Temps too high?

[Ghot]

i just got M2N32-SLI deluxe and a AMD 5000+ 65nm Brisbane Black edition....

with a Zalman 9500 CPU cooler

 

Im currently running Stress Prime 2004 Orthos v0.41.110.18 for about a 1/2 hour now.....Asus probe II sez CPU temp: 48C and MB temp: 36C

 

I upped the mutiplier from 13 to 15...which took the CPU from 2.6 to 3.0ghz

 

How High u think I can take the CPU temp w/o more exotic cooling...I mean whats a good safe number to stop at ?

 

according to Tom's Hardware guide article (which really doesnt mention sfae temps....http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclocker/index.html

 

....at 3.2ghx the RAM divider will default to 8 which will run my RAM at 800...and since its corsair dual channel 800 (PC3200) id like to try to hit 3.2ghz on this CPU....apparently ill have to up the core voltage to 1.4 (from its current 1.39 volts.....

 

 

SO..........48C @3.0ghz/1.39v ?C @3.2ghz / 1.4 volts

 

P.S. Im getting no errors at all so far and both cores at 100%

 

 

so what you guy/gals think should I risk 3.2ghz???

 

Almost forgot....Im using the AI booster that came on the mobo CD...(OCing with it thru windows).....both it and CPU-Z report 3.0ghz but my computer/properties and orthos itslef show 2.6ghz ??

 

 

 

 

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/7582/ocsshc0.jpg

[fatalheadache]

Hello Ghot, I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 65-nm Brisbane for a back up CPU before I got my 6400+ B.E. I got that CPU to 3.1Ghz the Brisbane run much cooler than the Windsors which you may already know that. 48C to me is high I have my 6400+ @3.4 on air I have the Zalmans CNPS9500 AM2 CPU cooler and it has reached 45C and has never went above that. If its not showing at 3.0 in windows from what I have seen while overclocking then you do not have enough volts in it. You said you have it at 1.39v which when I seen that I thought then its not at 3.0. Do some research there is much info you just have to look for it. I would first get it to be stable at a true 3.0Ghz then go from there. Get CPUZ and see what it tells you your CPU is at.

[Ghot]

I mentioned above that CPU-Z and ASUS AI Booster (on desktop overclocking)

both say 3ghs and when i rebooted so did my comp properties and its stable at 3ghz

 

Im concurrently running Orthos Stress test and Diablo II and online HERE typing.

 

As to my question.....I found out that it will error at anything over 15x multiplier

even with a voltage bump......right now EVERYthing is stock cept the multiplier and im stable at 47C

 

The stock settings are 13.5x and 1.39v that gave 2.6ghz

I used the AI booster to raise multiplier (from within windows) 15x and all seems fine to me.

 

All it took was a reboot to have My comp/properties and orthos to show 3ghz also.

 

 

Here is new screenshot:

 

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/170/ocscreenshotyn2.jpg

[fatalheadache]

Hmmm... okay did some searching most say they do not put much volts to get to 3.0 with your CPU thats great. I would still get some thing to tell you what it is at. I have looked around and some have pushed it to 3.2 but with more volts. Temps are what matters since really you do not want to fry any thing. To 48C is high as I would go better safe than sorry.

[fatalheadache]

Oops sorry I didnt see that its late here getting tired lmao. Well as I said 48C is about is far as I would go just to be safe. I would think you should get better cooling to go higher. Hmm nice over clock though looking great so far.

[Ghot]

check my system specs case has 5x80mm fans too....this is 47-48C under FULL 1000% cpu load both cores.....with the ORTHOS stress test NOT running...it way cooler like 35c.....considering mobo and CPU about 12 hours new....Im ecstatic :D

 

im concurrently running Orthos and ASUS probe and Diablo II and PSP7 and on the web HERE and it stopped rising at 47-48c....keep in mind that I dont normally run Orthos Stress test on a daily basis :)

 

I aint even gonna try for 3.2ghz any more...Im happy where its at!

Hell the thermal grease aint even "settled" in yet lol.

[fatalheadache]

Well great overclock I am good at where I am I would just watch the temp but your temps are great. Many have pushed that CPU to 3.2 so you will get there easy I would just break it in a bit at 3.0 since its not even a month old yet lmao. I switched to 64bit big difference to me... glad to see that some still use AMD even though Intel can reach insane speed very easy. good luck

[Xtreeme]

I run mine at 3.2ghz now since HS change. I need to change my profile lol. 5000+ BE. 45c is not high at all. Thats good temp. Under 60c is what you want. If you can keep say around 55c you have nothing to worry about.

 

I can hit 3ghz Undervolted heh. I have the G2 stepping which is the best overclocker however to hit 3.2ghz I have to up the volts two bumps over stock vcore. The bribanes are little cooler not much, my windsor 3800+ runs similar temps and gets same overclock (600mhz) with just one bump in volts so it takes less voltage heh. Cpus vary alot.

 

The one fact with brisbane is once you hit a mhz limit, it on average needs a bit of volts to go higher. Just 200mhz can take a bit of power to get stable.

 

Run orthos for 24 hours before you think its stable aswell. Ive seen many cpus fail the stability test after 8+ hours.

 

 

I still use the A64 for a reason. In mem latency, amd still rips Intel apart. Some programs really count on mem performance and those will run well on A64 platform. (latency and mhz= bandwidth). Higher latency will make lower bandwidth.

[Ghot]

well i switched my exhaust and intake fans to match the Zalman direction...in other words It now sucks in the front and blows out side and rear....and it made ALL the difference. With the old stock HSF on my AMD 2800+ it worked better the other way around coz my coldest ambient air is at back of machine :/ The stock HSF blew either down on the cpu or straight up from it. The ZALMAN has a DEFINITE front to back BLOW lol

 

Check these new numbers...this time running THREE instances of ORTHO's and Diablo II and online here all at same time.....

 

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/4867/woooootts1.jpg

[DerekT]

I still use the A64 for a reason. In mem latency, amd still rips Intel apart. Some programs really count on mem performance and those will run well on A64 platform. (latency and mhz= bandwidth). Higher latency will make lower bandwidth.

 

http://s191.photobucket.com/albums/z225/DaveCim/?action=view&current=36-Prime9511Hours.jpg

 

OK :D:

[Ghot]

FINAL NUMBERS: after 4 hours with 5 instances of orthos, diablo II and a 2sec.cycle slide show of all 1280 x 1024 wallpapers, all running at same time........ max CPU: 47C max mobo: 36C and idle temps of CPU:28C and mobo: 30C...I'm a happy camper...best part didnt even have to go into BIOS to raise multiplier from 13.5 to 15. So Ill let it hang out at 3.0Ghz for a few months then when its good and dusty etc inside....Illl go for 3.2Ghz.....Supposedly 1.4v for CPU shud allow that but I started gettin errors on Orthos and BSOD's...but that was before I switched the case fans to the same airflow direction as the Zalman....I'm so tempted to do it now....but Ill play it safe and wait a while :)

[fatalheadache]

Sweet Ghot any over clock to me is great that you can get stable. I know many will argue that Intel’s whoop on AMD’s or AMD’s whoop on Intel’s. To me you cant compare the two both are designed different I look at it like this… some like Porsche’s some like Ferrari’s both known for fast cars and depending on the model one will beat out the other. You get what you pay for too but that’s with anything really. The few years I have been working on my computer’s you get what work’s for you and usually stick with what has never given you problems. Also the combinations are endless… motherboard, memory, power supply, graphics cards, sound cards etc.. We have many options. My rig I have is no way the best but I can say has never failed me and is why I stick with what I have. See yah @3.2 nice job.

[fatalheadache]

OMG!!! :eek: DerekT now your rig is over kill hahaha very nice set up! Its amazing the computers people have in their homes now a days. :D:

[DerekT]

OMG!!! :eek: DerekT now your rig is over kill hahaha very nice set up! Its amazing the computers people have in their homes now a days. :D:

 

It's just on air.

 

:D:

[fatalheadache]

Wow DerekT that is very impressive I guess with the right set up any thing is possible. Takes planning and research and we all get help along the way which is nice. It is still is a shock to me how fast home computers are compared to a few years ago. I might get some faster ram since it does make quite a difference in performance. Seen the new 9600GTs for graphics but they are still new. I should have looked around at memory before I got mine. Corsair Dominators are on my to do list:D:

[DerekT]

Wow DerekT that is very impressive I guess with the right set up any thing is possible. Takes planning and research and we all get help along the way which is nice. It is still is a shock to me how fast home computers are compared to a few years ago. I might get some faster ram since it does make quite a difference in performance. Seen the new 9600GTs for graphics but they are still new. I should have looked around at memory before I got mine. Corsair Dominators are on my to do list:D:

 

I'm waiting for the 9136 2GB Corsair's at the moment. It seems as though there is still a few years of good life in DDR2 before DDR3 reaches the IC density and latencies that I would want. Probably about the same time Nehalem comes out in the second iteration with an on CPU memory controller. The only issue is that I have not seen any 2GB DRAM sticks that can overclock very much at all. That's rather disappointing.

[fatalheadache]

I'm waiting for the 9136 2GB Corsair's at the moment. It seems as though there is still a few years of good life in DDR2 before DDR3 reaches the IC density and latencies that I would want. Probably about the same time Nehalem comes out in the second iteration with an on CPU memory controller. The only issue is that I have not seen any 2GB DRAM sticks that can overclock very much at all. That's rather disappointing.

 

I have not looked around on the DDR3 yet. I am sure there will be some that can just will take some time.

 

I was looking at server boards maybe my next project or maybe an Intel rig. I mostly just game online so dont need as much to run fine for me. Seems many build super computers :p: I know speed matters for sure but really for what you need to game you dont need very much at all. I didnt know Corsair had made the Twin2X4096. I should have got those instead but oh well gives me a reason to get the Dominators :D:

[Xtreeme]

http://s191.photobucket.com/albums/z225/DaveCim/?action=view&current=36-Prime9511Hours.jpg

 

OK :D:

 

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg184/1xtreeme/4-4-4-10.png

 

? ok?

 

just plain DHX ram.

 

Im at 400mhz, your at 600mhz.

[DerekT]

Sure it's ok. The point is, that even if you were running at 600Mhz and had your data stream running faster, much of that bandwidth is being unused anyway. Core2 is far more advanced with making use of the data that is under operation. Also, the ability of Core 2 to overclock with 100% stability shows out in the testing.

 

When AMD was a better processor, I owned many of them, but sadly, their ability to perform better is not the case anymore and I want the fastest for the money. I will not pay more for less. I am in the industry, have many friends who are working on Phenom (which is anything but a Phenom in my eyes) and X2. I see the testing results first hand and I'm sorry, the AMD is second tier right now. Just because the on core memory controller has a better latency does not change the fact that Core 2 walks around it in all but a few specialized tasks that 99.99% of the world does not use.

 

I'm not calling AMD down. It's good they are around, and when they produce a better processor than Intel and do so for less money, I will once again, be back at their doorstep. That is not the case atm. And when you run Crysis, every extra bit helps for certain.

[Xtreeme]

I wasnt talking about cpu benches I said amd wins in mem. It does, thats clear when $40 ram keeps up with far more $ on the other platform. Doesnt it? IF I were running at 3.6ghz and if I raised my fsb (well refrence clock) it would prob add to the mem bench more. I wasnt talking about anything but mem performance.

