Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 83

Thread: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...




  1. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    Quite the thread here.Iv'e always tried to get my O/C s with as small of voltage increases as possible. I think the EO I have with the UD3P will do
    500 fsb but I get a little leary raising the volts. I can get 4.0 ghz without
    going beyond Intel's spec (3.8 on stock volts was easy) 475 fsb is still good for me,then I get the urge to try 500lol. I try it till it craps out then go back to 475.I'll get there eventually.
    Q9550 EO 4.0ghz 475x8.5 1.325v LLC on
    Gigabyte EP45-UD3P f9c OCZ Vendetta2 w/bolt kit
    4x2gb OCZ PC2 8500 5-6-6-18 1.9v @950mhz
    Asus 4870 512 Scythe Musashi
    Ocz Gamextream 600w
    2x300gb Velociraptors RAID0
    CoolerMaster Stacker 830
    Dynex 32" HDTV on HDMI
    Vista Premium 64-bit

  2. #72
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    178

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    Thanks should also go out to you Storm for your latest post. I salute you, sir.

    My personal feelings about et6 is that it is a marketing tool. I feel it is more of a way for Gigabyte to differentiate their product over others. It makes it seem very simple to oc one's mobo with ease. For those who are not familiar with oc'ing or those who are capable of oc'ing, reading about the ease of oc'ing in et6 does seem intriguing doesn't it? I admit when I was researching which 775 mobo to get, et6 caught my eye even though I have been oc'ing for years. Admittedly, at that time it would have been my first socket 775 board. However, astute oc'ers know better as once they try et6 out, the fallacies and limitations of the software shows up. But by that time et6 would have served its purpose as it would have been a helpful factor to get us to buy the board. Of course there would have been other factors that made us buy their board, but it allowed them to differentiate their product and that is an excellent marketing tool.

    In regards to intel's fact sheets. The question becomes this. If intel designs and tests their chips and pretty much have a good idea about the strengths and limitations of their products, would it not seem reasonable to take it at face value? We are just oc'ing enthusiasts and we don't have the training, the experience nor the skills to challenge the integrity of intel's fact sheets in regards to the vtt limitations. Hence, would it not seem logical to try other oc'ing methods like exploring gtl ref's before exceeding vtt limitations (be they accurate or not)? Once a person chooses to exceed those limitations they are inherently putting them in a higher risk situation than if they were to implement a oc'ing strategy by staying within those limitations. This is the concept that I believe is causing all the problems in this thread. A misunderstanding of the degree and level of risk relative to each oc'ing strategy. You see nobody is disagreeing with the concept that oc'ing has risks. It is the degree of risk relative to another. There is a method to this madness.

    However, if exploring those gtl ref's don't work out to achieve a targeting speed goal, then I have not problem with those who actually do decide to bump those vtt levels above intel's limitations if that is what it takes to successfully achieve their targeting cpu speed. Everybody agrees that is another option. They just have to be aware of the degree of risk they are undertaking and then it is their choice, and knowing that there may be other methods to achieve those same speed goals that may be less risky. Asking for numbers for proof to prove how much risky or how less risky may seem reasonable to prove a point, but lets face it, nobody is going to do the study and controlled experiments, due to the cost and time involved to prove one way or the other. By the time it is done, people would have moved on to the next better product anyways, so there is no financial benefit of doing such studies. But what we can do is use common logic, prudence, other people's successful templates, generally understood oc'ing principles, and use what factual information that is available to use to make qualitative assessments of risk of one strategy relative to another. That is what I feel is the source of all the tension which derailed what should have been an interesting topic to something other than. It is the misunderstanding of the degree of risk in this thread, and some of the reasoning and methodology behind the approach which cast a dark shadow over it. Hence, that is why some people was trying to clear the air a bit about your approach, Storm. Admittedly, it could have have been handled better, but that goes for both sides.

    I am glad that you are willing to try exploring those gtl ref's. Hopefully they work out as they have worked for many, including myself. If not, you still have your original so its all good, and you will still be rocking your chip at 4ghz.

