Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    Psycho101: Thanks for the help on this. Your write-up in response to Chike (who's info is also something to think about) shed alot of light on things.

    As far as the [auto] setting for the References, that was a mistake on my part... I DID set the values to .74 and let them boost themselves (currently at .80v).

    As far as being 3.6 stable, I have been running 3.6@1.3v(400x9) for almost 4 months now, with 3 diff motherboards and 2 diff OS's. BUT... I am going to kick off a full LARGE Orthos run and see what comes up.

    I was wondering about the settings on a C0 chip, as everyone has an E0. So... maybe I can/maybe I can't get to 4ghz... but I sure want to try.

    As far as for gaming or not... I state for gaming, as this is my primary gaming system ( I have others for development and graphics editing/conversion.

    I will try these new settings, and see where it takes me!
    __________________
    GA-EP45-UD3P Rev#: 1.1 - F9
    Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHz @ 400x9 3.6GHz 1.280v
    Corsair PC2-6400 CM2X2048-8500C5D @ DDR-1066 5-5-5-15
    BFG GeForce GTX275 896MB DDR3
    RAID: WD 160gb (RAID 0)
    RAID: Maxtor 320gb (RAID 1)
    Thermaltake ToughPower 750w
    Gateway 24" @ 1920x1200

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    J'Habite En Angleterre
    Posts
    2,431

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    Claming GTA has an unusually high load on the CPU suppoerts the possibility that no more CPU power is needed.
    Huh? No, it means the exact opposite. Search around and you'll see a Q6600 at stock almost keeping up with a E8xxx at 3.8GHz. More CPU speed certainly does widen the gap between dual core and quad.

    Again, quoting a test where all the information wasn't laid out is useless. To say less demanding games won't use more speed is vague at best. Define a less demanding game.

    Don't make this another thread bogged down with unnecessary theorising using limited information sources. The guy wants to get his CPU up to as fast a speed as possible, not hear the relative advantages and disadvantages of doing so. He can overclock, then do his own testing to find out the effects on the games he currently plays. More CPU speed certainly isn't going to hurt performance, and who knows what the next game he plays will like in terms of PC specs.

    I certainly wouldn't bother benching until I had some stable configs to play with. Ideally something like a 3.4GHz, 3.6GHz 3.8GHz and possibly 4GHz profile set. The only way to truely judge performance is on a stable PC. Stability issues don't just manifest in blue screens and freezes. Juddering, micro-stuttering and other issues can occur.

    Edit: The primary thing holding you back with a C0 is that they tend to be more thirsty when it comes to Vcore. You'll find that most (not all) C0's will need a higher Vcore for a certain speed compared to an E0. this means that the comfortable zone for max temperatures will be surpassed sooner for a C0, meaning you just can't push them as hard without extremely good cooling. if running water cooling this is less of an issue, and you could almost certainly get 4GHz, all be it with a high ish Vcore.

    @Faustous: Apologies for going off topic. After overclocking, conduct your own tests using a games built in benchmark utility if available and using FRAPS in game. 3DMark Vantage can be useful, but remember that the GFX intensive sections are scripted, so no AI procesing is going on behind the scenes. Also consider a GPU overclock to possibly increase performance in GPU limited games.

    Let us know how you get on with 3.6GHz, and whether or not it's stable. Over night is OK (8 hours) if you want to limit down time. When you're stable move on from there. If you try experimenting with the values discussed (Vcore, CPU Termination, MCH ref while @ 1.2 CPU term and possibly MCH Core, post another template in a new post with your current settings.
    Last edited by Psycho101; 08-03-2009 at 08:44 AM.
    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. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    16+ hours stable with Large FTEs.

    I am going to attempt to bump to 3.8 and see what happens.
    __________________
    GA-EP45-UD3P Rev#: 1.1 - F9
    Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHz @ 400x9 3.6GHz 1.280v
    Corsair PC2-6400 CM2X2048-8500C5D @ DDR-1066 5-5-5-15
    BFG GeForce GTX275 896MB DDR3
    RAID: WD 160gb (RAID 0)
    RAID: Maxtor 320gb (RAID 1)
    Thermaltake ToughPower 750w
    Gateway 24" @ 1920x1200

  4. #14

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    Seems like you have this well in hand, Psycho... here is this if it's helpful.

    On a side note, I lose around 25 FPS in LotRo when running at stock vs. 3.6GHz, however, I see only a 5 FPS gain from 3.6GHz to 4GHz...
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex St. John
    Consider for a moment that what we think of as “intelligence” is the byproduct of a computing architecture that depends on massive parallelism to interact with the world in real time without stalling for progress bars. If our ancestors’ brains had depended on running Vista on current dual-core processors for their survival, they would have been eaten by bears.

