Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

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




  1. #21
    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

    For future GPU's, the PCIe standard would again be altered to accomodate the extra bandwidth needed, just as it was with PCIe 2.0.

    Not even a dual GPU is capable of saturating a 16x PCIe lane.

    You are free to experiment if you wish, but apart from greatly overclocking the PCIe bus being a cause for instability (try it), you're not going to realistically get more than 120MHz (my estimate, not 100% fact) out of it without doing some damage to either hardware or data. It's not just the GPU using the 100MHz timing, the HDD controllers and NIC's use it too, and I can't prove it, but am willing to bet that they're much less tollerant of a PCIe overclock. Data corruption could feasibly happen.

    Imagine the PCIe bus as if it were a FSB of an old motherboard where you couldn't lock the PCI/AGP bus and raise FSB seperately. This is like what raising PCIe frequency does now. Sure, in theory, GFX bandwidth should increase, however the HDD controllers (if on the PCIe bus, NIC's and onboard sound would also be pushed past spec. Who knows what could happen? Anything from data corruption and garbled sound to a blown NIC or sound chip.

    Anyone wanting two dual GPU's should have the sense to go for a 16/16 setup anyway. No amount of PCIe overclocking would make up for the difference.

    I've been PC gaming for a long time, on both PCI, AGP and PCIe based systems. Believe me, if there were any performance to be had from clocking the PCIe bus higher, I'd be taking full advantage of it.

    The theory is sound, but the need isn't there, and unless manufacturers place a separate PCIe controler on the board for all the other gubbins (cost factor etc), weird effects could quite possibly ensue. Leave it well alone IMO, it's fruitless.

    Link to some tests done. Note that this is on a board using a PCIe 1.0 bus, which has less bandwidth than the current standard. The test is quite old, but not ancient. The principles IMO still apply:
    http://www.nbsgaming.com/PCIEBus.html
    Last edited by Psycho101; 08-06-2009 at 10:49 PM. Reason: Added an interesting test on PCIe MHz
    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

  2. #22
    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

    I wasn't saying you should overclock the PCI-E if it's not possible (at least with current architechture). If the CPU stalles and you can't overclock it or the FSB/memory stalled and can't be overclocked, than tough luck, we do with what we have.
    But if there's still a possibility to overclock the FSB and much more if it does not prevent from oveclocking the CPU to it's desired speed it is worth taking a look at IMO, even if there was not enough data in the other results we've seen. Not trying the alternatives is sloppy said someone in another post.
    If I had the means I would experiment, but I don't. My current card stall at 266FSB with CPU at 1.6GHz, with my future ordered card HD4770 I won't be able to either, and of course there's the 418FSB limit.
    But I will try with lower FSBs to see if they make any change at equal CPU speeds when I get the new card.

  3. #23
    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

    It's got nothing to do with trying alternatives. If you want to try it then tell people what happened, then do it. The reason FSB makes a difference is because there is obviously a benefit for more bandwidth. Can that be said equally for every PC? Who knows.

    Like I said, clocking the PCIe bus can effect other systems, and offers sweet FA in terms of performance. The information I provided was purely for informative purpose, not to prove anyone right or wrong. It may save someone the time and effort of bothering trying. After all, why extend a road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes if there isn't even enough traffic to warrant having 4 lanes the majority of the time.

    As for FSB, experiment, whatever. I'm running at the max FSB I can, and so should anyone who's looking to maximise speed, regardless of whether or not it's actually needed. In those cases clocking the FSB any more is irrelevant as they're already at the limit.

    I enjoy discussion as much as anyone else, but this thread is at risk of going way off topic. It's in the realms of relevancy, but only just.

    At the end of the day, knowing that more of X or Y MHz will give a better performance/FPS isn't that relevant. The person who started this thread has a set hardware config, that by the looks of it won't be upgraded in a while. Logically, running everything as fast as possible while maintaining balance is all that's needed, not an in depth discussion about a 20% FSB overclock giving 12% extra performance etc... Maximising the speeds of the installed components to suit someone's wants and needs is what's relevant.