    If you have read some of my previous posts of with bios settings for both my ud3p boards, they all have incredibly low voltages which are 24 prime blend, 12hr large and 12 small prime stable. I have been using these settings for months and problem free. Yes, they are duallies, but the principles and the methodology behind the approach is applicable to quads as well. The absolute values will obviously differ, but that goes without saying. The thing to note is that I found that these gtl ref's can have a profound affect on your other bios settings and oc'ing results. That is why I feel there is an art and a science to oc'ing, especially with this board. I could have pumped my vtt beyond 1.45v and probably could have achieved my targeted cpu speeds. But why would I? If I can rock 4.25ghz at 500fsb at crazy low voltages, why would I want to use a crazy high voltages with all the inherent problems and greater risks involved. Both cases same speed, but option A is less risk, and option B is more risky, why not try to go with option A before going to option B. See what I am getting at?

    All the best.
    Last edited by BoombasticSloth; 08-17-2009 at 05:32 AM. Reason: my bad spelling booboos
    1) Gigabyte EP45-UD3P (rev 1.1, bios F9) E8400 @445x9@1.2625v bios, TRUE 120, Scythe UltraKaze 44cfm, 4x2gb GSkill 8500, Visiontek 3870, Corsair TX850, Antec 900, Win7-64 Home.
    2) Gigabyte EP45-UD3P (rev 1.1, bios F9) E8400 @500x8.5@1.2875v bios, TRUE 120, Schythe UltraKaze 44 cfm, 4x2gb Buffalo FireStyx 8500, XFX 5770, Corsair AX850, CM Scout, WinXP Pro/Win 7-64 Home.
    3) Gigabyte P55A-UD4P (rev 1.0, bios F5) i5 750 @190x20@1.30625v bios, CM Hyper 212+, 4x2gb G.Skill Ripjaw 1600, 7900GS, Corsair TX750, CM Scout, Win7 Pro-64.
    4) Asus P8Z68-V Pro (bios 0801), i5-2500K @44x100@1.248v cpuz, Megahalem rev.B, 4x4gb GSkill Sniper 1600, Corsair AX850, Antec 902, Corsair Performance 3 128GB, Win7-64 Home.


  3. #73
    kick's Avatar
    kick is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Europe,the wild wild west.
    Posts
    1,223

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    505 fsb (marginal performance increase)

    24/7 cpu term 1.42V
    24/7 Pll 1.59V

    nb other figures are secret..well no they arent but 475 fsb +its gonna make a huge diff what your cpu type is/stepping dual quad 65nm/45nm /S /memory type and quantity etc.
    510 is just volts added in the required amounts.
    515 cant be sure if it can be stable for me,until i try some other memory,but not sure if its worth the effort and the cpu/mch etc wont suddenly be dropping to stock V again.
    One consideration in relation to THE ORIGINAL POST is large vPll/vTT may be relevant to 8gb memory,but ive no experience of hi overclocks using 8GB.
    Current Systems:

    Asrock p67 Extreme6.............. Gigabyte EP-45 UD3 ...................... Gigabyte 73 PVM S2
    Intel i5 2500k 4.8ghz................ Intel Q8400 3.8ghz......................... Intel D820 2.8ghz
    Zalman 10x cooler.................... Coolermaster V8............................ HP cooler
    8GB Gskill ripjaw ddr3.............. 4GB Gskill PI ddr2.......................... 4GB samsung ddr2
    60GB ssd/500GB HDD .............. WD 1TB hdd.................................... Seagate 160GB hdd
    GTX 460 1GB x2 SLI ................. Msi 9600GT 512MB(died) ........... Onboard gx
    Win7 64 ,750w psu(ocz)............ Win7 64 ,520w psu,seasonic...... Win XP pro ,400w psu

    HEC 6A34 case . ....................... Jeantec R2 case............................ Packard Bell case

    hoping to upgrade to http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/habicase.shtml
    http://www.flixya.com/video/140325/Animal-launching

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    849

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    Originally Posted by by storm 2313
    I get quite frustrated reading how right away people post that your using high voltages when they don't take into account variables such as Vdroop and program readings fluctuation.
    ^^^^^There it is in a nut shell ladies and gentlemen^^^^^ Arguement over! If you feel froggy leap!

    Nuff said and yes please lock this thread ldsmeasap. Waisted disk space and bandwidth.
    Last edited by Conners; 08-17-2009 at 07:45 AM.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    46

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    Bombasticsloth thank you for your support, and I agree with your points on adjusting what settings are required to bring you to your happy overclocked speed...

    The only thing I find troubling is now the longer this thread is out there
    I'm noticing what I had described all along..

    I mean in the new post KICK responded with he left a link and in it it describes again the same thing that had been debated on this post from the beginning..VTT voltages set to high kill..