    Best Quote Ever...
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho101
    Obey the one and only rule without question when you overclock.... don't cause a fire. Fires are hot and burny... not good.
    Intel E8400 EO@445x9--Gigabyte EP45-UD3P v1.1 ~ F9--EVGA 9800GT @ 700/1750/1100--8GB Gskill 1066

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    J'Habite En Angleterre
    Posts
    2,431

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    Yes, definitely have a read of the thread grishkafool has linked. It contains settings for many different FSB speeds. Be aware that components vary, and as with my suggestions use them as a good starting point to tune your own values as needed.

    You've highlighted something which I think alot of people with a decent GFX card see when overclocking. An initial huge rise in frame rate as you reach a point where you're adiquately processing AI calculations at the speed they're needed, an can provide the card with the information it requires. From 2.33GHz on my Q8200 to 3.2GHz, my Far Cry 2 minimum frame rate was replaced by the same figure as my 2.33GHz average frame rate, average frame rate was close to the 2.33GHz's max frames and 3.2GHz max frame rate was huge in comparison to the non overclocked figure. Going to 3.4Ghz resulted in gains but only in the single digits (7-9 FPS) for the all important minimum FPS figure.
    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. #16
    Chike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,531

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    How surprising indded, 2.33 ro 3.2 is a 37% overclock not including the FSB in it, while 3.2 to 3.4 is only 6%. That's why I said you have to compare the frame rate to memory increase where memory was the only thing that was changed. Compering number of frame without a context, percent increase of CPU speed or memory bandwidth is meaningless.
    Every time the results are less than expected the bottleneck should be identified and addressed to get more substantial results, if possible.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    J'Habite En Angleterre
    Posts
    2,431

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    I agre with the sentiments of your post. It's not essential to convert the frequency into a % overclock to give the statement meaning though. For example if I were able to increase another 37% on top of 3.2GHz, I still wouldn't see as much benefit as the first 37%. Talking about things as clock speed increases is just as valid. a ~1GHz overclock gives huge increases in performance, but adding another 1GHz may not give any where near the benefit. It's diminishing returns.

    To dramatically increase FPS further in my system, an increase in graphical processing is needed. As not many people are able to calculate exactly what they need to remove the GPU as a bottleneck without testing, my approach would be to first repeat the first test with more GPU power added. I would then increase CPU speed again (if possible and see what benefit there is to be had.

    When I recieve my second 4850, I intend on repeating my old tests of 2.8GHz vs 3.9GHz, and then do the same with the pair in crossfire. It won't effect my decision to run at 3.9GHz, it's only for curiousity's sake. This is why I'm an advocate of getting the highest speed you can. As you never know what GPU upgrades are around the corner, you may as well have already put the effort into finding your max speed, as long as you consider it safe for 24/7. You may end up also purchasing a game that responds even more to a fast CPU, and without realising it, be benefiting greatly from your 4GHz.
    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. #18
    Chike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,531

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    If increasing CPU frequency don't give a close to linear increase of performance it means the bottleneck is elswere, and that should be addressed, wether it's FSB, GFX, or PCI-E bus.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    J'Habite En Angleterre
    Posts
    2,431

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    That's exactly what I said. Alot of people aren't going to be able to test FSB scaling unless running E8xxx or Q9550/Q9560 + CPU's. And BTW, PCIE bus, if you mean frequency has zero effect on performance. The number of physical lanes counts, ie 16x is needed for a modern multi GPU card, but difference between say 100MHz PCIe and 120MHz pPCIE is placebo, and natural variation in the benchmarking process.

    If actual bandwidth was an issue, ATI would have enabled the Sideport on their X2's ages ago.
    Last edited by Psycho101; 08-06-2009 at 09:19 PM.
    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. #20
    Chike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,531

    Default Re: E8400 (C0) and EP45-UD3P -- No greater than 3.6 stable

    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho101 View Post
    And BTW, PCIE bus, if you mean frequency has zero effect on performance.
    I fail to see the difference between PCI-E bus and FSB, and how this can be said as a general statement.
    It may not effect most current GPUs, or even any of them, that still do not make full use of the PCI-E bandwidth, but would it be true with future GPUs?
    If you use a x16 GPU that is capable of handling more than x8 bandwidth, at x8 slot would it still be a valid statement?
    Would it be valid for SLI/CrossFire setup with two overclocked highest end GPUs available today?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •