Be nice to see if another 2gb kit will let you keep the same clocks greg.m....
Printable View
Be nice to see if another 2gb kit will let you keep the same clocks greg.m....
Looks like ~110mhz is the sweet spot for you then, when your HDD gets maximum throughput!Quote:
Originally Posted by neo_rtr
Cant resist asking the following question.
From the M/B Specs that i Google found the following
In an effort to eventually get rid of the conventional IDE ATA standard, the X38 chipset removes IDE support altogether. Despite this, the Maximus Formula ships with a single IDE port thanks to the use of the JMicron JMB368 PATA controller. The ICH9R south bridge offers up to six Serial II ATA ports, boasting data transfer rates of up to 300MB/s. Intel also offers RAID functions for these four SATA ports, supporting RAID 0 for performance and RAID 1 for protection, along with RAID 5 and RAID10. Advanced Host Controller Interface (AHCI) further boosts performance with Native Command Queuing (NCQ), and provides native hot plug for drive swaps.
Now
If the drives them selfs supporting 3Gb/s speed and the MotherBoard it self does the same, Why are is the speed result lower that that?
I know n00b question.. but here you have it.
Just because the drives use the 3Gb/s data connection doesn't mean that it's going to be able to read and copy at those speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by neo_rtr
I need some help with my new memory. I recently bought a set 2 x 2GB Mushkin XP2-8500 (996599). And dont know what would be best for performance. Currently running 9x400 with mem @ 533Mhz 5-5-5-15 but with a 3:4 divider.
My CPU is a soon to be replaced E6850 @ 3,6Ghz/ (3,7Ghz capable). So I can also choose to run them at 8x450 with 1:1 and then try to lower timings and PL, or again with a divider and try to OC the memory. Anyone any idea what would be fastest? Or anyone with other useful tips regarding this memory if I choose to OC? Cant find a lot of users here on XS.
Tnx in advance.
Why not 8 X 450MHz and DDR 1081MHz with tRD 7?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynacore
And this is based on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Armored_Kech1
Ok right now put it at 8x460 with my memory @ 1105Mhz 5-5-5-15. Static read enabled, clock twister moderate, PL 9. Running Windows mem test for stability, hope it holds.
Would it be a big help to switch to bios 0803? I'm still on 0410.
Edit:
Ok seems to be stable, of course no big OC but all bits help. Wouldnt 1200Mhz be possible with this mem and lower timings? Can't find any results.
Why do you use PL 9 and not PL 7?
Take a look at Everest Cache Latency & BW at PL9, this should put memory read bandwidth around 5-700mb/s slower than memory write bandwidth correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynacore
If so you can safely tighten down to PL8, which should close the gap to 2-400mb/sec, and probably not require any additional Vnb, or if so very little. PL7 at that FSB will need too much more Vnb, and too tight of a PL sucks for everyday usage anyway. Stability changes with the weather. One day its too warm and the thing crashes randomly, then you get a cool day and it runs perfect.
Not worth the hassle IMO, it's great for benching but other than that for my every day usage I normally use the next PL lower than the one that gives roughly equal Memory Read and Write bandwidth, which at 460FSB will be PL8. PL7 will give roughly equal read/write, and require a good 0.05-0.10v more on Vnb for consistent stability.
Now personally I've run PL7 at 481FSB on this board, but I was using near 1.53v Vnb and even with this much, sometimes from boot to boot it would be hit and miss. No amount of voltage or fine tuning can fix this period. I ended up dropping down to PL8 because I could run it at 1.47v without it missing a beat. Mind you it would post and even pass stress tests at 1.41v without ever getting an error, but when it came down to real world usage such as long gaming sessions or 24/7 uptime, i needed that extra 0.06v or so to keep the thing from BSOD'ing, leaking memory or just plain old crashing apps randomly. Was it worth the extra 300mb/sec read bandwidth to have it crash after 2 hours of gaming or in the middle of watching a movie, absolutely not. If anything my system actually responded much better from loading up windows, to opening or closing apps, with a slacker Performance Level. PL9 was a bit too slack, and made things no better than PL7.
So to sum it up, don't listen to these clowns when they say a tight PL is the way to go, because they also are the same ones saying they get errors in prime or linpack on settings that were previously stable, and the same ones who won't accept that settings or voltages are too tight or too low to be the problem :up:
Just find the Performance Level that gives you both responsiveness and stability. Try PL9 and PL8, and test both stressing and everyday usage, take note of how windows boots up, time to display icons, load apps, etc. See which of the two suits your settings.
if i have an E8600 and i want it to be a 5ghz with 1.50vcore wich gtl cpu and nb do i need to calibrate it correctly? divisor 1:1 585 x8.5multi or 555x9 multi gtl cpu 63 y nb gtl 67?ŋ=
eyes i need to spi2m and 3dmark
question, when you run prime,
1- do all cores follow each other
2- some follow some not example 1,2 / 3,4
3- some follow one left behind but only 1-2 passes
4- 3 of them follow each other 1 is always left behind with several passes
while running higher PCI at 109 during prime i noticed that the temps, volt reading etc where flactuating.
pushed up the SB a bit with not much improvement. took it the PCI down to 100 but still the same. will raise the NB again
Edit 1
This is Not happening during Large FFTs but IS happeing during Small FFTs- probably due to the L2 cache-
Edit 2 Lowering Volts on the CPU (currently 1.500V the cores are passing Small FFT in a more "even pace" almost following each other.
This means or i can interprete it as while running with higher volts iam getting the so called CPU throttling
Locigally i should try to get even lower cpu volts and see if this does the trick.
for example at cpu 1.543V i was almost 5:10 meaning core 3 was on test 5 while other cores at 10
Currently running Prime95 with CPU 1.500V iam 5:8 (core 3 at test/pass 5 while the others are at 8)
Are you still awake my friend:)Quote:
Originally Posted by neo_rtr
Here is my results with pcie110 sbv1.10(bios):
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9...lipphdtune.jpg
Euhmm... I don't think that 8 X 450MHz and tRD 7 takes a lot of voltage on the NB and that's what I suggested. I didn't say 8 X 460MHz or anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyakame
You forgot to say that these "clowns" :D use other memory now. ;)
Q9450@3.72GHz and G.SKILL F2-9600CL5D-4GBPI@1239MHz with tRD 6
To get that stable I have to advance the DRAM CLK Skews on Channel A and B with 50ps.
I have to use tREF at 4836T for DDR 1239MHz.
To remove the problem with the CPU and NB Clock Skew I have to bump the CPU Voltage 2 steps in the BIOS than what I normally need for 3.72GHz. I think that the CPU Clock Skew and NB Clock Skew Delay difference of 100ps is to large and that the CPU Clock Skew should be at Delay 150ps instead of Delay 200ps.
Code:Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
CPU Ratio Setting [8.0]
FSB Strap to North Bridge [400MHz]
FSB Frequency [465MHz]
PCIE Frequency [100MHz]
DRAM Frequency [1239MHz]
DRAM Command Rate [2N]
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel A/B [Advance 50ps]
DRAM Timing Control [Auto]
DRAM Static Read Control [Enabled]
Ai Clock Twister [Moderate]
Ai Transaction Booster [Manual]
Common Performance Level [06]
Pull-In of CH A/B all disabled
CPU Voltage [1.37500V]
CPU PLL Voltage [1.50V]
North Bridge Voltage [1.41V]
DRAM Voltage [1.88V]
FSB Termination Voltage [1.32V]
South Bridge Voltage [1.05V]
SB 1.5V Voltage [1.50V]
Loadline Calibration [Disabled]
CPU GTL Voltage Reference [0.63X]
NB GTL Voltage Reference [0.67X]
DRAM Controller Voltage REF [Auto]
DRAM Channel A/B Voltage REF [Auto]
CPU Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
PCIE Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
CPU Clock Skew [Delay 200ps]
NB Clock Skew [Delay 100ps]
CPU Ratio Setting [8.0]
C1E Support [Disabled]
CPU TM Function [Enabled]
Vanderpool Technology [Disabled]
Execute Disable Bit [Enabled]
Max CPUID Value Limit [Disabled]
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/q...D6-LinXEVE.jpg
Because ASUS PC Probe II, EVEREST and RealTemp don't go well together I'm going to run my test again to show you that it's really with these settings and voltages and add a screen shot to this post later.
Just to show you that this "Clown" also knows some magical tricks. :D
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/q...D6-LinX-BI.jpg
Ok Tnx for the advice, I also thought PL7 to be a bit tight on these speeds but it all seems to be very stable. So I did the everest Benchmark and my read/write bandwidth were 9440/8443. So my Read is actually faster instead of slower. What would be best in my situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyakame
Also thinking of setting other divider so I can try the 1200Mhz setting, dunno if the mem will hold though, will have to see.
your scores look off, did you have to relax timing to get thereQuote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
this is on my p45 with no tweaks
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f.../1240ram_2.png
Even my X38 scores are higher
1174MHz
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...0_1174BEST.png
1212MHz
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f.../TEST4_505.png
Now that my blocks have arrived I will be able to test this board out and compare the two
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...r/DSCF0093.jpg
Of course my score is lower my CPU isn't running at 4GHz+. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Grnfinger
This test isn't to see what the highest bandwidth is. This test is to see if it's stable with these settings. Who cares how high the bandwidth is if it isn't stable. :shrug:
ASUS doesn't care if it's stable or not. :D
By looks of it hus bandwidth is cripped slightly from adding extra Advance on DRAM delay skews to pull off PL6 without too much extra Vnb and keep the thing stable. That's my take on it anyhow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grnfinger
A-Grey,
Not bad mate, good to see you took those clown shoes off and got the thing working a bit better :D
By the way the CPU/NB clock skew delay increment is limited by the resolution achieved through MCHBAR register adjustment which as you imagine is what Intel designed into the MCH. I've never seen a bios use anything but 100ps steps on X48/P45, all vendors alike. This pretty much confirms it is achieved through MCHBAR registers since not all vendors use same clock generator.
Now I don't have the faintest idea where you will find the value, but I have a rough idea. It'll be somewhere between either 000-100h or B00-FFFh. First range looks like it holds initialization values, and the second range contains registers which are used for clock driving/receiving/compensation and GTL+ circuit adjustment, such as MCH slew rate, MCH vref adjustment, GTL buffer strength, Host slew Rate input, etc. So if anything it should be in here.
Basically Asus are stuck with the same adjustment steps that everybody else is. Intel obviously didn't go any higher with resolution because cost to manufacture would go through the roof, and I don't think they'd be able to just say well we gave the overclockers higher resolution clock skew adjustment, so all your chips are now worth $50 more to purchase. They'd have stock that'd never sell :)
Ok did some further testing and stressing. Right now I'm at 1161Mhz via 4:5 divider. This gives me noticable performance boost during boot and normal use.
I tried 1236Mhz aswell with PL9 but it didnt even boot windows, and dont want to give it too much vdimm.
http://img2.pict.com/01/2f/32/01f567...C/800/mem2.jpg
http://img2.pict.com/4e/ed/5e/15ce4a.../L8S5b/mem.jpg
Any ideas how to improve?
If you google a little bit you will find enough pages that can show you that Gigabyte boards have these 50ps clock skew increments, including the X48 Chipset boards. This is probably one of the reasons why it's a lot easier to run at high FSB's on these Gigabyte boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyakame
I think that ASUS boards don't have them because nobody ever asked for them.
My settings for 8 X 465MHz and DDR 1239MHz with tRD 6 aren't bullet proof. I didn't completely remove the instability I just moved it a little further with raising the CPU Voltage just enough to do 25 passes of LinX. I know that if I do more passes at some point it will fail.
I hope that ASUS is going to see the problem know too and that they change the increments to 50ps.
There's one thing I know. The ASUS Engineer didn't tell me that it isn't possible to have 50ps clock skew increments. There's still a chance that they add it in a new BIOS release and I hope that they add tREF too.
A stable 1161MHz and 9600MB/s isn't bad. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynacore
The highest I could get with my 2 X 2 Giga OCZ Reaper HPC PC2-8500 memory was 1117MHz and 9400MB/s.
The fact that Gigabyte has 50ps skews means nothing. What has already been said many times getting high fsb on quad + 600mhz on ram + pl6 is no go.Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
Try to lower PL, increase vDDR, vNB. Don't tell people that 50ps skews are the key while they aren't - you just can't make thing works so fast with so tight timings and so low voltage.
They are the key for stability. It doesn't matter what voltage you use when you are on the wrong skew. You will move your problem like I do with the 8 x 465MHz and DDR 1239MHz and tRD 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
I can give as much voltage as I want it will never be 100% stable. You will reach a point that if you raise the voltage a little bit more that you will make it more unstable.
You just don't understand the importance of clock skew because you never needed it.
You see the screen shot with the 25 passes and still you don't believe that it's possible. When it isn't possible you will never reach the 25 passes, believe me. You will fail immediately or after a few passes.
25 passes is nothing, run 100 or 200.
Anyway I highly doubt that I will ever meet such a problem since I'm not even going to try to run PL=6 at >600mhz on ram.
IMO the problem is not with the board but with people trying to run settings above hardware physical capabilities
I just cant resist askingQuote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
Can you tell me one application that will use the system the same way the claimed 100-200 passes . Leal life application i mean.
Looking good. Pretty close to what my RF was doign at 1160mhz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynacore
I haven't got a good quality everest pic, seems I have deleted it. But here is the values I had at 483Mhz FSB, PL7 Phase pullin A1, 1160mhz, 4x1gb 5-5-5-16, Vdimm 2.34V, Vnb 1.53v, Q6600 @ 3.38ghz. (7x), AI Clock Twister Stronger, Dram static Read Enabled. Divider would be 12:10.
Mem Read = 9732Mb/s
Mem Write = 8754Mb/s
Mem Copy = 9504Mb/s
Mem Latency = 52.1ns
L1 Read = 54072mb/s
L1 Write = 53890mb/s
L1 Copy = 107223mb/s
L1 Latency = 0.9ns
L2 Read = 24581mb/s
L2 Write = 19181mb/s
L2 Copy = 27861mb/s
L2 Latency = 3.2ns
Much truth here. Board can only do so much, the VRM is the weak link on the board, and with age it only gets worse. Unless you have a 1000W or so PSU to help stabilize the input voltage at high FSB, etc it'll bounce voltages under load.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
If A-Grey is saying Gbyte have 50ps increments, could be clock generator dependent then. Asus and GB use different clock gens, Asus and DFI on the other hand use the same ones, which funny enough both also have 100ps increments for clock / nb skew.
Anyone knows where are the reading points for vCPU?
If you can locate a trace from the VR to the cpu socket landing pins (perhaps one of the mosfet pins?), you can probably find a suitable one to measure. I don't have my board here anymore so afraid I can't help all that much. Just look for one that gives you the closest voltage to what you expect it to be :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
I have no electric experience so its highly possible for me to :banana::banana::banana::banana: something up. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyakame
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=179580
there is a picture about vDroop Mod / vCore Mod / EPU Mod
Is this what you refer to?
Here is an on-the-fly pic of her doin' work. Note that there is an error message complaining about her being low on memory - courtesy of Microsoft. The reason why the Lavalys benchmark gives such low numbers in the first row is because I had been running Memtest Pro with all four threads before. So, I've finally settled on 466x9 with the memory running at 559 MHz.
http://img.techpowerup.org/090524/my baby at work 3.jpg
and another one after her going back to normal
http://img.techpowerup.org/090524/my baby at work 4.jpg
hope it helps
____________________
Rampage Formula @0902
4x2GB G.Skill PC2-8800 (1120 MHz, 5-5-5-15, 2N) at 1.90V (AI Clock Twister: Stronger, NB Voltage: 1.49V, PL7)
Q9650 ES(E0) @4.19 GHz (466x9) at 1.4125V (1.38V real, 1.30V load) on water, FSB Strap: 333, LLC disabled!
Asus 4870 TOP 512MB @880/1180 MHz on water
Areca ARC-1210, ATI Theater 550 Pro, Dell 2405 FPW
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750W red - positioned outside the case
Lian-Li PC-V2000 black - both side panels off
With regards to previous post.
Some issues with Everest not updating correctly Volts and temperature information while Prime95 Small FFT was running.
After changing the CPU & NB GTL Ref from normal to Auto everest is updating better.
100 or 200 or some other variations didnt work out.
also NB Voltage change from 1.67 to 1.74 had no effect on it
CPU PLL change (extreme range 1.50 to 1.64) show some improvement while boot 1st screen in win7 where gadgets loaded up almost instantly with higher cpu pll
You mean CPU, NB SKEWSQuote:
Originally Posted by neo_rtr
ahhh.. correct..Quote:
Originally Posted by greg.m
Question:
Whats the fsbvtt limit for q9650?
Is 1.50(real) ok?
AFAIR VTT on 45nm cpus shouldn't be higher than 1.35 for 24/6 use.Quote:
Originally Posted by greg.m
A first good attempt @ 500x8.5
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5386/skrmklippl.jpg
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9559/skrmklipp2.jpg
ill try lower some volts later
Too high VTT is going to kill your CPU faster than in your worst dreams.
I have a dream ............ to do the same. and if my cpu then i have the reason to buy a new one.. hehe...
Here some links about q9650s and voltages:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...9&postcount=67
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=202491&page=2
:D
more Rampage extremeresults coming...
One thing i realised is that with this memory G.SKILL F2-9600CL5D-4GBPI i can achieve much higher fsb clocks. Before with the dominator pc8500 i couldnt pass 480fsb.
Greg.m presents.......:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9289/skrmklippcrazy.jpg
.... i see smoke ohh maybe its my q9650.... :rofl:
Impressive! Just curious, what is your room temp?
Very nice mate :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by greg.m
I'm guessing watercooling the NB has a huge amount to do with it, since it seems you need ridiculously high Vnb for stability at high fsb with 2gb sticks and > 1200mhz DDR.
you guys are getting some nice latency there :up:
i have never been below 50ns with an intel setup, not yet anways :)
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6020/15020361.png
Unfortunatelly my room temp is arround 23-25c:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Armored_Kech1
Thanx mate. Without watercooling my nb i would need a fire-extinguisher:DQuote:
Originally Posted by mikeyakame
You told me it was getting up to 28c!!Quote:
Originally Posted by greg.m
Did you open the window?
Amazing dude.. Amazing!!
Nice work :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by freeagent
My record on this board is 51.2ns at 7 x 490fsb, 4x1gb ddr2-1180, q6600, pl 7 w/ pha1 pull-in, ai clock twister stronger. Bandwidth wasn't nearly as good though.
Thanx buddy:)Quote:
Originally Posted by neo_rtr
Youre right it was about 28c and as you know there isnt any window near my beast:mad:. Today its even worse so its a testforbid day:D
If you try a bit higher than 4500-4550mhz then youmight be amazed with the results;)Quote:
Originally Posted by freeagent
I need help. Currently i'm testing my NB/DRAM fot stability at 478 (CPU set to 7x478). So far, it's clear, that i don't need more than 1.61v NB, because rising it don't bring stability. DRAM voltages are set to 2.0v@1146@5-5-5-15@PL7. Default are 1100@1.9v. NB is under water, and DRAM are with Dominator Airflow. I'm usinge 67x NB GTL Ref., other values don't help. I'm wondering, if i coulde set 150ps different between CPU and NB skews, would it help? Because with both set to normal, over 460 is impossible. Maybe skews need to be more relaxed for 480?
A difference of 150ps between the CPU and NB would be to much. I think it would be better with CPU Clock Skew Delay 100ps and NB Clock Skew Delay 50ps or any other combination of delays with a difference of only 50ps.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoof
You've got the same problem that I've got. Changing voltages doesn't make it more stable because it isn't the problem and there's nothing we can do about it. :shrug:
speaking of testing i was folding at home , running GPU on one hand and Boinc with SETI on the other overnight.
no issues. so i take this is pretty good testing anyway, for stability i mean. right?
the last few days is like ....graveyard..... here:DQuote:
Originally Posted by neo_rtr
but i would like to know that too if this is a good stability test...
There isn't much to say anymore. I'm stuck at 8 X 450MHz if I want it full stable and I think that I've got to live with that because I don't think that we will ever see a better BIOS than what we have now. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by greg.m
Crunching doesn't stress your CPU as much as Prime95 Small FFT's. It isn't very good for testing stability. It will only fail when there are serious stability problems.
I agree with you we probably wont see any - much - better bios for our rampage boards :shakes: but my next step will not be a s775 board anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Grey
Now im waiting my new heatkiller rev3.0 with the ek-smax so i will have something to work with:) I hope ill see some huuuge tempdifference with the heatkiller installed...Of course this means better overclocking results:D
Lets see...
A-Grey - tks noted.
Greg.m is preparing for upgrades, some kind of liquid HmmHmm. Or was it dark matter.
Apparently he is trying to break somekind of record here. like The most upgrades in a year or so..
+1 vote for that.
We need lots of pictures,,greg..
Got my new E8500 today and looks like getting anything close to 500fsb or higher requires pretty much voltage on MCH.
Great news i hope you enjoy her...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
How much voltage are we talking about for 500fsb?
1.45 is the lowest stable voltage on MCH I've tested so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by greg.m
Forgot to mention that you can't run lower PL than 9 on this MCH voltage, tighter PL would probably require much more overvolting.
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5...ipboard03e.jpg
vCPU: 1.275v, vMCH: 1.45v, vDDR: 2.2v, PL=9, all GTLs and Skews on auto.
Think what you could do with nbv between 1.6-1.7... the prob you have is with the temps. Havent you done something about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
@kuebk
:shocked: 61C @ 1,45, you have to do some thing about it, itīs way to high.
Maybe a cooler like this for the NB and a fan
http://www.thermalright.com/new_a_pa...b/DSC_0175.jpg
and like this for the SB
http://www.enzotechnology.com/images/cnb_s1l.jpg
61* it's a stress temp, mch gets colder kinda slow - haven't made any changes to mch/ich cooling except changing tim to AS5. Idle temp is 46*.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostleader
Even at stress 61C is way to high, some instability may occur when the temp is that high.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
It seems like you system are working okey with it so then it most be okey.
BTW I had a third party cooler with a 80mm fan @ ~1900rpm on my NB before I went for water on it and it never got over your idle temp with max stress even though I push volts up in the red value.
Keep up the good work on that RF. :up:
Will have to think about getting some noiseless fans on it. Thinking about getting 7.5 or 8 x 533fsb for 24/7 use but only if I could stabilze nb temps under 55 on such fsb.
here is what i was using until i went on waterQuote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
http://www.cooling.pl/antec-spotcool,produkt,1788.html
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8854/53839806.png
it has three different speeds and some nice blue leds;)
greg.m found out that increasing fsbVTT gives much more than inreasing vMCH, done on CPU: 1.275, VTT: 1.24:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/264/clipboard05haq.jpg
if i have an E8600 and i want it to be a 5ghz with 1.50vcore wich gtl cpu and nb do i need to calibrate it correctly? divisor 1:1 585 x8.5multi or 555x9 multi gtl cpu 63 y nb gtl 67?ŋ=
With cpu gtl on 63% and nb gtl on 67% I was able to achieve 620fsb: http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=586151.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikefra2008
Gents It give me great honor to present Greg.m latest project
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...60&postcount=1
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
lol The point is not to extract fsb but my proce divides(departs) to 4,9ghz or 5ghz that I have q raise in order that it happens passes windows
English version please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikefra2008
5ghz air my Rampage formula is objetive
I have been out of the loop for a while. I was wondering if anyone is running the 0902 bios and if so, did it improve their oc any from 0803?
Is there any news about new bios? I'm still stuck under 480Mhz and still can't find a way to stable it at 483?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAguila
Iīm run it and have not notice any specific different but a run a dual with 2x1 ram.
If you go back a couple of page and read, it seem that 0803 is somewhat better then 0902 with a quad and 2x2 or more ram.
It seems like run FSB towards 500 with a 45nm quad isnīt the RF favorite thing to do and I donīt think that any bios change gonna make it happen with a relative comfortable volt setup.
Iīm waiting for some OZC low volt PC-9600 Blade to arrive and then I gonna pop in my Q9650 and do some test with 0803 vs 0902.
1: That wave lleban months with oc noob??
2: 500fsb xD my plate gives 570 stable ones in my core2duo
3: even there are no oc ends in this plate I see oc only bad wrong and normal
4: I do not deal pq they speak and give advices councils when they do not know anything of the asus rampage ghostlader it he has an oc terrible with the E8600
@MikeFra2008
Excuse me, but your english isnīt that good so I donīt understand what yourīre try to say. :confused:
Do you guys are also experiencing long booting problems?
After it detects my raid, it get stuck with blinking cursor in left top corner for ~5 seconds if I'm botting from raid and for ~15-20 if I'm botting from cd - any clues how to decrease this delay?
BTW: When I'm testing my ram using 5th test of memtest I noticed that there are 2 passes in this test, first goes normal but second goes very fast. And if I'm going to get any errors I will get it in that fast pass. Anyone know what does that means and why I'm only getting errors in this pass?
Hi there
I recently changed from a Q6600 G0 to a QX9650 .
Actually itīs running on 420x9.5 which gets me near the rated speed of my oczīs 1000 cl5 and near 4ghz cpu clock.
Memory and FSB settings will stay as they are until i get my preordered OCZ Blades 1200īs which I hopefully can run @ 1200 and 450 fsb
With the QX i have a strange problem which I found that I am not the only one who gets this with a asus x48/x38 board and a QX with a used cpu multiplier other than 9
System boot up from cold (cut off from the voltage with a socket switch) i get a message after POST that the VID setting or something like that is invalid ad Iīve to enter bios.
Done that, cachanged nothing, exit bios, system boots, perfectly stable.
I can restart as often as I want, it will allways boot up normally, except i take the system completly off Power with the socket switch or the switch on the PSU.
One other thing I found to be an issue for me is voltage and Temp measurement.
When I use the program "Hardware monitor" there are listed 2 winbond chips with provide information on System voltages and temperatured.
Time after time, one of the 2 disappeares from the program.
The same happens when I use the Vista Sidebar gadged from Everrest, that time after time most Cpu Relevant Voltages drop to zero, including NB Temp.
I had this issue yesterday while running prime small
A restart of Everrest ended in the fact that the values which just went to zero, werent even shown as avaliable.
I really have no clue what the reason is for that kind of issue or problem. NB Temps where less 50°C while that happened.
After a reboot of the system the previously missing Values were avaliable again.
Ideas ?
Never got any problems with temp/voltages reading, maybe it's something wrong with your os.
Happens with XP and both tools (Hardware monitor, Everrest), as in Vista 64 with both tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
I even believe that I had the same problem with ASus PC Probe II and bouncing/missing NB Temps
This booting problem is only if RAID is enabled and in SATA mode its normal. Disabling CDROM as the first boot device helps a bit. I am suspecting if this has started from installing the latest biosQuote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
Even I have the same issue.. Couldnt find a convincing reasonQuote:
Originally Posted by saxovtsmike
RAID is my first boot device and I'm using 803 bios.Quote:
Originally Posted by buBleZ
Played around with VTT yesterday but i do not get it completly.
To my understanding Vgtl-Ref (vtt/fsb term Voltage x GTL multiplier (0.62-0.67)) needs to be in relation to Vcore.
To find the sweet spot i did the following.
dropped down Vcore some notches, to get the cpu slightly instable, and then testing throug each mulitplier at a given VTT and the repeat that with the next value for VTT.
This should give me an idea what vGTL-ref is a good one for this certain vcore.
After i would have found a goof vtt, gtl setting i thougt on raising the Vcore back to the known stable voltage and because of that I would have to raise VGTL-Ref too
My problem is, how much should i raise Vgtl ref or better how should I ? By raising the GTL multiplier or by raising VTT.
Maybe itīs complete BS what Iīm thinking of, then just tell me.
Last known stable setting (Prime large, small, Blend each 3h and intelBurn test maximum 10 rund)
Rampage Foormula, 803 or 802 bios
420x9.5,
Strap 333,
Vcore 1.45 Bios (load 1.36)
LLC Disabled,
VTT 1.36 Bios, 1.26/1.28 according to everrest,
VNB 1.47,
SB,SB1.5,CPU PLL on Stock settings set manually.
Messing with GTL's is not needed below 500fsb, same as messing with VTT - but only for dual cores.
You have c2d or c2q?
Oh forgot to say, its a QX9650, posted that 3 posts ago too
Concerning you ram overclocking issues you mentioned in the D9 thread, have you got 'Mem OC Charger' enabled in BIOS?Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebk
There's no such option in RF bios. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
Ah ok, my mistake, thought there was. Someone has got to know how to get 600 MHz stable with D9 modules on that board. Most D9's will do it, but some (older D9) sometimes struggles to get 600 MHz stable. There is a chance your kit falls into this category.
That's weird, 800mhz kit does 575mhz 2.2-2.25v, on 2.2v it rarely gives an erros. but 590 is no go even at 2.6v lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
EDIT: Something has to be wrong with this 800 kit, with 1066 i can easily hit 600mhz on mem with 2.24v on them. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxovtsmike
I got the same problem with everest and CPUID Hardware Monitor. It reads everything okay and than after a while, mostly everest will no longer be reporting the voltage there.
and
everest and CPUID HW monitor is saying the my voltage on FSB, NB and SB is higher than what I have manually set up in Bios, anyone know why this is so?
Rampage Formula FTW :rofl::rofl:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/594/480x9.jpg
Nice work, just feed that NB and things starts to happens, thatīs the X48 way :yepp:
So True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostleader
Has always been the case with all X48s I've owned/used. NB loves voltage and craves it, and will take it 24/7 provided temps are kept at a reasonable range. Alot different than P45 NBs, they are quite picky when it comes to Vnb. Always a bonus of using a 90Nm chipset.