    K404 posted in this link from KICK under:

    Test methodology, drawbacks, assumptions, notes.

    The important one! FSB can be summed up very easily: vTerm (some companies call this vTT). This one setting decides how far the FSB goes and an overclocking session will be determined by how far a user is willing to push this. Gigabyte (and Asus) have recently published new charts of what voltages are considered safe, but interestingly, they are significantly different to the accepted safe levels for P35. Several P35 users found that vTT values over 1.35V would quickly degrade or kill their C0 45nm chips. The new safe value is over 1.60V. Seeing as this is a termination voltage primarily for the CPU, Iím not sure how the chipset revision can have such a difference to the safe values. I appreciate a lot of users will need time to come around to this new approach, if they come around to it at all. Intel have not released any updated information in a Whitepaper that I have seen, so user beware!

    As an example of vTT and its effects: setting it to 1.60V got SuperPi 1M stability to 615FSB. 1.64V got that up to 635FSB. No slouch at all! SuperPi32M stability appeared to be around 580FSB at 1.64vTT. (PL11 for all)

    FSB Benching:


    With 1.64vTerm, 1.61vPLL, 1.50vNB, 1:1 @ 5-5-5 RAM timings I managed:

    590FSB 3DM05
    610FSB AM3
    635FSB SPi 1M
    580FSB SPi32M
    610FSB 3DM01
    580FSB for XP Pro installation

    I feel as if I was arguing about what finally got brought out in the open..My voltages are acceptable according to these posts . I don't want to argue, but feel as if I was not even given a chance because certain settings weren't adjusted that were recommended by someone else...

    In the end I tried to adjust the REF voltages and after dropping the VTT found the system unstable.. but I have to say after other people posting more links with what I had said from the beginning makes me realize we should really take a step back as to what we believe safe and not safe is..

    The one thing I will say after all the posting and back and forth arguing is my point came out that other people are using VTT voltages OVER my settings and this should not be ignored..

    Is overclocking with these voltages risky SURE.

    BUT we can't say that using INTEL data sheets are any more accurate with information out there like this contradicting them...

    Last edited by Storm2313; 08-17-2009 at 10:36 AM.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Intel Q9550 (C1 Stepping) @ 4GHZ 500FSB

    Thermalright Ultra 120mm & IC 7 Carat with 120mm Logisys Green LED fan.

    Gigabyte EP45-UD3P (Rev 1.0)

    8 Gigs OCZ Platinum PC-8500 (5-5-5-18)

    2 Western Digital 250 gigs 16mb Cache SATA II's Raid-0 Array

    Vista Ultimate 64 bit Operating System

    PC Power & Cooling Silent 610 watt SLI certified
    80 PLUS

    Cooler Master CM 690 (Nvidia Edition)

    Case Cooling: 3 120mm Logisys Green LED fans, 2 120mm Panaflow top mounted extractors and 1 Cooler Master Silent front mounted Green LED120mm fan

    EVGA GTX 260 (Stock Speed)

  6. #76
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    178

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    Thank you for your kind words and your constructive post.

    I haven't read the link that Kick posted but based on what he mentioned and what you posted in red, I will make some comments. I hope this stays as a constructive discussion.

    You have to realize that these guys are using extreme methodologies because they are after extreme results. I don't think any of use has a problem with that. They are rocking 600 +- fsb, so of course they will have to use high voltages but they are using extreme cooling solutions to cover their basis. You are only rocking 500 fsb, and using air cooling. We are talking about totally different risk profile oc'ing strategies. What Psycho was trying to get people to understand is that it may not be a prudent approach by exceeding intel's vtt limits given that you are only working at 500fsb and 4ghz when you haven't even tried other less risky strategies to being with. Yes, high vtt is another option, but why under your circumstances when there may be a better approach which hasn't even been tried yet? It is, in Psycho's own word "regrettable" that the message got lost in the translation. He just doesn't want novices to just assume that cranking those vtt levels should be fine because those extreme oc'ers are doing it even higher so why shouldn't I. Totally different scenarios. There may be inherently lower risks methods to achieve those goals, which shouldn't be ignored. That is why I said before even for oc'ers, there is a method to their madness. Each oc'er should decide which strategy to use based on what results they are after with a full understanding of not just the inherent risks but the degree of risk for each strategy. Yes, your vtt values seem acceptable according to those posts, but again, they are using extreme solutions for extreme goals, and with different risk profiles. Can you do it? Of course you can. The bigger question is why?

