 32K. [Oct 22 08:29] Self-test 32K passed! [Oct 22 08:29] Test 1, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M827279 using FFT length 40K. [Oct 22 08:33] Test 2, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M819199 using FFT length 40K. [Oct 22 08:34] Test 3, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M802817 using FFT length 40K. [Oct 22 08:37] Test 4, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M795473 using FFT length 40K. [Oct 22 08:39] Test 5, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M786431 using FFT length 40K. [Oct 22 08:43] Test 6, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M778241 using FFT length 40K. [Oct 22 08:44] Test 7, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M753663 using FFT length 40K. [Oct 22 08:48] Self-test 40K passed! [Oct 22 08:48] Test 1, 19000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M4501145 using FFT length 224K. [Oct 22 08:54] Test 2, 19000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M4458143 using FFT length 224K. [Oct 22 08:58] Test 3, 19000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M4358145 using FFT length 224K. [Oct 22 09:03] Self-test 224K passed! [Oct 22 09:03] Test 1, 22000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3835553 using FFT length 192K. [Oct 22 09:08] Test 2, 22000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3785551 using FFT length 192K. [Oct 22 09:10] Test 3, 22000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3735553 using FFT length 192K. [Oct 22 09:15] Test 4, 22000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3735551 using FFT length 192K. [Oct 22 09:17] Test 5, 22000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3688945 using FFT length 192K. [Oct 22 09:21] Self-test 192K passed! [Oct 22 09:21] Test 1, 100000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M983041 using FFT length 48K. [Oct 22 09:24] Test 2, 100000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M974849 using FFT length 48K. [Oct 22 09:25] Test 3, 100000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M942079 using FFT length 48K. [Oct 22 09:28] Test 4, 100000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M933889 using FFT length 48K. [Oct 22 09:29] Test 5, 100000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M917503 using FFT length 48K. [Oct 22 09:32] Test 6, 100000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M901121 using FFT length 48K. [Oct 22 09:34] Test 7, 100000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M884735 using FFT length 48K. [Oct 22 09:37] Self-test 48K passed! [Oct 22 09:37] Test 1, 84000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1150221 using FFT length 56K. [Oct 22 09:40] Test 2, 84000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1144221 using FFT length 56K. [Oct 22 09:42] Test 3, 84000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1122001 using FFT length 56K. [Oct 22 09:45] Test 4, 84000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1108511 using FFT length 56K. [Oct 22 09:46] Test 5, 84000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1100881 using FFT length 56K. [Oct 22 09:49] Test 6, 84000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1096837 using FFT length 56K. [Oct 22 09:51] Test 7, 84000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1088511 using FFT length 56K. [Oct 22 09:55] Self-test 56K passed! [Oct 22 09:55] Test 1, 27000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3242961 using FFT length 160K. [Oct 22 09:59] Test 2, 27000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3172959 using FFT length 160K. [Oct 22 10:01] Test 3, 27000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3112961 using FFT length 160K. [Oct 22 10:06] Test 4, 27000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M3112959 using FFT length 160K. [Oct 22 10:08] Test 5, 27000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2949121 using FFT length 160K. [Oct 22 10:12] Self-test 160K passed! [Oct 22 10:12] Test 1, 34000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2605473 using FFT length 128K. [Oct 22 10:16] Test 2, 34000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2584313 using FFT length 128K. [Oct 22 10:17] Test 3, 34000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2573917 using FFT length 128K. [Oct 22 10:21] Test 4, 34000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2540831 using FFT length 128K. [Oct 22 10:23] Test 5, 34000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2539613 using FFT length 128K. [Oct 22 10:27] Test 6, 34000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2495213 using FFT length 128K. [Oct 22 10:28] Self-test 128K passed! [Oct 22 10:28] Test 1, 75000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1322851 using FFT length 64K. [Oct 22 10:31] Test 2, 75000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1310721 using FFT length 64K. [Oct 22 10:33] Test 3, 75000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1310719 using FFT length 64K. [Oct 22 10:36] Test 4, 75000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1300993 using FFT length 64K. [Oct 22 10:37] Test 5, 75000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1288771 using FFT length 64K. [Oct 22 10:41] Test 6, 75000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1266711 using FFT length 64K. [Oct 22 10:43] Test 7, 75000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1244881 