Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: What would you try next?




  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    57

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    After (finally) solidifying my stable 9.5x400@2.00D settings, I built upon what I learned and made some further progress last night "climbing the ladder".

    First, I tried my stable settings with the 2.00B strap vs. 2.00D; and it balked. I just figured I'd give it a shot to try and realize the performance benefits of the B strap. Oh well..

    Then, I decided to see how far i could push the FSB with my 9.5 multiplier. I added Vcc, Vtt, PLL, MCH core, and adjusted MCH Ref downward. Within a few tries I was booted into Windows with 9.5x411@2.00D, and I ran some quick p95 tests. Things looked pretty stable, so I pushed further.

    I was able to get what looks like stable settings with 9.5x422@2.00D. Currently running in hour-10 in p95 (blended), and looking good.

    What was interesting is that with the 422 FSB, I first tried loosening my DRRAM timings from 4-4-4-12 to 5-5-5-15, but the system wouldn't boot, and gave the continuous short beeps error code at startup (listed as "power error" in the MB manual). I wonder why that is? I figured looser would mean an easier road to stability. 4-4-4-12 booted fine, BTW. I did have to relax tREAD from 7 to 8, though.

    My max core temps through 10 hr.of testing is 61c. Is that about the "safe limit" for an every-day configuration? I certainly don;'t want to push things too far.

    And one final question: Will I benefit from lowering my multiplier and pushing FSB even further (to the 444-450 range) to get my memory bandwidth up, and keeping my CPU around 3.9-4.1 GHz? Maybe something like 9.0x450@2.00D? ANd if I attempt this, will I likely be able to use my current settings for Vcc, Vtt becaus ethe reasultant CPU speed is roughly the same? (I don't think I want to push my core temps too much further...) A raise in FSB will likely require more MCH Core voltage, though, eh?

    Here's my 9.5x422@2.00D settings, just for record:
    Code:
    Motherboard: Model: EP45-UD3P Rev#: 1.1 Bios Version: F9
    Cpu: e8500
    Ram: 4x2gb OCZ, OCZ2RPR10664GK, www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_ddr2_pc2_8500_reaper_hpc_edition
    Power Supply Unit: Corsair, HX-620, 620w
    
    MB Intelligent Tweaker(M.I.T.)
    Robust Graphics Booster -------------- : [Auto]
    CPU Clock Ratio ---------------------- : [9]
    Fine CPU Clock Ratio ----------------- : [0.5]
    CPU Frequency ------------------------ : [4.0GHz]
    
    Clock Chip Control
    Standard Clock Control
    CPU Host Clock Control --------------- : [Enabled]
    CPU Host Frequency (Mhz) --------------: [422Mhz]
    PCI Express Frequency (Mhz) ---------- : [100]
    C.I.A.2 ------------------------------ : [Disabled]
    
    Advanced Clock Control ------- [Press Enter]
    CPU Clock Drive ---------------------- : <<< 800
    PCI Express Clock Drive -------------- : <<< 900
    CPU Clock Skew (ps) ------------------ : <<< 0
    MCH Clock Skew (ps) ------------------ : <<< 0 
    
    DRAM Performance Control
    Performance Enhance ------------------- : [Disabled]
    Extreme Memory Profile --- (X.M.P.) --- : [Disabled]
    (G)MCH Frequency Latch ---------------- : [Auto]
    System Memory Multiplier -------------- : [2.00D]
    Memory Frequency (Mhz) ---------------- : [1066, 844]
    DRAM Timing Selectable ---------------- : [Manual]
    
    Standard Timing Control
    CAS Latency Time -------- 5 ---------- : [4]
    tRCD  ------------------- 5 ---------- : [4]
    tRP --------------------- 5 ---------- : [4]
    tRAS  ------------------- 15 --------- : [12]
    
    Advanced Timing Control
    tRRD  ------------------- 4 ---------- : [4]
    tWTR  ------------------- 4 ---------- : [4]
    tWR --------------------- 6 ---------- : [6]
    tRFC  ------------------- 68 --------- : [54]
    tRTP  ------------------- 4 ---------- : [4]
    Command Rate (CMD) ------ 0 ---------- : [2]
    
    Driving Strength Profiles (A/B)
    Driving Strength --------- : [Auto]
    
    Static tRead Value (A/B) ---------------- : [8]
    (Note: All other settings in this section left on Auto)
    