    {edit: expanding on Johnny's adventure before the lock because I like Johnny stories. }
    Let me use an analogy to help explain things. Say Johnny has to cross the street to buy some chocolate bars. There are two routes he can take. One route involves crossing a traffic controlled intersection but it takes longer to get to his destination. The other route involves crossing a non-traffic controlled intersection but he can cut his time in half if he makes it. Clearly the traffic controlled street is a lower risk way than the latter. If Johnny is not in a hurry, it is only prudent to take the longer but safer route. It makes no sense to take the shorter riskier route. However, if Johnny is under a time deadline because he wants to play doctor with the girl next door, he has to take the shorter but riskier route through the uncontrolled intersection as the shorter route means play time with Jenny next door. Heck he sees the other kids crossing the uncontrolled intersection all the time in-spite of the city's do not cross warning signs. The other kids make fun of Johnny because they are all getting to have play time with Jenny, while Johnny isn't because he always crosses the traffic controlled street and so has not enough time for Jenny. What we don't know is the Billy, Kenny, and Sally got run over a few years back. The other kids say don't worry about it, its perfectly safe. Johnny says but momma says Billy, Kenny and Sally go run over a while back. The other kids say "Hey, we cross the uncontrolled intersection all the time and no problem. Do you have any proof positive to back up that it is more risky to cross the uncontrolled intersection?". Johnny's Uncle Bob works for the city and can gather the information for Johnny, but unfortunately he charges 50 bucks an hour and it will take about a week to get the information. By that time, construction of the new intersection that can allow Johnny to get to Jenny's house faster and safer will be complete. Also, Johnny only has 75 cents to his name and only has enough money to buy a chocolate bar and he even has to split half with Jenny in or to play doctor with her. Then Johnny says but what about the city's warning sign. The other kids say don't worry about it, we have done it all the time and we make it across no problem so we don't believe the warning signs are valid. Furthermore, Johnny realizes that the other kids are jocks and are all wearing the latest high performance traction shoes from Nike, and they love the thrill of dodging cars. Johnny looks at his ok developed legs and less capable runners and then wonders. Then Johnny thinks hey that new intersection can get me to Jenny's house faster and safer but it is still under construction. Maybe the on site workmen may stop traffic for me and allow me to use that crossing, but maybe not. Hmmm..... what to do? Notice the why's come into play, and what is most logical and prudent route to take for each purpose or goal.
    {end edit}

    Should we believe intel's fact sheets? They design, fabricate, and test their cpu's so they know what the tolerance levels are for their products. Gigabyte and Asus are mobo manufacturers, not cpu manufacturers. If it ever got down to court, who do you think the judge is going to put more weight on about the vtt limitations. Who will the judge feel is more credible. Based on the balance of probabilities, reasonable man test or whatever, it has to be intel. Ok what do you think is going to happen when a cpu gets borked. Do you say to intel, but hey, the mobo manufacturer and says it's ok. What do you think Intel is going to tell you what the mobo can do? What do you think the mobo manufacturers are going to say when you tell them, but hey, my cpu borked because you said it was ok to increase the vtt to X value. The mobo manufacturer is going to tell you to tell Intel that we say its ok. Again, what do you think INtel is going to say about that? Are the mobo manufacturer going to reimburse your cpu? Hell now. They are only going to warranty their mobo. Are they going to warranty your board because your cpu was borked? Good luck. They are going to say it is your cpu that is defective and not our mobo. You are going to have a tough time rma'ing your mobo under those circumstances. Ok, so we have some results by extreme oc'ers that exceed well beyond intel's vtt limits which contradicts intel's fact sheets. What you aren't reading about are those who have borked cpus as a result of exceeding limitations. The successful ones get more headlines and fanfare. Just because some people have been successful with crazy high vtt levels, it doesn't invalid intel's fact sheet. There will always be exceptions. INtel's fact sheets are more likely to represent the majority of their products they manufacture. Again, we are in no way qualified in refuting intel's fact sheet because we don't have the knowledge, skill, expertise, the equipment, experience, stats and resources to do such a thing. It only seems reasonable to accept these values at face value. It doesn't mean that it holds for all people, but most likely will hold true for most people. It is a logical and reasonable position to take. Hence formulating a oc'ing strategy around it is a logical thing to do. Sure we can go around it, but as long as people know about the why's. That is why I believe, what is being argued about in this thread is more than just about whether high vtt kills cpu's.