using FFT length 64K. [Oct 22 10:45] Self-test 64K passed! [Oct 22 10:45] Test 1, 56000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1633941 using FFT length 80K. [Oct 22 10:49] Test 2, 56000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1611557 using FFT length 80K. [Oct 22 10:50] Test 3, 56000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1599549 using FFT length 80K. [Oct 22 10:54] Test 4, 56000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1577771 using FFT length 80K. [Oct 22 10:56] Test 5, 56000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1555947 using FFT length 80K. [Oct 22 10:59] Test 6, 56000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1533349 using FFT length 80K. [Oct 22 11:01] Self-test 80K passed! [Oct 22 11:01] Test 1, 39000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2244765 using FFT length 112K. [Oct 22 11:05] Test 2, 39000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2236671 using FFT length 112K. [Oct 22 11:06] Test 3, 39000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2222517 using FFT length 112K. [Oct 22 11:10] Test 4, 39000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2193011 using FFT length 112K. [Oct 22 11:11] Test 5, 39000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2130357 using FFT length 112K. [Oct 22 11:16] Test 6, 39000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M2122923 using FFT length 112K. [Oct 22 11:17] Self-test 112K passed! [Oct 22 11:17] Test 1, 46000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1933071 using FFT length 96K. [Oct 22 11:22] Test 2, 46000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1911957 using FFT length 96K. [Oct 22 11:23] Test 3, 46000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1899247 using FFT length 96K. [Oct 22 11:28] Test 4, 46000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1877431 using FFT length 96K. [Oct 22 11:29] Test 5, 46000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M1855067 using FFT length 96K. [Oct 22 11:34] Self-test 96K passed! [Oct 22 11:34] Test 1, 3100 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M24903681 using FFT length 1280K. [Oct 22 11:43] Test 2, 3100 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M24903679 using FFT length 1280K. [Oct 22 11:48] Test 3, 3100 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M24092961 using FFT length 1280K. [Oct 22 11:58] Self-test 1280K passed! [Oct 22 11:58] Test 1, 2500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M29311553 using FFT length 1536K. [Oct 22 12:06] Test 2, 2500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M28811551 using FFT length 1536K. [Oct 22 12:12] Test 3, 2500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M28311553 using FFT length 1536K. [Oct 22 12:15] Torture Test ran 9 hours, 16 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings. [Oct 22 12:15] Work thread stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 This is all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 now what should i do to make it even better??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 What are your full load temps? Please use Core Temp. Run Prime95 for ~ 1 hour and post your CORE TEMP results. All four cores... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Please edit both the posts in here where you have filled the page with needless data. ie. This is enough: Session start: 0:7:30, October 23, 2007 CPUID: 0x6FB Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (Kentsfield) Revision: G0 CPU Speed CPU#0 (Core#0) CPU#0 (Core#1) CPU#0 (Core#2) CPU#0 (Core#3) 3000.08 47 48 45 44 3000.08 47 48 46 43 3000.08 47 48 46 43 3000.08 46 48 45 43 I am asking for full load temps. Not idle temps. Download Download Here Prime95 and let it run for ~1Hr. What are the load temps while this program is running? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 isnt there any other modifications i can do so that the computers performance increases?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Do you even read my questions? There is a serious disconnect here. Maybe someone else can help you if you can not read and answer me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 25, 2007 Author Share Posted October 25, 2007 Session start: 2:8:18, October 26, 2007 CPUID: 0x6FB Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (Kentsfield) Revision: G0 CPU Speed CPU#0 (Core#0) CPU#0 (Core#1) CPU#0 (Core#2) CPU#0 (Core#3) 3000.10 60 60 58 56 3000.10 60 60 58 56 3000.10 60 60 58 56 3000.10 60 60 58 56 3000.10 60 60 58 56 3000.10 61 61 58 57 3000.10 60 60 58 56 3000.10 61 61 58 56 3000.10 61 61 58 57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 FSB - Memory Clock Mode: Unlinked CPU FSB: 357 CPU Multi: 9 DDR FSB: 667 tCL: 4 tRCD: 4 tRP: 4 tRAS: 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 25, 2007 Author Share Posted October 25, 2007 man it doesnt go more than (1395MHz) 348Mhz FSB it just hangs any ideas???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekT Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 man it doesnt go more than (1395MHz) 348Mhz FSB it just hangs any ideas???? Vcore = 1.4v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hikman Posted October 25, 2007 Author Share Posted October 25, 2007 man the voltage doesnt make a difference it just starts the bios and then hangs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.