    The OP wants 4GHz. That's fair enough. Once he has 4GHz (if possible) he should look to maximise FSB speed and RAM speed, regardless of how much difference they make. He may have to make compromises along the way, favouring one thing to speed up over another, but he'll have to determine what's best himself, using programs he runs.

    I hope the OP hasn't been put off by the off topic posts. I'd be interested to see how 3.8GHz goes.
    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

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    35

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

    @ Faustous-

    I have the E8400 CO-6, my settings on Intel Burn test to follow. 10 passes on IBT is equal to 16 hours of Orthos & OCCT and will find errors they miss. It is Equal to 8 hours of Prime 95, but Prime95 is best for checking for memory faults when adjusting timings. IBT will get your chip(s) hotter than the other three while the magic happens. I have found that IBT will demand more volts to your Vcore to make your machine stable. Which in turn will produce more heat, but we are talking about stability, right? IBT was built off LinPack, they are the same program. They will both give the same readings, but setting up for the testing on on Linpack is not so easy as IBT. I just use IBT, it's what I was first turned on to so I'll keep using it.
    I recommend it! IBT
    Quote Originally Posted by @ The Guru of 3D
    Software Description
    A program that simplifies the usage of Intel(R) Linpack. Linpack by
    Intel(R) is an extremely stressful program that will put even the most pow-
    -erful X86/X64 CPU in the world at its knees. Load temp under Linpack will
    be up to 22*C higher than the competing software Prime95. This program will
    make usage of Linpack easier and more practical.

    Keep in mind, use this program at your own risk. By using this program, you
    agree that neither I nor Intel shall be responsible for including, but not
    limited to: burned up CPU, fried motherboard, spontaneous room temperature increase, hair loss, or mental stress.

    Tested on Microsoft(R) Windows XP Professional SP2/SP3, XP Professional
    X64 Edition SP2. Tested on Microsoft(R) Windows Vista(tm) X86/X64
    by many awesome users like yourself

    Benefits of using Linpack:
    1. More accurate than Prime95 Small FFTs/Blend.
    2. Takes less time to tell if your CPU/RAM is unstable than Prime95 (usually
    something like 8 minutes Linpack vs 40 hours under Prime95).
    3. Use the same stress-testing engine that Intel uses to test their products
    before they are packed and put on shelves for sale.

    Benefits of using IntelBurnTest:
    1. Simplifies usage of Linpack.
    2. Real-time output of results to the screen.
    3. Simplifies the process of selecting a test size to use.
    4. Better appearance.
    5. Intuitive interface.
    6. Real-time error checking.
    7. System status acknowledgement.

    *As of v2.0, the program will now have real-time result output, as well as
    real-time result checking for system stability based on the consistency
    of the outputted results. The testing will automatically stop if the pro-
    -gram detects such inconsistency. During testing, you should see an ani-
    -mated flame under "Freeze Test". If at any time during the testing you
    see it stop moving, it is most likely that your PC is frozen.

    Credits:
    --------
    AgentGOD - Coding this program, duh
    Cronos (from XS) - for the original the memory size equation
    mikeyakame (from XS) - for notifying me of newer binaries
    WoZZeR999 (from XS) - memory size suggestion
    krille (from XS) - for the constructive criticisms
    Rob Williams (from Techgage) - for testing on a Core i7 platform
    Intel - for Linpack and a Core 2(tm) Quad processor

    Another great tool for adjusting memory clock timings from your desktop and testing it before your set in in your BIOS is Memset, it's around v4 right now and makes overclocking much more efficient than having to go back and forth from the desktop to BIOS. Memsetv4




    Quote Originally Posted by pdxer timings
    This is my 3,600MHz on 1.196Vcore, IBT 10 passes at 75%(1536MB) system memory with 0 error

    Motherboard: Model: EP45-UD3R 1.1 F5
    Cpu: E8400 C0-6 @ 4.005 1.344vcore[CPUID], 1.3562Vcore[BIOS]
    Ram: HyperX 1068/5:6 5-5-5-15-8-2T 2.19V
    PSU: Corsair 650W, 52A @ 12V. @ 380W, 89% peak efficiency

    MB Intelligent Tweaker(M.I.T.)
    Robust Graphics Booster -------------- : Fast
    CPU Clock Ratio ---------------------- : 9x
    Fine CPU Clock Ratio ----------------- : 0
    CPU Frequency -------------------------: 3.6

    Clock Chip Control
    Standard Clock Control
    CPU Host Clock Control --------------- : [Enabled]
    CPU Host Frequency (Mhz) --------------: [400]
    PCI Express Frequency (Mhz) ---------- : [100]

    C.I.A.2 ------------------------------ : [Disabled]

    Advanced Clock Control --------------- : [Press Enter]
    CPU Clock Drive ---------------------- : Auto
    PCI Express Clock Drive -------------- : Auto
    CPU Clock Skew (ps) ------------------ : Auto
    MCH Clock Skew (ps) ------------------ : Auto

    DRAM Performance Control
    Performance Enhance ------------------- : [Disabled]
    Extreme Memory Profile --- (X.M.P.) --- : [Disabled]
    (G)MCH Frequency Latch ---------------- : [Auto]
    System Memory Multiplier -------------- : [2.66d]
    Memory Frequency (Mhz) ---------------- : [1066]
    DRAM Timing Selectable ---------------- : [Manual]

    Standard Timing Control
    CAS Latency Time -------- ?? ---------- : [5]
    tRCD ------------------- ?? ---------- : [5]
    tRP --------------------- ?? ---------- : [5]
    tRAS ------------------- ?? ---------- : [14]

    Advanced Timing Control
    tRRD ------------------- ?? ---------- : [Auto]
    tWTR ------------------- ?? ---------- : [Auto]
    tWR --------------------- ?? ---------- : [Auto]
    tRFC ------------------- ?? ---------- : [Auto]
    tRTP ------------------- ?? ---------- : [Auto]
    Command Rate (CMD) -------------------- : [Auto]- Mine says 0 in BIOS, so I leave it!?!?

    Channel A
    Static tRead Value --------------------- : 8
    tRD Phase0 Adjustment ------------------ : [Auto]
    tRD Phase1 Adjustment ------------------ : [Auto]
    tRD Phase2 Adjustment ------------------ : [Auto]
    tRD Phase3 Adjustment ------------------ : [Auto]
    Trd2rd(Different Rank) ----------------- : [Auto]
    Twr2wr(Different Rank) ----------------- : [Auto]
    Twr2rd(Different Rank) ----------------- : [Auto]
    Trd2wr(Same/Diff Rank) ----------------- : [Auto]
    Dimm1 Clock Skew Control --------------- : [Auto] ps
    Dimm2 Clock Skew Control --------------- : [Auto] ps

    Channel B
    Static tRead Value --------------------- : 8
    tRD Phase0 Adjustment ------------------ : [Auto]
    tRD Phase1 Adjustment ------------------ : [Auto]
    tRD Phase2 Adjustment ------------------ : [Auto]
    tRD Phase3 Adjustment ------------------ : [Auto]
    Trd2rd(Different Rank) ----------------- : [Auto]
    Twr2wr(Different Rank) ----------------- : [Auto]
    Twr2rd(Different Rank) ----------------- : [Auto]
    Trd2wr(Same/Diff Rank) ----------------- : [Auto]
    Dimm1 Clock Skew Control --------------- : [Auto] ps
    Dimm2 Clock Skew Control --------------- : [Auto] ps

    Motherboard Voltage Control
    CPU
    Voltage Types------------ Normal -------- Current -----
    Load-Line Calibration ----------------- : [Enables]
    CPU Vcore --------------- 1.????? ---- : 1.196

    CPU Termination --------- 1.200V* ----- : 1.1
    CPU PLL ----------------- 1.500V* ----- : 1.5

    CPU Reference ----------- 0.755V* ----- : [?] -My default ref is .76. Set VTT to 1.2 with default your MB "CPU Ref"(.755V) and increase VTT to needed volts. CPU Ref will increase with increase of VTT
    CPU Reference2 ---------- 0.800V* ----- : [Auto]-I don't have this setting!

