Post Your Clock Speeds !

[Cursed]

Not well at all I assume. You really need at least a dual core to run it well. A highly clocked single core can't really compare to a processor with more cores. Which is why people aren't buying 3.4GHz P4s anymore and would rather go with a 2.66GHz i5.

[SyphonPayne]

 

Nice Syphon, playing it smart like that

 

To continue from my last post, since I was at work and using my phone:

When I first tried to OC I wasn't thinking and didn't realize until a couple rounds of memory testing (and failing, I might add) at ~3.1Ghz that my RAM speed and CPU multiplier don't allow me to go higher than 3.0Ghz

 

So I cranked it back down to 3.0Ghz (well, 2.997 as you see below, but close enough) and it's as stable as stable can be.

Thanks .

 

Btw, 2997MHz is certainly close enough, lol that's what Intel has their 3GHz Core 2 CPU's run at . You may already know this, but your actual external clock rate is 333MHz. Your CPU has an internal clock multiplier, which in your case can effectively perform 9 internal clock cycles per 1 external clock cycle. So while your CPU is actually running at 333MHz, it is performing effectively as a 2997MHz processor. Your FSB and your RAM are also based on this external clock of 333MHz. While your FSB northbridge may actually be running at 333MHz, since it is "quad-pumped" it can theoretically perform 4 transfers per external clock cycle. So 333MHz external clock rate * 4 transfers per clock cycle = 1332MHz effective bandwidth AKA what Intel calls "1333Mhz FSB." Your RAM is running at double data rate which means that again the actual external clock speed is 333MHz, however the RAM can perform 2 operations per clock cycle, thus giving it effective bandwidth of 666MHz RAM AKA 667MHz RAM.

 

This also explains your finding of your RAM limiting your CPU overclock, because raising the external clock via raising the FSB while having the side effect of overclocking the CPU also has the side effect of overclocking the RAM. Just be glad it doesn't raise the PCI bus speed like it used to in the old days . Used to PC overclocks were limited by PCI devices because raising the external clock also raised the PCI bus speed which a lot of PCI devices did not like. But nowadays a lot of good motherboards have separate timing for the PCI bus, thus PCI devices no longer pose a limit to your overclock .

 

So 2997MHz = 3GHz . Anyway 2997 MHz is 99.9% of 3000 MHz, so you're not missing much .

 

Kinda like my 3.2GHz Q6600 actually says it's running at 3192Mhz because like many Intel boards my board defaults a 1600MHz FSB to a 399MHz external clock rate. I turned down my clock multiplier from 9 to 8 so 399MHz external clock rate * 8 internal cycles = 3192MHz or 99.8% of 3200MHz. It's just how it works . My RAM is at 399MHz as well so it is effectively 798MHz which again is 99.8% of 800MHz.

 

 

[Kyle F]

Thanks for your reply Cursed and Joe. I tested the game out on 2.30GHz, and it runs quite fast actually.

 

EDIT: My god, look at my CPU temperature...

CPU running at 2.35 Ghz

 

EDIT #2:

Edited April 21, 2010 by ItalianStalion

[ptiko]

 

All standard and what not. Still got the stock cooler for now.

[Ebernanut]

All standard and what not. Still got the stock cooler for now.

You might want to check your why your multiplier is reading as 12 instead of 20, and why it's showing the voltage at 0.928. I've heard of this happening with a bad motherboard(it wouldn't happen to be an EVGA motherboard by any chance?) but it might also be that something is set wrong in the BIOS.

[yoječ]

It's just power saving - when CPU is idle, its multipler and voltage lowers. My C2Q Q6600 behaves the same:

Pretty clever thingy I must say.

 

In conclusion - it's not a bug, it's a feature

[Ebernanut]

Yeah, you're right that it might be speedstep or some other power saving setting in the BIOS. I shouldn't have used the word wrong in relation to the BIOS settings since some people like to use the power saving features, however sometimes improper BIOS settings(or a bad motherboard) can cause the multiplier to stay stuck at 12 which is why I used the word wrong. Rereading that I see I should have clarified my thoughts a bit more, to be fair though I never said that it was a problem just that it might be. The only reason I said something is that I've heard of a few people's multiplier being stuck at 12 and thought that they might want to check if that was the case.

[Tornado Rex]

Just OCd my E8400 to 3.5GHz. Still messing around with some stuff but it's running stable at about 50c under load so far.

 

[Cursed]

I clocked mine up to 3.4GHz today on 1.4V and it seems pretty stable. No BSODs or game crashes so far.

 

 

I might try for 3.6GHz next. I've never managed it in the past, too unstable and I don't really like pushing the volts more than they are atm. Either my Phenom II is power hungry, or my motherboard is just crap. Edit - Also which am I to believe. Speedfan tells me my CPU is at 40c, whereas Hardware Monitor says Core 1, 2 and 3 are at 29c.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Cursed

[leik oh em jeez!]

 

Small OC, yet the very highest the CPU, memory, and GPU will go with this setup and still be 100% stable.

[Kanja]

Here are Mine Results Check these Out idon't need any thing to say You can see lol.

 

 

and my CPU-Z Results

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1156600

 

[Kyle F]

BUMP.

 

Let's get this thread back up.

 

My new clock speed is 2.3 GHz, same CPU, though System Properties and CPU-Z do not show it. They say it's 2.2GHz. On dxdiag says 2.3 GHz.

 

System Properties:

http://i37.tinypic.com/25srm84.png

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1334273