    Motherboard Voltage Control
    CPU
    Voltage Types------------ Normal -------- Current -----
    Load-Line Calibration ----------------- : [Disabled]
    CPU Vcore --------------- 1.25 -------- : [1.3250]
    CPU Termination --------- 1.200 ------- : [1.24]
    CPU PLL ----------------- 1.500 ------- : [1.57]
    CPU Reference ----------- 0.760 ------- : [Auto]
    
    MCH/ICH
    MCH Core ---------------- 1.100 ------- : [1.30]
    MCH Reference ----------- 0.760 ------- : [0.765] dropped value to 0.74 when Vtt=1.20
    MCH/DRAM Ref ------------ 0.900 ------- : [1.07]
    ICH I/O ----------------- 1.500 ------- : [1.50]
    ICH Core ---------------- 1.100 ------- : [1.10]
    
    DRAM
    DRAM Voltage ------------ 1.800 ------- : [2.14]
    DRAM Termination -------- 0.900 ------- : [1.07]
    Channel A Reference ----- 0.900 ------- : [1.07]
    Channel B Reference ----- 0.900 ------- : [1.07]
    
    Advanced Settings
    Limit CPUID Max. to 3 ------------------ : [Disabled]
    No-Execute Memory Protect -------------- : [Enabled]
    CPU Enhanced Halt (C1E) ---------------- : [Disabled]
    C2/C2E State Support ------------------- : [Disabled]
    x C4/C4E State Support ----------------- : [Disabled]
    CPU Thermal Monitor 2 (TM2) ------------ : [Enabled]
    CPU EIST Function  --------------------- : [Disabled]
    Virtualization Technology -------------- : [Disabled]
    
    Integrated Peripherals
    Legacy USB Storage Detect  ------------- : [Disabled]
    [Edit: I was able to lower Vcc from 1.3275 to 1.3250 and maintain stability]
    Last edited by corlay; 07-06-2009 at 11:12 PM.
    case: Gigabyte 'Triton 180'
    power: Corsair 'HX-620'
    motherboard: Gigabyte 'GA-EP45-UD3P' (rev.1.1, F9)
    cpu: Intel 'e8500' (E0)
    cooling: Xigmatek 'HDT-S1283'
    memory: OCZ 'Reaper' 4x2gb (OCZ2RPR10664GK)
    storage: Western Digital 'Black' (500gb)
    video: EVGA 'GeForce' GTX-260
    display: Samsung 'SyncMaster' 2333sw

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    J'Habite En Angleterre
    Posts
    2,431

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    Depending a little on luck you may find you don't need any more MCH voltage. Some can run really low MCH Core at 500 FSB +, you may be one of them now you've found a stable RAM multi. Also, don't worry about 2.00B, as at 400FSB + 2.00D would likely be the better performer.

    Usually a higher FSB and a lowered multi will require a little more Vcore than using the maximum multiplier, but not always. It's often a surprise to people that they need to ass a little CPU volts for the same speed, but it is possible. You may also need to change VTT, however if you bench with Prime Large FFT, which is great at finding problems at high FSB and fail, first thing I would do is temporarily raise Vcore 2 ticks to eliminate it as the cause and lower MCH ref to 0.720 @ 1.2VTT.

    At 61c your temps are good. I wouldn't worry until I get to 65c in Prime, but as always lower's better, so work Vcore down as low as possible while maintaining stability.
    Coolermaster CM 690 II advance Case
    Corsair HX750 (CWT, 91%(80+ Gold rated @230V) single 62A 12V rail
    P55A-UD4 v2.0 @ F14
    Core i5 760 @ 20 x 201, 4.02GHz
    TRUE Black with a single Noctua NF-P12 pumping out 55 CFM @ 19db .
    2 x 2GB Mushkin Ridgeback (996902), @ 7-10-8-27, 2010-DDR, 1.66v
    2 x Gigabyte GTX 460 1024MB in SLI (Pre OC'd to 715MHz core and 1800MHz VRAM) @ 850 Core / 4100 Mem.
    Intel X25-M Boot Drive (OS and Programs) 200MB/s Read & 90MB/s Write
    Corsair X32 200MB/s Read & 100MB/s Write
    WD Caviar Blue 640GB C (Steam, Games, Storage, Temp Files & Folders, etc)
    Samsung F3 500GB Backup/Images
    Noctua 1300RPM 19dB case fan (rear extraction)
    3 x 140 MM Coolermaster LED fans (one front intake, one top extraction, one side intake)
    Dell Ultra Sharp 2209WAf E-IPS @ 1680x1050

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    57

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    O-K!