    Further, I don't believe that people who are disagreeing with you are not willing to accept the high vtt option. In fact, I am willing to bet that Psycho acknowledges and accepts this option but under the right circumstances. If I am mistaken, Psycho, please correct me.

    All the best.
    Last edited by BoombasticSloth; 08-18-2009 at 05:23 AM. Reason: Expanding on Johnny's adventure before the lock.
    1) Gigabyte EP45-UD3P (rev 1.1, bios F9) E8400 @445x9@1.2625v bios, TRUE 120, Scythe UltraKaze 44cfm, 4x2gb GSkill 8500, Visiontek 3870, Corsair TX850, Antec 900, Win7-64 Home.
    2) Gigabyte EP45-UD3P (rev 1.1, bios F9) E8400 @500x8.5@1.2875v bios, TRUE 120, Schythe UltraKaze 44 cfm, 4x2gb Buffalo FireStyx 8500, XFX 5770, Corsair AX850, CM Scout, WinXP Pro/Win 7-64 Home.
    3) Gigabyte P55A-UD4P (rev 1.0, bios F5) i5 750 @190x20@1.30625v bios, CM Hyper 212+, 4x2gb G.Skill Ripjaw 1600, 7900GS, Corsair TX750, CM Scout, Win7 Pro-64.
    4) Asus P8Z68-V Pro (bios 0801), i5-2500K @44x100@1.248v cpuz, Megahalem rev.B, 4x4gb GSkill Sniper 1600, Corsair AX850, Antec 902, Corsair Performance 3 128GB, Win7-64 Home.


  7. #77
    kick's Avatar
    kick is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Europe,the wild wild west.
    Posts
    1,223

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    ever get the feeling yer banging yer head against a brick wall.
    the thread is nowhere near on topic.
    Nobody is trying to support another ..i dont think.
    Benching the bejaysus out of your board with dual core cpu using water cooling an 1 or 2 x1gb sticks+ high voltages and not worrying because if of your mbrd go zing across the room nps,its not your main system.
    For most its rather different tho

    x:"Hello there I clock my q8200 with 500 fsb at x6 cpu multiplier anybody else got similar"

    z:Well actually I clock my q8200 with 500fsb at x7 multiplier,heres a link to my settings

    x:your settings are rubbish you must use v high voltages like me,who cares if it works or not

    z:Im happy enough the way I am thx.

    x: All must use high voltages ,its best

    p:Well actually no it isnt

    x:yes it is my pc hasnt exploded.

    p:Just because your pc hasnt exploded doesnt mean that others wont

    m:Take it easy, if x wants to use/ has to use some high voltages and doesnt feel other adjustments are necessary..good for him as long as hes not saying its best or that everyone should.

    x:more support here is this piece that i read this way.

    p:Whaaaat..

    s:oh this thread is about fsb voltages ..cool heres something I saw.

    x:more support here is this section.. of the piece linked

    p:Noooo!

    l:mm look lets be reasonable "this is the thread of 1000 nights theres nothing new here. for anyone.

    x:I think I see something in this part here

    p:no words ...sound of machete being sharpened

    k:lets let this die most use A settings some use B settings cos they feel they have to or the manufacturer foced em to.

    x:Aha my new point exactly

    p:!ok Im tired of a circular thread

    k:look here an extreme bencher

    b: lets all be friends

    x: reads extreme as normal.

    b:tries to explain and analyse again but there are so many sentences there,there are bound to be one or 2 usefull ones.
    Current Systems:

    Asrock p67 Extreme6.............. Gigabyte EP-45 UD3 ...................... Gigabyte 73 PVM S2
    Intel i5 2500k 4.8ghz................ Intel Q8400 3.8ghz......................... Intel D820 2.8ghz
    Zalman 10x cooler.................... Coolermaster V8............................ HP cooler
    8GB Gskill ripjaw ddr3.............. 4GB Gskill PI ddr2.......................... 4GB samsung ddr2
    60GB ssd/500GB HDD .............. WD 1TB hdd.................................... Seagate 160GB hdd
    GTX 460 1GB x2 SLI ................. Msi 9600GT 512MB(died) ........... Onboard gx
    Win7 64 ,750w psu(ocz)............ Win7 64 ,520w psu,seasonic...... Win XP pro ,400w psu

    HEC 6A34 case . ....................... Jeantec R2 case............................ Packard Bell case

    hoping to upgrade to http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/habicase.shtml
    http://www.flixya.com/video/140325/Animal-launching

  8. #78
    Lsdmeasap's Avatar
    Lsdmeasap is offline GIGABYTE Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    PCB Island
    Posts
    25,940

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    46

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    Bombastic, you make some very good points, and I totally agree with using the least amount of voltages to prove a stable system..This is really a general rule to overclocking that should be understood.

