i saw that and figured it was the vcore but im not sure what is what... its not labeled like it used to be lol
Printable View
i saw that and figured it was the vcore but im not sure what is what... its not labeled like it used to be lol
WOW amazing I hope I don't crow to soon and jinx this but I have actually gotten AMD Overdrive 2.017 & Engine .dll installed and it has not locked my system up:)
Now you kind gentleman that have been using this Program with my board could you please tell me if I can Manually set Bios and use this program for monitoring and just general use without it crashing due to Bios Set Manually? Can you use this in conjunction with overclock established and set in Bios?
Please advise I have had a miserable experience with this program since I got this board before it was available on the open market so I am ignorant on exactly the do's and don'ts of this app well you know why already!:p:
Please assist a brother in need:up:
@Tony.......Hey, I did not see that you could not get beyond 2ghz NB with 4/15/08 unless raising HT Bus post that you made until after I had already Installed 4/16/2008 "Beta" or else I would have tried to duplicate on my end to see if its a issue exclusive to you on your end...sorry M8 ..But heres a screenie of 4/16/2008 Beta and I have no issue on this release setting NB Multi higher to go to 2.2ghz.
I also have had success with AMD Overdrive Until........I Installed and opened the Current Build of CPUZ ...and BLAMO.......BSOD:slap: :D ....Frigging BSOD came out like a Six Shooter Being drawn at the OK Corral :rofl: :rotf: :doh:
My 9850 running at 2900mhz & NB 2400mhz 1.29v.:D My mainboard is DQ6.
I am lucky. Will test it higher soon.
HT Brother not NB, Iwas trying to push the HT link to say 2.4GHZ while running NB at 2.6GHZ and CPU at 3.0GHZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
On your screenie you highlighted the NB clock where you needed to highlight the HT clock which is still at 2GHZ
Tony, I tried some couple days ago with bios 307, HT>2000 never worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1200
Jimmy confirmed today that HT over 2000 is not working, I feel they should just remove the options from bios to stop confusion.
:nono:What they should do, is put it to work, at least on unlocked Phenoms.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Just my :2cents:
Hmmm? So is it more or less confirmed now that NB clocks should be within 'x Mhz' of CPU clock now? Cause if I see for example Tony's results, he gets very nice clocks, but that's with the NB clocks being higher too. And most important, are those OC's of people with 3Ghz 100% stable or what?
Im in testing, at school now so I dont know the situation of my PC right now, but Large FFT testing seemed to catch errors WAY better than small FFT's. Also 14.5x200 froze everytime after ~1hour and 20minutes in Large FFT at the same test, I added a bit of Vcore and Vnb but it didnt help, which I found strange.
14x200 is testing now. I really like to get the CPU at least 3Ghz stable, I know nothing is guaranteed in the OC world although I'd really love it. I might try to add some NB clocks when I get home and see how 14.5x200 is doing then. ATM Im only testing with multiplier clocking. Once I finally get a good CPU OC Ill switch arund with a mix of multi's and HTT to get the RAM speed higher. I cant be bothered with 1066, Ill just try and use 800.
But any comments about 3Ghz OC's being stable and how NB clocks should be within x of CPU clocks would be great:up:
I have had a problem with anything at 3000Mhz and above being stable at everyday use "idle" I can idle with no programs open all day long and run Prime95 until my heart is content, but leaving something like Outlook open crashes my system.
So I have been working my way back up to 3000Mhz very slowly with little changes at a time I am currently at the following settings:
CPU - 2990Mhz
CPU Multi - 13x
HT Clock - 230
CPU vddc 1.424
NB Core - 1.275
Mem vddc - 2.1
Stable at everything so far...may up the HT Clock to 231 this weekend and give 3003Mhz a try again.
As far as AOD is concerned, I use it to test settings and once I find something stable I set that in the Bios. Then I work up to the next stable setting and apply those changes in the Bios..so on and so forth. AOD is good for testing settings.
Sorry Tony I really thought you were referring to NB:p: My bad and Naughty Monkey should pay more attention at times:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Tony.....I see in this new 4/16/2008 Beta Release there is now a attached message on CPU Vcore in PWM say CPU Voltage and CPU - NB Vlotage should be equal to CPU Vcore voltage..........Kinda late disclosing that aren't they? Also what is you're direct opinion on that one Tony as I never really Messed with the CPU-NB Vlotage adjustment until now?
My AOD seems to freeze when i get 220x14 :(
I can easily get 3.0 when i raise the multi to 15 and its stable.. but it doesnt go much higher than that.
Can anyone help me learn about the options on the bios? This isnt as easy as the x2's :(
I know i can go to the PWM settings in the bios but im not sure which ones the vcore and even if i find the vcore... what do i do next? lol
Someone post their settings so i can try to copy them and learn :up:
QFT, Im getting mad at the stupid freeze behaviour lol. It makes no sense wtf ever I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by unkn0wnhacka
That's indeed rather late:shakes:. Also... why? That also means, if true, that there must be a link between NB and CPU then, at least Voltage wise:rolleyes:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Ill try it though, maybe it might even increase CPU over all clocks:cool:. But I still vote for the post I made above
CPU and NB voltage don't need to be the same at all, at least on my board. If they get seperate power planes then they shouldn't need to be equal, or else it isn't really seperate. Generally the nb will need more voltage than the rest of the cpu for the same speed, like 2.5cpu/2.5nb would work for me at 1.15v/1.25v, but then trying to run the nb at 3ghz I couldn't get it stable because it was the near vertical part of the voltage curve at that point.
Oldguy......There is a setting in our Bios under PWM for CPU-NB Voltage control > In addition to NB-Core Voltage and CPU-Core Voltage
The first >>>>CPU-NB Voltage control: is the one in question:)
thats not the name of it... which ones the vcore?
Hmm, if I remeber correct there is no vcore filed in the M2RS bios. It only has an percentage bump field.Quote:
Originally Posted by unkn0wnhacka
M2RS isn't percentage, it is by mV increments (like +25mV, +50mV, something like that). It is under the PWM setting, I think it is CPU over voltage or CPU voltage adjust or something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
My 9850 so far isn't responding at all to voltage, which leads me to believe it's something else wrong. It just WILL NOT do 3.0. In fact, the more voltage you give it, the faster it crashes.
I'm seeing a lot of that "clock interrupt not received on a secondary processor" or whatever message even at 1.45V.
Spread spectrum was on--this can mess with things if I recall, yes?
finally a thread of hope for AMD.
Yet... it's still ...
Who knows?
FINALLY someone has answered my question after days of asking :) thanks !Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
so +50mV = ? 1.78vcore ?
Lol, not so many M2RS users here.Quote:
Originally Posted by unkn0wnhacka
1000mV = 1V
100mV = 0.1V
50mV = 0.05V
25mV = 0.025V
:)
why would they make the 2 motherboards so different? I wonder if theres a modded bios to make it like the mr2 :)
i got the cpu to 1.48 finally without using stupid AOD
http://i30.tinypic.com/2egekg3.jpg
I don't really think AMD really died, they just screwed up their PR and look like they're mismanaged in a major way. I remember fanboy BS from circa 2000 that AMD "stole" all of Intel's designs blah, blah, blah. Seriously, it's OK to have opinions but I'm real tired of all the negativity towards the phenom (and fanboyism in general). intel took a few tries to get to the Core 2 Duo architecture alright. Anyone remember Pentium D or Core architecture? Those weren't nearly as good as Core 2.
Benchmarks are great, but I don't think they tell the whole story (though I don't doubt the efficacy of benchmarks), personally I like to rate PCs by how they feel and move (which are partly subjective observations) regarless of paper specs and benchies. I know somebodies gonna insert insult...here, but that's my opinion. Ranting and raving aside, I would like to thank you, Tony, for your efforts and objectivity in this thread.