 

Now, calling intels latest gen tech superior is news. ITs based on a tweaked old arch. Nothing wrong with that but it is what it is. Also its two dual cores glued together. No diff then having two sockets on mobo with two cpus since intels method uses the fsb to talk between them vs AMD using the HT. The IMC will be copied by intel for a reason-it works. Just like AMD has sse, cause it works. Boths cpus are good. Each ahs the place. Mine was a budget.For $210 I got a new oclocking mobo, with latest chipset and quad core support. A cpu that is made for oclocking with unlocked multiplyer, and 2gb ram kit. Getting mem speed like that, for the $ was great. Thats all. Overall it was better choice for me. You have to admitt, your cpu was alot more, your mobo prob was too and I know the mem was.

 

BTW, Im a system builder Ive built the phenoms and quads. First hand. I even posted here about phenom results. THey arent great. But why are you talking about this? I said right now amd wins in mem benches. heh. There are plenty of apps that benefit from higher mem speed.

[DerekT]

I'm not going to argue with you. When AMD performed better, there was an 80% use of AMD in the Enthusiast market. Now that market since the release of Core 2 technology has been steadily dropping and continues to drop. Have it your way, but clearly the market shows which is a better processor at the moment. By the way, Core 2 cache is shared across the processors in C2D and across the duals in C2Q. So if you speak to "Glued" then you need to speak to C2Q and not C2D which is fully shared. Speaking to one performance attribute and not the other does not give a clear vision of the processor. I personally believe that one needs to look across the board, or they give others incomplete information.

[Xtreeme]

Whos arguing?

 

Lets cover some facts-

I said Intel was faster in cpu benchmarks.

 

From start I was talking about mem performance-you keep straying from that. Dunno why.

 

You said OK and posted a pic like you wooped amd on mem, but ya didnt. So I showed a pic to back it, and on mem that cost alot less. Then you went off on how intel is so great. Never did I say the latest intels werent fast. In fact I didnt say anything other then amd is winning the mem tests. Sheeeeeesh.:D:

 

Each time I answer you it leads further off.....

Amd had a loooooong win streak, Intel has a win streak now. ITs been like this since the Athlon back and forth. Its great for us keeps them affordable. Thats why amd is a great budget cpu now, if they were still winning all the benches then they too would be more expensive. none of that was the point though.

 

BTW till intel has a NATIVE quad core, that means all 4 on one die they are two glued together. This is another fact. Do you know how the cores in a quad talk together? How about the phenom or a64's. Thats my point. Lastly lets not get into the Phenom, I dont care about them. I feel they arent even ready to be sold yet at this point the should have been engineering samples with tons more work done. The mobos for them arent supporting the cpu right, its a nightmare. Even though Intel Quads are two duals glued-they work. At teh end of the day thats what matters. Intel regardless of how its done, is the best quad core today.

[DerekT]

LOL - You're funny

 

You speak of the latency of the on core memory controller being faster but do not want to speak of the other factors of CPU performance?

 

OK

[Xtreeme]

:confused:

 

:roll:

 

:biggrin:

:laughing:

 

its :cool:

 

lol now you edited and add more.

No I was talking about mem speed. Not cpu performance. The fact is that. The Intels arent running the mem as snappy as the amds, end point. They are two diff components mem and cpu ya know.

[DerekT]

Agreed

 

:D:

:biggrin:

:cool:

 

lol now you edited and add more.

No I was talking about mem speed. Not cpu performance. The fact is that. The Intels arent running the mem as snappy as the amds, end point. They are two diff components mem and cpu ya know.

 

I agree with you on that point. But I disagree with you on the perormance aspect. They are components of the CPU. Memory is located on CPU and off CPU. On CHIP and Off CHIP. On board and Off board. They are part and parcel when discussing CPU performance.

 

If you only wish to speak of the on board memory controller of AMD vs the Legacy on motherboard memory controller of Intel, then you need to post your desired limitations in your first post.

 

As I said, you're funny...

 

:P