What programs work beyond 4.3 Ghz?

[LarsK]

Hi guys,

I've been playing around with my 3.4EE, and it clocks pretty well. Now I've been taking it nice and slow, testing very thoroughly (<- and if that's misspelled it's because I'm Danish and too lazy to pick up a dictionary... :p: ). A very promising cpu, was priming yesterday @ 4250 Mhz @ 1.60V under load.

So last night I ran in to an interesting situation. SiSoft and pcmark04 completely f**k's up after I pass the 4.3 Ghz mark, showing a cpu speed of 5 Mhz and gving ridicously low scores as well... However, 3dmark2001se, 3dmark03, SuperPI, Cpumark etc. runs just fine and give the "correct" results.

Now I've already found out, it's because of an integer thing in 32-bit OS's, there's some info
here (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14319) and here (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14149)

But what i'd like to know is, I know a lot of you guys are way over the 4.3 Ghz mark, how do you work around this issue? And what benchamrk programs work corectly? What happens if I clock even further, will WinXP Pro freak out?

I hope it's ok to post it here in the extreme oc section, as it does -at lest in some way- relate to extrem overclocking.... 4.3 Ghz does qualify doesn't it?

[Tom Holck]

Sandra works fine past 4.3-4.7 you name it.

It's because your system is near it's max, you have some instability. Try to losen the ram speed or timings, with the same cpu Speed.


This is an ½ year old OC, with an old erly P4:D
today with a new Pentium my Cascade can pass 5Ghz.

[saaya]

if a P4EE@4.3ghz isnt extreme ocing in dont know what is :D

the lower scores probably have nothing to do with the 4.3ghz mark but are probably related to your system maxing out (memory,chipset,cpu) as tom indicated.

and the doctor prescribes: more volts and better cooling, as always :D

[Karnivore]

Originally posted by saaya
the lower scores probably have nothing to do with the 4.3ghz mark but are probably related to your system maxing out (memory,chipset,cpu) as tom indicated.


Not true, windows itself is KNOWN to be bugged above 4.3, latest Sandra runs fine, older version had the windows bug.. This isn't for all software, just some. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with stability.....


Here is an example... This was taken about 4.35, the processor is 100% stable over 4.5

[LarsK]

Here's what windows says.... 5 Mhz LOL

[LarsK]

Originally posted by Karnivore
Not true, windows itself is KNOWN to be bugged above 4.3, latest Sandra runs fine, older version had the windows bug.. This isn't for all software, just some. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with stability.....


Here is an example... This was taken about 4.35, the processor is 100% stable over 4.5

Hehe, that's just how my scores come out :D SuperPI, 3dmark2001se and 03 work fine, testet them. Prime95 doesn't work properly either, does about 50 iterations a second, looks awsome though :D

I doubted right away that it was stability, @ 252 Mhz I can run dual prime torture for at least 30 mins (haven't bothered to run for any longer period yet), so it would seem odd, that 253 should be totally unstable like that. Especially since the board has been way higher in fsb with previous cpu's.

Now pcmark04 doesn't work properly either, does just like prime, runs all the cpu tests in like 7-10 secs. and gives a way low score...

Oddly enough, I thought I had the latest version of Sandra, just dl'ed it last night. Here's what I get at 4284 Mhz (latest working freq.

[LarsK]

Arrgh hit the wrong button, sorry. Here's the SS I meant to include in the former post

[mikead_99]

For the programs that crap out wit the 2^32 bug, boot a little slower then 4.3GHz and clockgen. This will allow you to run them fine. I had the same issue, then did what I suggested, and could at least run the buggy programs. I don't think the scores quite scaled properly, but they were still somewhat higher then 4.2GHz scores.

[LarsK]

Originally posted by mikead_99
For the programs that crap out wit the 2^32 bug, boot a little slower then 4.3GHz and clockgen. This will allow you to run them fine. I had the same issue, then did what I suggested, and could at least run the buggy programs. I don't think the scores quite scaled properly, but they were still somewhat higher then 4.2GHz scores.

Hmm, ok I will try that. Unfortunately games don't seem to work @ 4.3 Ghz+ (clocked ind the bios at least), just tried to run Need for Speed Underground, and it's running like it's on steroids. Bummer, I was hoping for some 4.4 Ghz 24/7 stable action here.

Just did a SuperPI 32M run @ 4.3 ghz and it works just fine, so I'm sure it would be stable, if windows wasn't bugged/limited.

Anybody know if there's going to be a fix? Or if it's even possible to make a fix?

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to run @ 4284 Mhz 24/7 for now, I guess I can deal with that.

What does surprise me a bit, is that so many people (not that there ARE that many...) who have run above 4.3 Ghz evidently never encoutered the problem. Or have I just been missing the posts?

[mikead_99]

If you look at like AQM3 scores you'll see cpu scores = 0, it runs, just can't rate cpu. FWIW, SuperPi ran fine for me past 4.3GHz. Could be you are hitting cpu instability there too.

Regarding 24/7 over 4.3, you can get clockgen to apply settings on bootup if you really want to.

There has been a thread or two on this, IIRC oc-rookie had one, and there were 1 or 2 more.

[LarsK]

Originally posted by mikead_99
If you look at like AQM3 scores you'll see cpu scores = 0, it runs, just can't rate cpu. FWIW, SuperPi ran fine for me past 4.3GHz. Could be you are hitting cpu instability there too.

I may have expressed myself wrong, SuperPI 32M runs fine @ 4300 Mhz, just did a test with ram @ only5:4 while I was surfing etc... I have a screenshot uploaded here (http://www.overclocking.dk/billedbrowser.asp?id=7913&pic=7)


Regarding 24/7 over 4.3, you can get clockgen to apply settings on bootup if you really want to.

There has been a thread or two on this, IIRC oc-rookie had one, and there were 1 or 2 more. [/B]

Excellent, I'll look around for more information. May as well clock a little more, testet 4250 Mhz yesterday, and there I'm primestable @ only 1.60V Vcore under load and cpu temp @ max -24°C (Asus P4C800E / MBM reading). So I'm quite confident it would be good for around 4.4 Ghz 24/7 stable. Now if only Windows would "work" :p:

[mikead_99]

Good luck man, I think I forgot to add earlier, I'm extremely jealous. :D

[LarsK]

Originally posted by mikead_99
Good luck man, I think I forgot to add earlier, I'm extremely jealous. :D

LOL, thanks. I simply love this cpu, had initially hoped for 4.25 Ghz 24/7 stable speed and was blown away by the fact it ran prime torture @ as little Vcore as 1.60V under load. It did 4.1 Ghz @ default voltage (1.55V for this cpu) in the Mach completely stable... My 3.2EE needed like 1.95V just to get into Win at that speed, and it wasn't remotely stable.

It's a bit of a bummer being "held back" by one's OS, but I guess I can't really complain about the cpu :p:

[hipro5]

Just install Windows 2003 Server and you'll be OK....... ;)

http://www.thelab.gr/images/Hipro5/P4_3.4GHzEE/png/Win_Server_2003_png.png

http://www.thelab.gr/images/Hipro5/P4_3.4GHzEE/png/Arithmetic_14365@4616MHz_png.png

http://www.thelab.gr/images/Hipro5/P4_3.4GHzEE/png/Multimedia_35525@4626MHz_png.png

[Lithan]

Originally posted by Tom Holck
...today with a new Pentium my Cascade can pass 5Ghz.

I just love that quote... Credit where credit is due, eh.

[LarsK]

Originally posted by hipro5
Just install Windows 2003 Server and you'll be OK.......

Ahh, excellent news. Does this helt with all the programs and games that won't run properly as well?

If so, I guess I'll get myself a new OS then... have to :p:

[Crankster]

Get a 6-month trial one... Or just.....

[Lithan]

I'd be most obliged to anyone who would pm me with the details on how to, or just...

[Karnivore]

Originally posted by Lithan
I'd be most obliged to anyone who would pm me with the details on how to, or just...


http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/evalkit.mspx

[LarsK]

Originally posted by Karnivore
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/evalkit.mspx

Excellent, I'll try that and see how it works.

[LarsK]

I just thought I'd let you know, that I can run 3dmark2001se @ 4.4 Ghz without issues, even in WinXP. Unfortunately, I have to use the 5:4 divider on my memory. I'm just running my 9800xt at stock speeds, because I don't really care about 3dmark scores before I get my x800xt, and partly I'm tracking the benefit of cpu/mem speed.

But with a stock clocked 9800xt and a bad car 1 low test I still got 24265 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7992988) :D

And voltage isn't even maxxed out yet. SuperPI is @ 30 secs only, but that's because of the 5:4 divider. Now get me some ram that'll do 259 Mhz cas 2-2-2-5 @ 3.3V's and I'm off to the charts of Futuremark :p: :D

[Spider]

doesn't your bh-5 do those speeds @ 3.3V?

[LarsK]

Originally posted by Spider
doesn't your bh-5 do those speeds @ 3.3V?

No way, they're 512 MB blocks. They do quite well, but won't bench above 252 Mhz...

[psycho303]

hi all

installing xp beta service pack RC2 does it too.i c can go over
4.29 Ghz now !



http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3475

[LarsK]

Originally posted by psycho303
hi all

installing xp beta service pack RC2 does it too.i c can go over
4.29 Ghz now !

http://www.bleedinedge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3475

Excellent news indeed. Read your thread, and I'm getting an IC7-G again. Unfortunately I've sold my old one, but I'm sure it would handle the EE a lot better than my Asus P4C800E.

[saaya]

i dont get it, why does sandra show so low scores? i thougt the bug just involved displaying the clockspeed and not actually the performence. :eek:

how can sandra be so low? does the os only let some programms use limited hardware resources, or whats the problem?

[LarsK]

Originally posted by saaya
i dont get it, why does sandra show so low scores? i thougt the bug just involved displaying the clockspeed and not actually the performence. :eek:

how can sandra be so low? does the os only let some programms use limited hardware resources, or whats the problem?

I read the thread at bleedingedge, and there seems to be an explanation a bit down on page 2.