    My 9.5x422@2.00D config has proved to be 24hr. stable in p95.

    So, getting a little ****y;
    I went for 9.5x444@2.00D.

    I had trouble booting to Windows at first,
    and then once I tweaked so windows would boot,
    I would blue-screen in p95 Small FFT.

    Well, as it turns out, at least in part,
    it's just like you said: no more MCH core v may be needed.

    Since I initially raised voltages almost across the board for the 444FSB,
    I tried reverting back to my stable 422FSB, and then only added a bit of Vcc and Vtt:

    Vcc=1.350 < max. Vcc for my e8500, per Intel spec.
    Vtt=1.26

    That almost worked.

    I then kept everything the same, but enabled LLC;
    and am now running a p95 blended test with ~2hrs. under my belt.
    Core temps are ranging from 58c-64c; with a solid avg. of 61c;
    and an idle temp of 41c.

    I may try tomorrow to disable LLC to see if it's really needed,
    but other than that I'm completely satisified with this config.
    It represents a bit more than my initial goal, and is probably the limit temp-wise of what I should run 24-7.

    If this latest config proves stable,
    you likely won't hear from me again...

    [Update: Whelp, it looks like y'all are stuck with me for a while longer.
    I awoke this am to a windows error message saying that prime 95 experienced and unexpected problem,
    and had to be halted. p95 ran for 2.5hrs. before windows stopped it.
    I suppose that's better than a full-on windows blue-screen crash.
    And also better than an error encountered within p95?
    I just re-started p95 on a new blended torture test,
    just to see if the same Windows error happens again.
    Maybe it was just a fluke?]


    Thanks for all the great advice!
    Last edited by corlay; 07-01-2009 at 09:28 PM.
    case: Gigabyte 'Triton 180'
    power: Corsair 'HX-620'
    motherboard: Gigabyte 'GA-EP45-UD3P' (rev.1.1, F9)
    cpu: Intel 'e8500' (E0)
    cooling: Xigmatek 'HDT-S1283'
    memory: OCZ 'Reaper' 4x2gb (OCZ2RPR10664GK)
    storage: Western Digital 'Black' (500gb)
    video: EVGA 'GeForce' GTX-260
    display: Samsung 'SyncMaster' 2333sw

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    57

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    Ok,

    It looks like my system is going to require a large jump in Vcc, Vtt, and maybe MCH for a BIOS config yielding much over 4.0GHz.

    I attempted to get things stable at both 9.5x444@2.00D and 9.5x433@2.00D, and while I could get things to boot to windows ok, one of two cores would fail a p95 blended test usually within the first hour (or minutes!).

    It's possible that I might be able to play around with voltages and timings some more and get one of these stable, but I'm concerned about running a system 24-7 with Vcc set over max. spec (1.350v) and an MCH core over 1.30v. The heat is just too much for my system's cooling capacity, I think.

    I could also try lowering my CPU multiplier from 9.5 to 9.0; but fear that FSB values over 450 will also put too much strain on the MCH.

    So, I'm settling-in on my stable 9.5x422@2.00D config, and am actually p95 testing right now with the Vcc reduced from my previous "good" value of 1.3275 to 1.3125.

    Once I finialize how tight I can get my timing and voltages for this config, I'm going to benchmark against my 9.5x411@2.00D config. The biggest difference between these two is the tREAD setting. I was able to run tREAD=7 @ 411FSB, but had to raise it to 8 for 422FSB stability. (all other DRAM timings and voltages are identical between the two configs)

    I did some research, and read some interesting articles on the AnandTech website yesterday; and they make a pretty compelling case for not sacrificing tREAD for high FSB:
    AnandTech: Intel X38 Tango - Is High FSB Overclocking Worth It?

    And this article is also very interesting, mostly about how the MCH is key in translating data between the CPU and the DRAM:
    AnandTech: ASUS ROG Rampage Formula: Why we were wrong about the Intel X48

    So, I'm going to test each of my 2 stable configs, and see if a lower tREAD trumps a higher FSB, at the same CPU multiplier.