    MCH/ICH
    MCH Core ---------------- 1.100V ------- : 1.22
    MCH Reference ----------- 0.800V ------- : -Set to .800, will increase with CPU VTT when it is increased.
    MCH/DRAM Ref ------------ 0.900V ------ : 1.05= Same as "Channel A/B Reference" & "DRAM Termination", which is half your "DRAM Voltage".
    ICH I/O ----------------- 1.500V ------- : 1.5
    ICH Core ---------------- 1.100V ------- : 1.1
    DRAM
    DRAM Voltage ------------ 1.800V ------- : [2.100]
    DRAM Termination -------- 0.900V ------- : 1.05
    Channel A Reference ----- 0.900V ------- : 1.05
    Channel B Reference ----- 0.900V ------- : 1.05

    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]
    Take note, these temps are on water with this crappy overclocking chip. With My previous OCZ OCZTGLADM 120mm, touching 445*9 @ 1.3562Vcore was scary. IBT would shoot the temps right up to the low/mid 70c's!

    Hope this helps-
    Last edited by pdxer; 08-07-2009 at 03:37 AM.
    Antec 300, E8400/CO-6 4.05GHz CPUID 1.344/BIOSvcore1.3750 VTT1.320 CPURefv0.835/0.76 PLL1.57 Cooled by~
    DD-CPX-Pro
    12V Pump, 3/8"ID-1/2"OD tube, Dual bay reservoir,
    86 Camaro Heatercore, x2 140mm push/pull, MPC-CPU Quad core WB. Hot Day 35c/58c IBT
    KHX8500D2K2/4G 2x2GB HyperX 1080MHz/CAS5-5-5-5-15-tRD9-tRFC54-tWTR13-tRRD3-tRD_WD9-tRTP7-tREF4213-CR2T DRAMv2.2V DRAMRefv1.1 -Getting tighter!
    GA-EP45-UD3R v1.1 F12 MCH1.3 MCHRefv0.835 I/O ICHcore - eVGA GTX275 @ 691/1512/1224
    Games, Media, Programs - WD5001AALS, System - WD500AAKS, Corsair TX650


  5. #25
    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

    10 passes on IBT is equal to 16 hours of Orthos & OCCT and will find errors they miss.
    While I recommend the use of IBT too, I strongly disagree with this point. IBT is not comparable in any way to any other stress test. It's apples and oranges. There is no way anyone can state that it's the same as x hours of another test. A certain system may show an instability with IBT way sooner than Prime, and I don't doubt this statement may be true of select systems, but not every PC is the same, far from it. This is proven by when you state that Prime is better for finding RAM errors. Surely if that's the case, and a system is unstable due to a RAM setting that IBT fails to pick up, that makes IBT useless in that situation. In that case it's not equivalent to any amount of hours of Prime, as in that case it's next to useless.

    The truth is, there is no "best" test. there is also no such thing as absolute stability, just varying degrees of it. With each hour of a test or each pass, the likelyhood of stability increases. There is of course a point where you can say with confidence that a system is extremely unlikely to fail, however you could run Prime for 24 hours and stop it, never knowing that it may have failed at 24 hours 0 minutes and 1 second.

    I can actually enter settings for my current hardware that will pass 50 runs of IBT on max stress, yet fail Prime in 45 minutes. In that case which is the "best" test? Again, I'd say neither. Any system that I quote as stable has passed 50 runs of IBT, 24 hour Prime blend, 12hour Small FFT and 12 hour Large FFT. If I were taking part in a distributed computing scheme such as Folding@Home the tests would be even more rigorous.

    Don't just take my word, search around these forums and others. Of course the IBT programmer is going to boast about how awesome his program is, and it's very usefull, I agree. The part of the software discription which states 8 min IBT = 40 hour Prime is obsurd at best. Intel do use it to test their products, however they do so I'm sure at relatively stock speeds. Also if their aim is to test their CPU products, they would do so in a system where the RAM and chipset are 100% stable already, or IBT wouldn't give the results they're after (|CPU stability testing only).

    In short, IBT is useful, but it is not a catch all, don't bother with anything else kind of program. Use it as an equal to other tests and as a good test of system cooling. Don't use it exclusively, as you may find your system falling on its arse from time to time and wonder why.
    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

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •