Mine could also do 2.8 NB at stock volt (auto) but after i raised the CPU-NB voltage to 1.45V it now refuses to boot at 2.8GHz, strange huh?
Mine could also do 2.8 NB at stock volt (auto) but after i raised the CPU-NB voltage to 1.45V it now refuses to boot at 2.8GHz, strange huh?
Running NB clock higher than CPU clock has a negative effect on the efficiency: not equal, but worse than 1:1 :(
That voltage for chipset may need to be adjusted for the NB @ that speed .If you Push the NB Higher you should Raise the NBchipset volts a little for your Ram. Usually its under CORE PCI-E volts for this. But there are many factors beside just raising the NB volts for CPU. Such As Ram Divider CPUmulti and timing all play a part. Most IMC's for PHENOM and PHENOMII can handle 1.55volts easy @ High NB with good cooling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Ive also found since the NB is on CPU you have to balance the Volts and Heat for it, as the CPU /NB clocks go up. When you cant go Higher than say2800+NB with less than 1.5v its usually heat related or Chipset volts need a bump up for the ram stability.
Example,,
9950 @ 2500nb i use 1.45volts,, @ 2700nb i need all 1.68v my mobo has to offer with Great watercooling . Both require me to Raise the Core PCI-E for my ram when i run 1100+mhz for the Ram.
For 940 PHII the IMC is stronger allowing less volts for High NB. Once you go above a certain limit HEAT/Volt wise ,,you must have good cooling to run the Higher Volt range and keep things stable. This dragon platform requires lots of time to find that nice Max OC.
Sometimes the IMC/NB can run with more/less volts and Higher NB using different CPU/Ram mulis.
One key is to keep HT close to stock with using High NB for stability. Sometimes a Lower CPU multi will work better with a hIhger NB multi.
PHenom ,,PhenomII,, Again i must say take your time and thus require lots of tweaking for Max NB Cpu performance along with Ram timing.
Note:,, Higher VDD can help with the CPU/NB by limiting vdroop as well.
Just my 2cents:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by techtrancer
It wont let the driver start.
A warning comes up and whines about drivers needing to be signed.....
did you have all SP installed?
really?!I thought, the highest NB = the best scores..Or what do u mean exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
edit:ouch:am:...u mean CPU clock and NB clock, not HT clock and NB clock :D.Im sorry
your Not ,, StuPid,, The Brain just suffering from lack of Nb and ram timing:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Zues and massman thx for giving me a challenge :up: this board is very very hard to get PI to perform, etc it sux with memory performance however on the brightside just about no one can touch me in cinebench with it 32bit OS etc the cpu scores are out of this world........
Anyway you guys made me strive to squeeze every last bit of performance out of this giga GX board.
If anyone feels the need to bang there head against a wall or just like a challenge try the giga 790GX some crappy ram and try to break 68K efficiency :p:
Yes that is 3144nb frequency on air ;) anyone want to see 3200 :p:
http://members.cox.net/bostonreefer3...encysub68k.JPG
Here we go sub 67,900 efficiency 3200+ nb ;) this is air cooled
I have been making this poor motherboard scream for mercy the past couple of days, lets see what else I can force feed it :D
http://members.cox.net/bostonreefer3...ncysub68k2.JPG
Outstanding result there chew! Your result emphasizes the importance of high NB clocks to get every last bit of performance out of this platform. Great work, how much volts on the CPU-NB for that?
:rofl: really want to know? :eek: IIRC +.50 vcore at default 1.250 to aid in keeping heat down. Bumped vcore .05 once I felt comfortable with temps for second run, also needed it to be stable enough above 3.3 .Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Massman I tried 1/1= horrible performance @ 3.3 cpu/3.3 NB
So that is 1.75v CPU/NB? (thanks god it's up again-- that was a long 15 minutes for rebooting!)
no clue what default is :shrug: board just has + voltage not current, isn't default 1.35v? thats what aod says at least.
I would highly not reccomend this on air, I have no aversion to breaking hardware.......
Wow, long 15 minutes!
Nice results Chew*
Excellent thread :clap:
I've had better results than you it seems with Window7 though. Here are 2 quick tests I did a while ago.
The first result I was running less northbridge than you (I haven't gone past 2.7Ghz but the test was only at 2.4Ghz) and the second was just processor speed alone when checking what my rough max clock was.
I'm sure I could get better times with tweaking everything, but these were just quick boot up runs to see if it was stable enough to keep going at all.
Kei
nice 3.9 on air
Thank you, but please note that was running in dual core settings only (2 cores active) not in the quad core setting.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
The highest I was able to go on all 4 cores was a shade over 3.8Ghz, but I didn't put in a huge amount of effort trying.
I was just posting that to show that Windows 7 does work very quickly as well as XP. :)
Kei
I wouldn't go as far to say that, I can hammer those times with this board at same speeds in xp and this board has horrible PI performance....efficiency not to be confused with OS performance ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei
We wont even go there if I load sp1 XP....
I was just saying that Windows 7 performs very well is all, I'm not sure which one is faster because I only use W7 now. I haven't used XP in years I just wanted to show that the numbers in the first post for W7 won't be the same for everyone of course. :)
I do LOVE W7 though more than any OS I've used so far (i've been around...a lot) it's been excellent and I'll definitely buy the retail version when it hits. :up:
Kei
Yah I need to try it because I hate vista, but would like to step away from xp as a everyday OS, mostly use XP to bench lately.
Kei, first of, thanks for your contibution to this thread. Looking at your Performance Product a quick math shows a PP of 68875 which might be better than my run in W7 but it's still much worse than XP. That's why i advised to stay away from W7 if you want to get everything out of your system in SuperPi. ;)
I used Vista for a long time until Windows 7 became available and I'm one of the ones that really liked Vista. Once you took the time to learn it and set it up the way you wanted it to run it was great for me. I liked Vista more than XP for overall use.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Windows 7 is about a billion miles better than Vista in my opinion from the couple months I've used it now. I really am extremely impressed with how good it is even in the Beta stages that, like I said I'm buying it as soon as it's released and my Beta runs out no hesitations.
Thanks for the breakdown on those runs Zeus. I'm not sure if they were the best runs as like I said I just booted ran one took a shot and went back to the bios to keep clocking. I've never really dug deep into getting the best SuperPi time before though I think it's pretty interesting. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
I do believe that XP could produce a faster time than W7 could in this benchmark especially since it's a single threaded benchmark. I'm not sure really how fast I could actually get a run out of W7 with max speeds though I know it could go faster than the 17.9 run I posted. No idea on what it could do though if everything was turned up along with the processor.
Thanks again, and very cool indepth thread on SuperPi efficiency. :up:
Kei
@ chew
realy nice
how much CPU-NB did you give?
Quote:
Originally Posted by techtrancer
IIRC +.50 no clue what default is board just has + voltage not current, isn't default 1.35v?
i think @ default it is a litle bit higher than 1.0