Printable View
Well it seems the GTL's are doing something positive, I would try next 0.70x GTL REF's and 1.44v vFSB if the current setting fails. Maybe also bump up vcore 1 more notch too. It's just pure trial and error. Good luck with it, it's late here and I have to go get some sleep. I'll check on your progress tomorrow, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable with quads can offer some advice in the meantime; I'm good with duals but have never owned a quad.
Okey my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
I see you , this is my first quad :) I made a "huge" jump from P4 Prescott. :)
Thank you very much for your help and patience .
Btw , the current settings failed after 50 mins.
Seems that FSB Term a bit low.
Sleep well ,see you tomorrow.
Now ,
Vcore : 1.38750
GTL REFs: 0.700
FSB TERM : 1.44
Edit : System restarted.
Will increase FSB TERM to 1.46
Cyptik, help me learn something here....Why are you telling him to raise the voltage AND the GTLref? Raising the voltage automatically raises the GTLref...right? Or did I misundersand?
Personally, I find it MUCH easier to find stable settings when messing with ONE item at a time...In Tulu's case, I would have set the GTLref at stock (.67), then ONLY touched the VTT voltage. Once I got it stable, THEN I would lower the VTT and raise the GTLref.
Here is something I found:http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=87Quote:
Simply raising VTT may or may not create voltage margins necessary to sufficiently skew signals as required to meet minimum sample and hold times for increased bus frequencies. Additionally, processors are particularly sensitive to even small increases in VTT as bus impedances and termination resistance values are quite low. In fact, increasing VTT will most likely just create unwanted device heating with little to no change in FSB stabilization. The more focused approach lies in the tuning of each individual GTL reference level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulū
Got restarted .:rolleyes:
Now , reduced GTL REF 1/3 to 0.690
Edit: Got error on core0 after 50 mins. :shakes:
Will try to increase the PLL 1.52 to 1.56
Edit2: After 68 mins i got this error on core0 :
"Fatal Error: Final Result Was 6D03D508 ; expected : EA5DB53B"
It's good for me for not getting a rounding error this time :rofl::ROTF: :mad:
Seems PLL tweak works ; now will increase a notch : 1.58 .(At the same time i increased the Fsb Term. from 1.46 to 1.48)
Btw the core0 always falls behind , etc. while the 4th core finishing 5th test the core0 finishes 2nd test or 3th test ? :confused:
Seems the slower core is core0 , so what does this issue show us ?
Edit 3 : Got restarted after 45 mins.
Reduced the GTL REF 0/2 from 0.700 to 0.695.
If you download the Intel Storage Manager Utility under Other on the Asus website site then extract the file then go into the drivers boom there they are. I just updated my raid storage controller driver by pointing windows to the folder appropriate which is 64bit.. I think that might... might be my issue here. I am on 0803 BIOS right now and scared to try 1102 again :P . I noticed Vista was using the ICH8R / ICH9R Driver..Quote:
Originally Posted by Polizei
Got error on core0 after 10 mins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulū
But this time i got different error :rofl::ROTF::mad: ( Resulting sum error )
Now 'll leave the GTLs as AUTO . :mad:
Btw i noticed that this time core0 was the leader , it finished earlier from all other 3 cores. :confused:
Well I went to the 1102 and it stopped talking to my hard drives at the progress bar and the progress bar just kept going. I could see where the hard drives stopped getting hit because my hd light stopped flashing. I went to the 1103 and it went right through to windows??? I get into windows and open ie and go here and start typing and boom it locked up... I am able to run 0803 though which I am on right now. There is something they changed after 0803 that it does not like.. Anybody??
Got restart again :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulū
'll make all of them AUTO except Vcore and Dram :mad:
Edit : Got damn error again. :mad:
That's enough for today. 've to sleep :mad:
Actually thats not recommended. These boards seem to adjust voltages beyond healthy levels sometimes (especially for CPU and NB).
Tulu, I experienced similar things (different cores failing at different times), I bumpe dup my NB.. Where is yours at?
Question re: DMM. I seem to be getting different values depending on whether I use a molex as ground or the mobo as ground. Also, different molex connectors give me slightly different values. I have a Radio Shack 22-810 DMM. Any ideas why I can't get a consistent reading?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumid
Tulu - seems like that cpu is going to be stubborn. You could try lowering vFSB back to 1.42 - 1.44v, and raise GTL's one 0.05x step at a time up to perhaps 0.75x.
I think you may need to just give it more vcore to get it stable at 3.4GHz, some 6600's just won't do it easily, pity about your hot climate though. Perhaps try 3.33GHz at the same vcore you are at now? I don't think you will get solid stability out of the GTL or vFSB adjustment, but you could possibly raise the max bootable/benchable FSB by a few MHz.
@jas420221 - I suggested that because it's the quick and easy method to see if higher GTL and vFSB will assist the overclock - as you know, GTL is derived from vFSB, and both GTL & FSB has shown to help certain people OC quads, especially the 65nm's - trying each at a time of course is more accurate, but I wanted to get somewhere fast, rather than take days to establish whether it was going to help or not.
Vista doesnt natively use ICH10R? WTF!Quote:
Originally Posted by truehighroller
How am I supposed to install the ICH10R driver then?
Tulu, try setting the AI Transaction Booster to manual and then set Performance level to 10.
Polizei, how could Vista have native support for a device that wasn't in existence when Vista was released? All you need to do is update the driver on the Vista install. At least with Vista you can do it with a flash drive instead of having to use a floppy. The Asus disk has the utility to create what you need.
Hey guys. About the setting "Execute Disable Bit" I have been enabling this but have seen a lot of people disable it. What exactly is the reason for disabling if it is supposed to help with virus protection? I thought it would be a good thing to have on. Of course I have my own Anti-Virus/Anti-spyware/Firewall and do not use the crap that come with windows. Should I be turning this off?
It would be stupid to disable it period, kinda like hardware virtualization.
Why would it be stupid to disable it? By hardware virtualization do you mean "Intel Virtualization Tech"? Unless you are running multiple OS then I do not see why you would enable that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyakame
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
Hey there :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pntgrd
I hope today will be an error day for core1 , core2 , core3 not for core0. :rofl::ROTF::mad:
@ jas420221 , NB is 1.34
@ Cryptik , will try 1.44 vFSB term , GTL REF 0/2 : 0.70 - GTL REF 1/3 : 0.680
I've tried 413 FSB with 1.37500 Vcore and was stable for about 100 mins. and was going on but i made it stop.
@ Pntgrd , will try to set Performance level to 10 .
Code:AI Overclock tuner: manual
CPU Ratio Setting: 8
FSB Strap to North Bridge: AUTO
FSB Frequency: 425
PCI-E Frequency: 100
DRAM Frequency: 851
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel A1: AUTO
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel A2: AUTO
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel B1: AUTO
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel B2: AUTO
DRAM Timing Control: manual
1st Information :
CAS# Latency: 5
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Delay: 5
DRAM RAS# Precharge: 5
DRAM RAS# Activate to Precharge: 15
RAS# to RAS# Delay : AUTO
Row Refresh Cycle Time: 40
Write Recovery Time: AUTO
Read to Precharge Time: AUTO
2nd Information :
READ to WRITE Delay (S/D): AUTO
Write to Read Delay (S): AUTO
WRITE to READ Delay (D): AUTO
READ to READ Delay (S): AUTO
READ to READ Delay (D): AUTO
WRITE to WRITE Delay (S): AUTO
WRITE to WRITE Delay (D): AUTO
3rd Information :
WRITE to PRE Delay: AUTO
READ to PRE Delay: AUTO
PRE to PRE Delay: AUTO
ALL PRE to ACT Delay: AUTO
ALL PRE to REF Delay: AUTO
DRAM Static Read Control: Disabled
DRAM Read Training: enabled
MEM. OC Charger: enabled
AI Clock Twister: lighter
AI Transaction Booster: Manual
Common Performance Level [10]
Pull-In of CHA PH1: DISABLED
Pull-In of CHA PH2: DISABLED
Pull-In of CHA PH3: DISABLED
Pull-In of CHA PH4: DISABLED
Pull-In of CHB PH1: DISABLED
Pull-In of CHB PH2: DISABLED
Pull-In of CHB PH3: DISABLED
Pull-In of CHB PH4: DISABLED
CPU Voltage: 1,38750
CPU GTL Voltage Reference (0/2): 0.700
CPU GTL Voltage Reference (1/3): 0.680
CPU PLL Voltage: 1.56
FSB Termination Voltage: 1.44
DRAM Voltage: 2.10
NB Voltage: 1.34
NB GTL Reference: AUTO
SBridge Voltage: AUTO
PCIE SATA Voltage: AUTO
Load Line Calibration: enabled
CPU Spread Spectrum: Disabled
PCIE Spread Spectrum: Disabled
CPU Clock Skew : auto
NB Clock Skew : auto
Advance CPU Settings
CPU Ratio Setting: Manual
CPU VID: -
C1E Suppport: Disabled
Max CPUID Value Limit: Disabled
Intel® Virtualization Tech: Disabled
Vanderpool Technology: Disabled
CPU TM Function: enabled
Execute Disable Bit: Disabled
Tulu, why are you using so much FSBv? I am completely stable at 1.32 for 425mhz. I spent a long time at 3.4ghz with my Q6700 at 340x8 and all I needed was 1.26NB and 1.32FSBv.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulū
I got error on god damn core0 again.Quote:
Originally Posted by PortCitySlim
@ PortCitySlim , bcause i don't have any experience. :) I need advices like yours.
What about the others; GTL REFs,PLL ?
Ha you beat me to it - I was going to suggest going back to low vFSB, low vPLL and starting again.
Tulu, try that, set 1.32v FSB and, 1.52v PLL and 1.38 vcore, set GTL refs to 0.670x (both) and see what FSB you can get up to stable.
Will try it now.
Now , i have :
FSB : 413
PCIE : 100
Vcore : 1.38125
VFSB : 1.32
PLL : 1.52
GTL REFs : 0.670
NB : 1.34
DRAM : 2.10
NB GTL REF : AUTO
SB : AUTO
PCIE SATA : AUTO
PL : 10
DRAM READ : enabled
MEM. OC. : enabled
Ai clock : lighter
I do not mess with GTL Ref at all. For PLL you can go as high as 1.60 and then work your way down to as low as 1.52. My Q6700 has a high VID 1.3250 so I needed 1.41vcore to be stable at 3.4ghz. For 425mhz FSB you should be fine very near 1.26NB, 1.32FSBv and CPU PLL 1.52-1.60. If you are pushing you ram really hard you might need to use more NB but I never did. You need to make sure your CPU vcore is correct by testing with small fft's first for 1 hour at a time lowering each time it passes until it doesn't, then go back up and try to get that to pass about 3-6hours maybe more if you want good stability, I find that I can not pass ram tests with OCCT unless my vcore passes at least 6 hours of small fft's. After I get my vcore set then I switch to OCCT 2 hour Ram test followed by a 12-18 hour blend or mix with either OCCT or Prime95 for final stability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulū
I see,Quote:
Originally Posted by PortCitySlim
but i've tested my Vcore with SmallFFTs for 3 hours and at the same time i've ran Intel burn test for 5 rounds and was stable. ( with 425 FSB and with only 1.36875 Vcore )
Yesterday while i was playing a game i got application error ( mem. adress error ) than i ran memtest86+ but there was no error.
I tried to run blend test and started to get errors .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulū
You are probably having stability problems with your ram. Set it to as close to 1200mhz as you can get and right at your stock voltage for your ram. Disable Static Read control and leave Read training and Mem OC charger on auto. Set your Performance level to 10 and leave your clock twister on auto. Set your vcore back to 1.36 or 1.37 and CPU PLL 1.56-1.60. Run that and see what happens with GTL's on auto and 1.26nb and 1.32FSBv. Memtest86 will pass even though your blends and ram tests fail in windows. I do not like memtest86+.
Been thinking. If you really want to rule out your NB and FSBv you can set NB to 1.30-1.32 and FSBv to 1.32-1.34. If that fails then your ram is almost for sure causing your problem. I use a 65nm Quad like you and Leeghoofd here taught me most of what I know about this motherboard. Unfortunately for us there are not many people using 65nm Quads and this board so we are kind of left guessing what FSBv and NBv we should be using.