Those OCCT graphs look great but how do you change the sampling rate? Unless the rate is really, really small, you're going to have to be very lucky to see any overshoot and undershoot spikes / fluctuations.
Printable View
Those OCCT graphs look great but how do you change the sampling rate? Unless the rate is really, really small, you're going to have to be very lucky to see any overshoot and undershoot spikes / fluctuations.
no i wasn't, the cpu score wasn't even hitting the 4100's.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
e8400 bottlenecks my 9800gx2, so i was aiming for a higher cpu score which the wolfdales cannot do.
Just for 3DMark? Or did you notice a difference when gaming as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by slugzkea
(Again, not being a smarta$$, but actually curious)
Thank you for persuading me to buy a quad. Priming 3.0GHz for a hr so far at stock voltage (VID = 1.2125). It was only $195 after tax so I said why not.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnottis
Yep, we are aware of that, but if your lucky you can catch one if you areQuote:
Originally Posted by Technophobe
patient enough, Hah actually I should say if your unlucky you'll catch one:rofl:
Also I have not seen a vcore spike since I wired in a couple 2200uf capacitors
in my ATX +12v CPU supply line, granted I could be missing
them because of the low sample rate, but I don't think so.
My spikes were caused by the +12v dropping down to 6v momentarily,
this caused the CPU vcore regulation circuitry to react by allowing more
current to flow, when the 12v rail came back up, the vcore regulation
circuitry was not able to react quickly enough to compensate for the new
(normal) voltage (it was still in "allow more current to flow" mode).
In other words vcore regulation circuitry overcompensated for the
supply voltage drop. With the 2 x 2200uf in the supply line this is less likely
to happen, since the caps act like a buffer, holding enough charge to
keep the supply line at the normal +12v even in the event of the supply
line dropping to 6v (for a very small amount of time of course).
Yep, I agree with Mrcape, you just need a little more vcore for that coreQuote:
Originally Posted by MosIncredible
to become stable. It's not unlikely for one core to be weaker than the other.
Also failing in the same exact spot is common when a core is unstable.
Just an update.
I'm still Orthos and OCCT stable. :up:
But my temp sensors are random.......:(
Curious too.Quote:
Originally Posted by zlojack
And if you mean real games: which ones?
Well any games really...Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
I would imagine that with the CPU at 4.0 GHz + and that card, you should be getting some pretty sweet gaming in pretty much any game you play.
Or is it just that it bottlenecks the card in 3DMark?
I found when I had my E8400 at 4 gigs I would get better SM 2.0 and 3.0 scores than when I had my quad at that same speed, but the CPU score would be lower. This was probably due to the 8x500 dual as opposed to 10x400 for the quad.
These results are both at 4 gigs and both with a single 3870 X2 (I can't test CrossfireX now because I sold my E8400)
E8400
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=5396645
QX9650
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=5770919
So the difference in total score for 3DMark is there, but the CPU is bumping that up because of the extra cores.
My theory is that for gaming, the E8400 would actually give a slightly better framrate (more smoothness *in theory) because the higher FSB allows the cards to open up more.
Imagine what the quad could do at 500 FSB!!!:eek: (mine doesn't go above 450)
Anyway, my point is, the fact that it's a dual core CPU lowers the 3DMark06 score, but I don't get how it bottlenecks the card.:shrug:
Well isnt 3dmark quad optimized? So you'll always get a higher score with a quad.
Its not like games are quad optimized, 3dmark is.
That's what I'm trying to say. Just showing some numbers to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sfdmalex
Same thing I was thinking. Real games dont use 4 cores (except UT).
By XBIT Labs...am still torn 8500 or 9450! * but you did say real games :)Quote:
games that provide quality quad-core processors support has increased significantly and currently includes such popular titles as Supreme Commander, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition, Unreal Tournament 3, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, etc.
Assassin's Creed does too, and I think we'll see more and more start to utilize more than 2 cores. Even still gaming feels smoother on the quad, maybe because there is just more CPU to handle background apps and services.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
You have to compare apples with apples, why didn't you run 9 x 450 and ram at the same speed... each 3dmark requires it's own tweaks and the 2 extra cores give a better score in the CPU with 2006... ya vidcard scores are influenced by the higher bandwith of the ram and mobo...Quote:
Originally Posted by zlojack
But to be honest I wouldn't run a gaming rig daily at 500FSB, I would back down to 450FSB and settle at the same CPU speed... with a higher multi...
But that's just my 2 cents...
I prefer a quad over a dual core anytime as my main rigs fold 24/7 and I do a lot of encoding on them too... if ya got apps that support it you will never look back dual core... but for todays gaming these E8400 are really good clockers... and for a gaming rig I wouldn't be torn at all between an Q9450 or E8400.. E8xxx is way easier to get up to 3.8-4Ghz... but like Dnottis stated a quad feels to me smoother in all that it runs ( comparing same CPU,FSB ram speed) than a dual core with the same settings...
Well, the real reason is because I didn't run those as a direct comparison (check the dates). I had the E8400 and sold it before I even got the quad. Oh, and it was fine and totally stable at 500 FSB for Prime95, Orthos for 12hrs + no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Anyway, you're right, it's probably not an apples to apples in the sense that the FSB isn't exactly the same. But nonetheless, the simple fact that I could run 500FSB rock stable with the dual, while the quad won't is also worth considering in a general comparison of overall 3DMark performance chip to chip and trying to maximize bandwidth.
I also agree with you on preferring the quad.
I've been testing between my q6600 G0 SLACR, and my e8400 and right now i'm going to say my e8400 oc'ed is much faster for gaming since right now my Q is stuck at 3.7ghz
I have gone back to my Wolfdale. The q6600 G0 SLACR is a primitive processor in comparison, especially for gaming.
I was thinking, maybe the flunctuations of vdroop on certain boards is causing teh degration?
Coming from a p35 neo2-fr, and a ga-ep35-ds3p, both boards fluctuated horribly with or without loadline calibration.
However, I have not yet caught my rampage drop 0.01v during load.
I shall do further testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slugzkea
haha I went from a quad to an 8400 to a 3110 back to a G0 quad and now I'm wanting to play with another E3110 with my 9800 GX2. This is madness...
So what benchmarks are you seeing faster with the 8400 over the quad- I'm talking real world, not just 3dmark.
Well guys, I can confirm now that my CPU's did not actually degrade.
It is apparent now that the 45nm CPU's have a burn-in period of about
1 - 2 weeks, after this time the CPU's will need a small bump in vcore
(.024mv - .050mv) to regain initial prime stability.
My CPU's are rock solid stable now, and are not showing any other signs
of further degradation, I even had the vcore on one up close to 1.5v for
some suicide runs, and still did not hurt it:up:
So the question.. dual or quad still needs to be addressed lol. I ordered another E3110 from Tankguys to battle with my Q6600 G0... again. Madness I tell you!!Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
Something about 4.2Ghz just makes me light up like a little boy on christmas morn.
I'm thinking about doing the same thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by dnottis
I can also confirm that my e8400 is not degraded either.
I thought it was when I was using my previous motherboards, but the fluctuations and mad vdroops is what caused the instability in OC'ing.
Now that I am on my Rampage Formula, I have been able to achive 4ghz, 4.22ghz, and now 4.32ghz all prime stable.
I believe the 45nm wolfdales are super sensitive to vdroop when oc'ing.
Since now that I have 0.01vdroop or no droop at all, everything is stable!
I believe... the real degraded chips are that way because of VTT (FSB Termination voltage) being too high. Thread here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=184710
Some reported that their chips degraded even when their vCore was at 1.34v, and I can't help but notice that a lot of others are running their QX9650 and E8400 at 1.4v or even above... but the chips are still alive and well. If VTT is to blame then it would make more sense, since some of us just believe that the higher our FSB goes, the higher VTT needs to be. Some have their VTT at 1.5 - 1.6v! And the Auto setting in BIOS may not be reliable either!
If we are still looking at vCore, and VTT is to blame (remember, Intel's specs specifically state that VTT should NEVER exceed 1.10v) then... we are putting all of our 45nm processors at risk! It's time to look into this, guys.
VTT killer is old news. Months old news. Still it's one off data and it would be nice to see some clear explanation of it or a really comprehensive test on a large number of chips. Now that intel confirmed this it's just more interesting.