    "Efficiency vs. Power"
    Should be interesting....
    Last edited by corlay; 07-02-2009 at 09:57 PM.
    case: Gigabyte 'Triton 180'
    power: Corsair 'HX-620'
    motherboard: Gigabyte 'GA-EP45-UD3P' (rev.1.1, F9)
    cpu: Intel 'e8500' (E0)
    cooling: Xigmatek 'HDT-S1283'
    memory: OCZ 'Reaper' 4x2gb (OCZ2RPR10664GK)
    storage: Western Digital 'Black' (500gb)
    video: EVGA 'GeForce' GTX-260
    display: Samsung 'SyncMaster' 2333sw

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    J'Habite En Angleterre
    Posts
    2,431

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    If you get errors instantly in prime, try dropping VTT to 1.20 and set MCH Ref to 0.720, then raise VTT back up. If that fails, try 0.700V @ 1.2VTT, then increase VTT bach to where you had it.

    A lower tread won't be better than a higher FSB at the same system multiplier. That wasn't the point of the AnandTech article. The article was refering to something like 8*500 @ tRead=11 versus 9.5*422 @ tRead=8. The increase in FSB at the same multiplier needed to necessitate an increase tRead will always give better performance simply due to the higher CPU speed. To compare as Anand did, you need to raise the FSB and increase tRead while keeping the CPU constant.
    Coolermaster CM 690 II advance Case
    Corsair HX750 (CWT, 91%(80+ Gold rated @230V) single 62A 12V rail
    P55A-UD4 v2.0 @ F14
    Core i5 760 @ 20 x 201, 4.02GHz
    TRUE Black with a single Noctua NF-P12 pumping out 55 CFM @ 19db .
    2 x 2GB Mushkin Ridgeback (996902), @ 7-10-8-27, 2010-DDR, 1.66v
    2 x Gigabyte GTX 460 1024MB in SLI (Pre OC'd to 715MHz core and 1800MHz VRAM) @ 850 Core / 4100 Mem.
    Intel X25-M Boot Drive (OS and Programs) 200MB/s Read & 90MB/s Write
    Corsair X32 200MB/s Read & 100MB/s Write
    WD Caviar Blue 640GB C (Steam, Games, Storage, Temp Files & Folders, etc)
    Samsung F3 500GB Backup/Images
    Noctua 1300RPM 19dB case fan (rear extraction)
    3 x 140 MM Coolermaster LED fans (one front intake, one top extraction, one side intake)
    Dell Ultra Sharp 2209WAf E-IPS @ 1680x1050

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    57

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho101 View Post
    A lower tread won't be better than a higher FSB at the same system multiplier. That wasn't the point of the AnandTech article. The article was refering to something like 8*500 @ tRead=11 versus 9.5*422 @ tRead=8. The increase in FSB at the same multiplier needed to necessitate an increase tRead will always give better performance simply due to the higher CPU speed. To compare as Anand did, you need to raise the FSB and increase tRead while keeping the CPU constant.
    understood.

    But in my case, given that it seems that I've found my comfortable limit for FSB on the 9.5 CPU multiplier; I thought it would be interesting to test FSB=411 & tREAD=7 vs. FSB=422 & tREAD=8 because the FSB are so close to eachother.

    To definitively reveal which is more significant:

    an increase of 11 FSB?
    (on a 9.5 multiplier)

    or

    a decrease of 1 tREAD?
    (on the 2.00D strap)
    Last edited by corlay; 07-03-2009 at 12:15 AM.
    case: Gigabyte 'Triton 180'
    power: Corsair 'HX-620'
    motherboard: Gigabyte 'GA-EP45-UD3P' (rev.1.1, F9)
    cpu: Intel 'e8500' (E0)
    cooling: Xigmatek 'HDT-S1283'
    memory: OCZ 'Reaper' 4x2gb (OCZ2RPR10664GK)
    storage: Western Digital 'Black' (500gb)
    video: EVGA 'GeForce' GTX-260
    display: Samsung 'SyncMaster' 2333sw

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    J'Habite En Angleterre
    Posts
    2,431

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    You'd have to benchmark it to be sure. Not just a RAm bandwidth test and SuperPI, but something more robist like PC Mark Vantage. Register two email addresses to get two free runs and do a before and after.