    The points you make about adjusting other settings to see if you can continue to lower any voltage also is valid..Try all options before resorting to more voltage...

    The one point I disagree on is risk involved being higher..What we do as overclockers is a risk reguardless of when our settings are compared to the INTEL sheets used on previous posts...

    Intel doesn't warranty a cpu after it's been overclocked even if your following the the guidlines they provide with there own data..they simply state that overvolting/overclocking a cpu voids the warranty. I agree with everyones logic that believes that using less voltage should yield a longer life for the cpu or any component for that matter (lower is better with voltage and temperature) but we don't have any proof that a cpu will outlast anyone elses at any voltage setting... so to prove anyone is more at risk is a guess..

    I'm sorry if some feel as I am beating a dead horse, but I still think this discussion has merit.

    You explained that these people are extreme with the results they are after and voltages used..I think anyone pushing a cpu to over 20% it's stock speed is extreme for you it maybe more..point is it's our opinion as what's extreme and what isn't..I used my voltage settings to hit a 41.2% overclock on cpu speed and 50.2% overclock on bus frequency with a C1 stepped cpu and feel that's pretty extreme considering I'm not using an E0 stepped revision which uses less voltage..

    In the end we use what we feel is best for us. Intel data sheets hold merrit to some. Other postings show contradiction to them and people shown exceeding voltages Intel claims and going with motherboard manufacturer claims...Are either phlosophys better not really just a different view point..Logical to one isn't to another..

    As far as your explaining your court theory I think it's a little off point. I know Intel and motherboard manufacturers warrantys are seperate from one another not effecting the other in any way, but I do believe they work together on what the dos and don'ts are with what puts our hardware at risk if not for no more reasoning then to keep the hardware companies as buisness clients...

    I highly doubt Intel would support any motherboard manufacturer printing settings if they were a blatant lie allowing them to be made liable.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Intel Q9550 (C1 Stepping) @ 4GHZ 500FSB

    Thermalright Ultra 120mm & IC 7 Carat with 120mm Logisys Green LED fan.

    Gigabyte EP45-UD3P (Rev 1.0)

    8 Gigs OCZ Platinum PC-8500 (5-5-5-18)

    2 Western Digital 250 gigs 16mb Cache SATA II's Raid-0 Array

    Vista Ultimate 64 bit Operating System

    PC Power & Cooling Silent 610 watt SLI certified
    80 PLUS

    Cooler Master CM 690 (Nvidia Edition)

    Case Cooling: 3 120mm Logisys Green LED fans, 2 120mm Panaflow top mounted extractors and 1 Cooler Master Silent front mounted Green LED120mm fan

    EVGA GTX 260 (Stock Speed)

  10. #80
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    178

    Default Re: Q9550 @ 500FSB On EP45-UD3P...

    Enjoy your computer.
    1) Gigabyte EP45-UD3P (rev 1.1, bios F9) E8400 @445x9@1.2625v bios, TRUE 120, Scythe UltraKaze 44cfm, 4x2gb GSkill 8500, Visiontek 3870, Corsair TX850, Antec 900, Win7-64 Home.
    2) Gigabyte EP45-UD3P (rev 1.1, bios F9) E8400 @500x8.5@1.2875v bios, TRUE 120, Schythe UltraKaze 44 cfm, 4x2gb Buffalo FireStyx 8500, XFX 5770, Corsair AX850, CM Scout, WinXP Pro/Win 7-64 Home.
    3) Gigabyte P55A-UD4P (rev 1.0, bios F5) i5 750 @190x20@1.30625v bios, CM Hyper 212+, 4x2gb G.Skill Ripjaw 1600, 7900GS, Corsair TX750, CM Scout, Win7 Pro-64.
    4) Asus P8Z68-V Pro (bios 0801), i5-2500K @44x100@1.248v cpuz, Megahalem rev.B, 4x4gb GSkill Sniper 1600, Corsair AX850, Antec 902, Corsair Performance 3 128GB, Win7-64 Home.


Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 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
  •