    I'd guess almost 100% that although RAM bandwidth would drop by 200-350MB/s, the extra 100MHz CPU speed would improve some applications and the RAM bandwidth others. Depends how you use your PC.
    Coolermaster CM 690 II advance Case
    Corsair HX750 (CWT, 91%(80+ Gold rated @230V) single 62A 12V rail
    P55A-UD4 v2.0 @ F14
    Core i5 760 @ 20 x 201, 4.02GHz
    TRUE Black with a single Noctua NF-P12 pumping out 55 CFM @ 19db .
    2 x 2GB Mushkin Ridgeback (996902), @ 7-10-8-27, 2010-DDR, 1.66v
    2 x Gigabyte GTX 460 1024MB in SLI (Pre OC'd to 715MHz core and 1800MHz VRAM) @ 850 Core / 4100 Mem.
    Intel X25-M Boot Drive (OS and Programs) 200MB/s Read & 90MB/s Write
    Corsair X32 200MB/s Read & 100MB/s Write
    WD Caviar Blue 640GB C (Steam, Games, Storage, Temp Files & Folders, etc)
    Samsung F3 500GB Backup/Images
    Noctua 1300RPM 19dB case fan (rear extraction)
    3 x 140 MM Coolermaster LED fans (one front intake, one top extraction, one side intake)
    Dell Ultra Sharp 2209WAf E-IPS @ 1680x1050

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    57

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho101 View Post
    Not just a RAm bandwidth test and SuperPI, but something more robist like PC Mark Vantage.
    I've been using PassMark PerformanceTest for this purpose:
    http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm

    Will that do?

    It cycles thorough a bunch of 2d and 3d apps, with some video tossed-in. Seems comprehensive enough.
    case: Gigabyte 'Triton 180'
    power: Corsair 'HX-620'
    motherboard: Gigabyte 'GA-EP45-UD3P' (rev.1.1, F9)
    cpu: Intel 'e8500' (E0)
    cooling: Xigmatek 'HDT-S1283'
    memory: OCZ 'Reaper' 4x2gb (OCZ2RPR10664GK)
    storage: Western Digital 'Black' (500gb)
    video: EVGA 'GeForce' GTX-260
    display: Samsung 'SyncMaster' 2333sw

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    J'Habite En Angleterre
    Posts
    2,431

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    Looks good. Certainly better than synthetic benchmarks. Only plus about Vantage is it contains exerts from real world programs, where as these are still kind of simulated. Good enough for an approximate idea though.
    Coolermaster CM 690 II advance Case
    Corsair HX750 (CWT, 91%(80+ Gold rated @230V) single 62A 12V rail
    P55A-UD4 v2.0 @ F14
    Core i5 760 @ 20 x 201, 4.02GHz
    TRUE Black with a single Noctua NF-P12 pumping out 55 CFM @ 19db .
    2 x 2GB Mushkin Ridgeback (996902), @ 7-10-8-27, 2010-DDR, 1.66v
    2 x Gigabyte GTX 460 1024MB in SLI (Pre OC'd to 715MHz core and 1800MHz VRAM) @ 850 Core / 4100 Mem.
    Intel X25-M Boot Drive (OS and Programs) 200MB/s Read & 90MB/s Write
    Corsair X32 200MB/s Read & 100MB/s Write
    WD Caviar Blue 640GB C (Steam, Games, Storage, Temp Files & Folders, etc)
    Samsung F3 500GB Backup/Images
    Noctua 1300RPM 19dB case fan (rear extraction)
    3 x 140 MM Coolermaster LED fans (one front intake, one top extraction, one side intake)
    Dell Ultra Sharp 2209WAf E-IPS @ 1680x1050

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    57

    Default Re: What would you try next?

    right you are, Psycho!

    the 9.5x422@2.00D, tREAD=8 performed about 3% better than the 9.5x411@2.00D, tREAD=7 config - across the board in all categories.

    I expected the CPU test to be better,
    but certianly not the DRAM!

    Must be the slightly increased memory bandwidth (DDR-844 vs. DDR-822) trumped the tREAD affect?

    So, now I have a renewed interest in OC higher,
    tREAD be damned!

    Starting working on 9.5x433@2.00D, tREAD=8 again.
    Wish me luck!
    Last edited by corlay; 07-06-2009 at 11:12 PM.
    case: Gigabyte 'Triton 180'
    power: Corsair 'HX-620'
    motherboard: Gigabyte 'GA-EP45-UD3P' (rev.1.1, F9)
    cpu: Intel 'e8500' (E0)
    cooling: Xigmatek 'HDT-S1283'
    memory: OCZ 'Reaper' 4x2gb (OCZ2RPR10664GK)
    storage: Western Digital 'Black' (500gb)
    video: EVGA 'GeForce' GTX-260
    display: Samsung 'SyncMaster' 2333sw

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •