@510 Fsb using 8800GTS video card, not overclocked...the driver is set to high performance.
next thing to do is slap in my 9800GT card to see any major difference.
Printable View
@510 Fsb using 8800GTS video card, not overclocked...the driver is set to high performance.
next thing to do is slap in my 9800GT card to see any major difference.
Prime 95 @ 500 Fsb
i thought this one, prime 95 at 4335 mhz, was very good just using a TRUE heatsink with a 2.7K Panaflo fan.
Thks for the info. Any linky to this F5c bios? I can't find it anywhere:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
edit: Ok. Found the linky:up:
so what bios is the best so far fellas
gotta do some testin soon on my board so i'll just try stock bios and a couple of suggestions here maybe :up:
F4D proved to be the best for me dinos ( for 2GB RAM configurations of course ) ;)
i was using F5A and it was good, but, i had a stability problem with my Gskill ddr3-1600 memory (2 x 2gb) at 530 mhz FSB and above...so...i went back to F4H and i was able to run 530 with the 3DMark video benches...trying to solve 540 FSB issues at the moment...i haven't tried F4D as of yet...that will be on my next to do list.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
still on F5A
and mirroring Ace's clocks :lol:
E8500 4,335 8.5x510@3.33D 1,700 7,7,7,12
YUP, SS, you are putting the heat on me:D
i think i am at the end of my road with either the cpu or my memory at 530 FSB X 8...i think it is pushing the system memory a bit to far beyond its specs if i use the 3.20B memory strap...when i take it down to next level, it still acts weird at times...so...maybe it is the cpu cache that is causing the occasional instability...520 FSB seems fine...the only thing to do now is try F4D bios to see if that makes any difference.
Tried F5c last night and it is the worst among the Bios F4d , F4h and F5a.
Failed to boot up at the setting same on Bios F4d, F4h and F5a. Now revert back to Bios F5a.
about the same for me with F5C...it amazes me they even sent that beta out for scrutiny....i know it wasn't for general use but it was NOT even worthy for technical evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by memory
the vcore is getting up there to support this overclock...i ran all three 3DMark video benches...ran 3d2006 first with no problem at cas=8 but i ran 3d2005 next and it froze at cas=8...i re-booted to change to cas=9 and then ran 3d2005 without incident; so did 3d2001.
i am now prime 95 at 4420 mhz...cpu temp is at 77C which is about my limit using actual vcore of 1.425, which is actual droop voltage...idle comes in around 1.45v....i am just planning to do an hour and then consider it a done deal!;)
everything is at its most furthest point under air; the MHZ is up there along with over-maxed memory speed for the pair of 2gb memory sticks..they are rated for DDR3-1600 but are running at DDR-1664...the only thing i might be able to do to raise the performance is lower some of the timings to tweak a few more ounces of performance out of it.
Just thought I'd drop by and let you know that my new 4 gig kit of DDR3 1600 will be arriving tomorrow. I went with this memory. I'm hoping for much better results. I used to use Mushkin memory alot before I switched to G.Skill so I thought I'd give Mushkin a try again.
good price at a good performance...hope it pays off for you...i do like that 1.8-1.9 range...lets hope for you that 1.8 is the actual working voltage to hold it at 1600 mhz.
my Prime 95 dropped one core after 1 hour and 25 minutes...i guess that i got a little greedy:D when i said, i would cut it off after an hour...i decided to adjust some of the timings and run it again to see if i can make it to two hours like previously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
Should I start with the voltage at 1.8 and go from there, Ace?
you can if you are going to shoot for 1600 mhz right from the get go...if you are going to accept something less for Mhz then you can try a lower Vdimm...now, leaving the Vdimm in auto might set 1.8 or 1.9 for you automatically...you can confirm that in the PC Health section of the bios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
Thanks for the tip, Ace. I think I try loading optimal defaults and then work from there.
just going to show how excellent this board is and how GOOD is the E8500!...all on air, TRUE heatsink with a Panaflo 2.7K fan running full bore!
Hey guys i will probably get this board as my first mobo, do you think i will have trouble building the system and learning to OC with it?
Also what ram 2x2gb 1600mhz would you recommend for me to use on this board? i will be using a qx9650 btw
wow how loud is that thing :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
i've never owned a gigabyte before but this board looks good, nice results so far.
Great clock Ace:up:, I tried 8x530/540 yesterday but wasn't stable in SuperPi, whichh is odd as i'd hit both previously E8400 4,400Mhz 8x550@3.33D 1,832Mhz 8,7,6,18 Was expecting to get there with a little bit more stabilitty, such as your showing.
you should be fineQuote:
Hey guys i will probably get this board as my first mobo, do you think i will have trouble building the system and learning to OC with it?
You've missed out then, I had the X38 before the X48DQ6, that was also good. As I think Ace agrees the board is good out the box & paired up with any wolfdale & ddr3 is great.Quote:
i've never owned a gigabyte before but this board looks good, nice results so far.
it will get a little tricky as you get up into the higher FSB...i would say anything up to about 480 FSB should be a cake walk...once you go to 500, it might get a little tricky for a few of the voltage and memory settings...one thing to remember: i found CAS setting generally cannot be the same as your Static tRead Value (Perfomance Level)...that is not a pure blanket statement...it depends on certain variables where those two can not be equal...i think the lower end of the memory mhz scale you can probably have those equal but as you climb and reach the upper end of the memory sticks designed frequency, i have to separate those two to give the MCH chipset some breathing room in communicating between the system bus and the MCH bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac MM
if you're new to intel chipsets, intel does not incorporate, as of yet, the memory controller hub on the CPU die like AMD does...Nehalem changes that when it comes out....but for now, this board will not disappoint you.
as for memory, i put a link on the first page of this thread which shows you what gigabyte has tested on this board...read it and then make your selection based on that information...if it says they tested 2 x 1gb sticks, i would say the 2 x 2gb kit of the same classs will also work, so, don't be limited by gigabyte's decision to ONLY evaluate a 2 x 1gb kit....in fact, they make a statement to that fact in the PDF file.
i bought Gskill DDR3-1600 2 x 2gb kit and it works very well...another guy in this thread posted a bad stick(s)problem with the same type memory...so...it can be a bit dubious when one set works fine and another user takes it in the shorts:D
loudness is relative;) to the amount of fan noise that you are use to:)...actually, the 38mm thick 120 fans are generally not to noisy at full rpm...i would recommend to anyone the Panaflo 2.5K or 2.7K fan...it delivers a superior air-flow without a whole lot of decibels...now, if you are one of those submariner-types who like to run deep and SILENT:D, you might want to take a step back and think about it.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gen
with that all said, i only run full rpm when i do the prime 95 or benching...it makes sense to try to keep the cpu as cool as possible while benching..right!:up:
thanks, Luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by Supershanks
yes, i had similar problems with this board at and above 520 FSB with all of the bioses running Super PI 32M...it must be something to do with us being at the very edge of memory specs and trying to find the right memory settings to make the chipset and cpu compatible with running super pi...all my video benches were completed but i couldn't run 32M bench get that one;)
i agree...SOLID board at a good price!Quote:
As I think Ace agrees the board is good out the box & paired up with any wolfdale & ddr3 is great.
I think at the minute it's the CPU as I showed in the link , can do it with the E8400 not with the E8500 which is a little odd as the E8500 is binned higher. Maybe my 8400 is a good one that got away :lol:Quote:
yes, i had similar problems with this board at and above 520 FSB with all of the bioses running Super PI 32M...it must be something to do with us being at the very edge of memory specs and trying to find the right memory settings to make the chipset and cpu compatible with running super pi...all my video benches were completed but i couldn't run 32M bench get that one
binned higher with a point '5' higher multi.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Supershanks
some are luckier (Luck;)) than others when you get the GOOD chip and others get an 'ok' chip:D...hehehehehe
Supershank and Ace what kind of memeory are you guys using?
Yep think my E8400 is looking good whilst the E8500 is ok. :shrug:Quote:
some are luckier (Luck) than others when you get the GOOD chip and others get an 'ok' chip
CellShock PC3-14400 (DDR3-1800) 2GB DDR3 Great stuff:up:
OK...going to put in my 9800GTX card to see what PCIe 2.0 specs do for me with the X48 board...the 8800GTS has 320 mb of video memory and the 9800 has 512 mb..additionally, it is a faster card...i will have comparison slides to compare to the 8800GTS...all system memory settings will be identical between the two cards at 500 FSB.
here are the simplified spec differences between my two video cards:
8800GTS:
GPU GeForce 8800GTS
Core clock 580MHz
Stream Processors 96
Memory
Memory Clock 1800MHz
Memory Size 320MB
Memory Interface 320-bit
Memory Type GDDR3
RAMDAC 400 MHz
Max Resolution 2560 x 1600
9800GTX:
Interface
Interface PCI Express 2.0 x16
GPU GeForce 9800 GTX(G92)
Core clock 675MHz
Stream Processors 128
Memory
Memory Clock 2200MHz (effective)
Memory Size 512MB
Memory Interface 256-bit
Memory Type GDDR3
RAMDAC 400 MHz
Max Resolution 2560 x 1600
here are the 4 video benches using the 8800GTS:
i realize this is not the best comparison since the card has different specs as far as core clock speed, stream processors, memory clock speed and memory on the cards:
EDIT:...the card is not overclocked and the driver was set to high performance.
not as good as my IP35 PRO board...two reasons why...1st, E8500 versus QX9650 on the PRO board...2nd, single drive operation versus Raid 0.
going to put in my QX9650 and set up Raid 0 with Vista 64...the difference between XP SP2 and Vista 64 on the Pro board was 500 points more for Vista64.
be back in a few hours...
ran out of time last night...i yanked the heatpipe system to check how the TIM (grey stuff) was interfacing PWM, NB and SB...to my surprise, it wasn't even melted or tacky!...i could peel off the thin layer of TIM without any problems at all...i polished the NB and PWM heatsink bottoms and then applied AS Ceramique...now, i feel some warmth coming into the heatpipe system at the PWM heatsink.
i have a 70mm fan on the NB; so far that is it.
working on installing SP1 for Vista64...i will be getting to PCMark2005 very soon...i am curious now since PCMark05 would not run without SP1...it ran on my IP35 Pro board with SP1 installed....the 1.20 patch is suppose to make it compatible with vista; obviously not without SP1.
the only difference is the Intel chipset in Raid 0 is not as good as the Areca Raid card which has its own memory and basic cpu processor.
even though the the ggia board scored about 1800 points higher the video bench the overal PCMark05 score is only about 325 points higher....SO....to get a true comparison between chipsets, i will remove the Areca Raid card from this puter and move it over to the giga board and run setup again with vista 64 (SP1 after the OS is installed).
notice the memory sub score and video sub score are better than the Pro board sub scores.
1st slide show the results from the IP35 Pro:
Vista64 w/SP1
QX9650
9800GTX
2 x 2gb DDR2 system memory
Areca Raid 0 (128K Stripe) with 2 x 250gb Seagate one platter drives
2nd slide show the results from the GA-X48T-DQ6:
Vista64 wSP1
QX9650
9800GTX
2 x 2gb DDR3 System memory
Intel Raid 0 (128K Stripe) with 2 x 320gb Seagate 2 platter drives
Great work Ace, very interesting. Good to see a pukka comparison, thanks:up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supershanks
the IP35 Pro is a VERY good board...PCMark2005 is a good benching prog that shows the overall performance...i think hard drive performance and CPU performance have a strong scoring weight factor, and video and memory follow those two.
here is the GA X48T-DQ6 with the Areca 1210 model Raid card using the same drives that i used on the IP35 Pro...i had four of these.
Vista64 was installed and then, it was updated with SP1.
i had the 9800GTX running at default speed with only the driver set to high performance...the bios had the video accelerator set to auto.
the FSB was set eaxctly the same as it was on the Pro board and the same specs for cpu, QX9650...the only difference was the chipset and memory; being DDR2 versus DDR3...ddr3 is obviously has a higher Mhz threshold but also is accompanied by higher latencies and timings.
we see the Giga X48T board move out in front of the P35 board by a good margin..a thousand points!
At lest we've not been throwing our money around to stand still :ROTF:
good find. That's a pretty good performance from the Areca Raid card Hadn't considered them too much before. :shrug: may reconsider :)
Interesting comparison:-
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...s/PCmark05.png
Memory - we know DDR2 to DDR3
Graphics - pcie 2 I guess , hadn't expected that bigger lift but ok
HDD - Not quite got my head round this one ??:shrug:
where do you guys get these bioses
i can email my GB contact but i'll probably get an answer tomorrow and i want one NOW hahah
pls point me in the right direction
also would anyone have this bios
have a look at the efficiency ;) EEK
F3F bios
http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=685943
compliments of BenchZowner: http://www.benchzone.com/Downloads/B...e/GA-X48T-DQ6/
WOW!...EXCELLENT chart...you are hired!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Supershanks
that makes it easier to see the increases coming from the X48T
EDIT:...if you think about the hard drive score...the PCMark2005 suite was written for one hard drive...now, most people do not expect double your return going from single to Raid 0...usually you expect, maybe, a 30% increase not double.
Intel's solution uses the system's CPU and memory...so...it has to wait in queue for its turn to process data....the Areca card that i have has its own processor (330 Mhz) and 256 MB of memory...no waiting on system memory or CPU for computation and storage of data like you would see with Intel's solution.
:lol: just a screenshot of something knocked up in a couple of minutes in ExcelQuote:
WOW!...EXCELLENT chart...you are hired!
Yep so the HD score is a direct function of faster memory performance say 5% , yep can buy that :D
So if we eliminate the DDR3 impact :-
is 404+636 , are we saying gain is all down to memory, it'a a pity the total isn't additive. It's not an average either (Sum element score & / by 4) . We could do with someone with a X48 DQ6 to repeat your tests :lol:
Anyway Gigabyte rules OK :lol:
pat yourself on the back...you did an excellent job with layout and color scheme!:up:...simple, YES, but it is a good analytical tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supershanks
well mate, i am not sure how to take your statement...if you strictly mean taking a single drive from a P35 board and moving it over to an X48 board, yes, a 5% increase in performance due to DDR3 memory performance.Quote:
Yep so the HD score is a direct function of faster memory performance say 5% , yep can buy that :D
the reason Areca does better is two fold: it has it own processor to deal with requests and its own onboard memory to store data, therefore, alleviating any bottleneck with system memory and system cpu....therefore...a nice boost in speed for those acquiring enthusiasts!:D
NOPE...a good gain is going from the P35 to X48 chipset...i think the gain from X38 to X48 is going to be around 2.5%.Quote:
So if we eliminate the DDR3 impact :-
is 404+636 , are we saying gain is all down to memory, it'a a pity the total isn't additive. It's not an average either (Sum element score & / by 4) . We could do with someone with a X48 DQ6 to repeat your tests :lol:
don't forget to factor in the PCIe 2.0 spec and it is even better going from P35 to X48.
IT DOES!:DQuote:
Anyway Gigabyte rules OK :lol:
My result with E6300 & E8500 (normal water cooling)
http://www.vmodtech.com/modules.php?...owpage&pid=334
http://www.vmodtech.com/spaw/images/.../sp32m-575.jpg
http://www.vmodtech.com/spaw/images/...orthos-560.png
Sorry didn't make myself clear , the Areca configuration & performance is identical on both the P35 & X48. The Card's onboard CPU & memory are common in both cases. Yet there is a nearly 6% 636 point improvement in X48. I agree with your supposition x4 restriction on the P35 is a reason for the improvement, :)Quote:
well mate, i am not sure how to take your statement...if you strictly mean taking a single drive from a P35 board and moving it over to an X48 board, yes, a 5% increase in performance due to DDR3 memory performance.
Great clocks Venom-Crusher :up:
On the E8500 your temps look particularly good as your showing the wrong Tj Max see Unclewebb's Realtemp which meands youer temps are probably 10C less than shown
ie around 66C
luck:)
that is some pretty amazing memory coming from OCZ....those speeds and timings are just awesome for DDR3!Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom-Crusher
Thanks, but my memory is cellshock ddr1600. I used spd of OCZ DDR1600 XMP memory for it.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue
aaaah!...no wonder why such GREAT numbers!
i immediately started looking for that (OCZ) memory:D...glad you told me, otherwise i would have bought OCZ...Supershanks has cellshock also but he had a bit more of a problem getting the timings in your range.
EDIT:...what did you use to flash cellshock with OCZ template?
I used SPDTool 0.62. It not supported ddr3 to edit, but it support to flash.
I post it for you, Try it with SPDTool :D
would this work on GSkill DDR3-1600 2gb modules?
I think it don't work with 2gb module(16chips), but work for all of 1gb module(8chips) used micron d9-gtr
aaaah, nuts!:D
these were my 5,5,5,12 settings E8200 3,900 7.5x520Mhz @2.40B 5,5,5,12, but i've not tried pushing them up as far as pushed it quite as high as Venom.
darn, your site is down since early this morning
Yep server upgrade. :DQuote:
darn, your site is down since early this morning
hey buddy!...how's life without home plate:D
:rofl: Pretty wierd , started this am with email volume down 50% , got more surreal as day's gone on. Nearly there I think , but am away to bed it's 01:06 here :DQuote:
hey buddy!...how's life without home plate
are you daring like venon to flash the sticks!?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Supershanks
Pressing Alt + F1 on Memu Page will bring you additional bios option:
CPU GTL Reference VOltage for CPU1 and CPU GTL Reference Voltage for CPU2
I am on Bios F5a. Never try to use Alt+F1 on other bios. Maybe this additional option can be found alos on Bios F4 series??
It's been like that since the x38 m8.Quote:
I am on Bios F5a. Never try to use Alt+F1 on other bios. Maybe this additional option can be found alos on Bios F4 series??
Gigabyte X38 DQ6
my best understanding:-
X48 & X48T CPU GTLREF
luck:)
Is this true?Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Also, does this board support 2x2gb ddr3 1600 G.SKILL?
i have ram that has died because one module on the stick was bad....it happen with expensive stuff on an excellent board (IP35 Pro)...it was corsair dominators...i had to RMA the sticks...main reason for RAM to die on you is over-juicing the sticks and if you have a weak stick, it is a perfect way of killing the RAM.
i am currently using GSkill DDR3-1600, 2 x 2gb...works well, but i was careful with the voltage...i didn't take it over 2.05v.
this board is excellent!...i would rate it 9 out of 10.
Thks for the input.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Supershanks
But my mobo does not like divider 5:8=(
No matter what I did, it just refused to boot up:mad:
Anyway. Managed to get some CF results on this mobo. Trying to break 20k but my gpu does not play nice on me
3D Mark 06
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...w/19342-06.jpg
3D Mark 05
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...w/29306-05.jpg
AM3
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...iew/270929.jpg
For 3D Mark 03- The higher my cpu clock is, the lower my score will be. Anybody know why??=(
do you have a comparison bench to show?...if you are talking about 200 points or less i would say that is just a variable between benches.Quote:
Originally Posted by memory
BTW, nice clocks!:up:
Nice going memory:up:
i'm lagging a bit behind those scores a bt :lol:
burt am still quiet happy on E8400 4,336 8x542@3.33D 1,807 8,7,6,14
luck:)
@Ace,
The score difference is about 1k. At 4ghz (CPU) my score is around 70k but when my cpu is at 4.5ghz, the score dropped to about 69k. run the benchmark for trice but always get the score about 69k. When down clock the cpu speed to 4ghz. The score jumped from 69k back to 70k again. =( . I don't have the screenie for the 69k run as I am not happy with the score and just don't bother to save it=(
Anyway. This is my best score for 03 run, period
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...w/72190-03.jpg
@supershanks,
Thx m8
Oh something I forgot to mention, Have been running since last sunday with memory in the green slots. I've had no issues at all , perhaps it was the early bios that made the pink ones run better ??
I'm still on F5A
does that happen only with 3dmark03 bench?Quote:
Originally Posted by memory
my other thought: maybe the cpu is throttling when at 4500 mhz...possible?
try 4400 mhz or something lower when running 3dmark03
EDIT:...can you hold 517 mhz FSB stable?...if so, you can try 4400 mhz using 8.5 multi
gigabyte X48T-DQ6 new beta bios F5D available for download: http://station-drivers.com/page/giga...a-x48t-dq6.htm
Thanks Ace running omn it now. :) seems olk . Main noticable change is in Menu :lol:
The MIT section has moved from bottom of pagre to top :D
cool!...haven't gotten to flashing as of yet...so much on my plate:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Supershanks
:lol: so have I , it's called dinner :DQuote:
cool!...haven't gotten to flashing as of yet...so much on my plate
That Too!:ROTF:
use this template to flash manually
i tried 485 FSB with my QX9650 and it was bootable but i had to really loosen the memory timings and increase the MCH voltage...it made me feel a little uncomfortable since i could feel the heat pouring off the heatpipe.
A bit warmish :lol;
did you try with gtlref1 & 2 both at -3% ?? might make a difference :)
I've got Intel® Xeon® 3230 to play with for a bit , interested to see what i can get out of it. Had thought of getting a Q6700 Go as the £ are now down , but saw this which is the Xeon equivalent.
the cpu gtlref had to be +3% and normal to handle 475 to 485 FSB.
do you think that the Xeon will give you better FSB overclocks, like the E8400???
Hell no , hard to beat 550 :DQuote:
do you think that the Xeon will give you better FSB overclocks, like the E8400???
I sold my Q6600 & thought this would make a decent £/Performance replacement. Really just cashing in on the £ softening. As I say had satrted to see the Q6700 come down to £ where the Q6600 was , though this was a little more thought it worth a go :lol: It's success will really lie on what i can get out of it Muhahaha :rofl:
reasonable logic:D:rofl:
Oh we can't agree x2 in the same day :lol:Quote:
reasonable logic
:shrug:
That's interesting what was it on your E8500 -3% all round or Auto/NormalQuote:
the cpu gtlref had to be +3% and normal to handle 475 to 485 FSB.
i think i used -3% for both on the E8500
it is amazing how harder the quad is to overclock via the higher FSB...the difference in MCH voltage was like +0.45v for the E8500 at 500 FSB and to hold 485 FSB for the QX9650 was +0.60 for MCH...the heatpipes were very warm to the touch even with fans on the PWM and NB heatsinks.
yep seems to be best for 45nm duoQuote:
i think i used -3% for both on the E8500
Yep 485 on a quad is a good , if not great clock:) You got a fan on the NB ?? :D
how about 3 fans:D
actually, i will take 445-450 FSB as my final overclock...less voltages all around.
I took a slightly different approach to mounting my true... 5/32 bit, 6-32 machine screws, nuts, and washers...
HEY...I LIKE!:)
does it make any difference for cooling?
Hehe... It's kind of hard to tell with the monster panaflo on it :ROTF:
Seriously though, I'll be able to tell better once it's in the case. It's still on the bench for a couple days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonym
:D...you know, before you put it in the case remove the back plate and use some AS Ceramique on the plate instead of leaving that grey TIM material they use....when i removed my heatpipe after hours and hours of operation at high temps, the grey TIM wasn't even melted or tacky...it just peeled off the base without any undue force.
Yeah, great suggestion. I'll redo all the board sinks. I've really only been playing with this for a couple days, I had a p5e3 premium I had to rma because it was a dogpile. It was a great clocker I guess but very buggy. It would randomly lose all usb ports for a few seconds, sometimes on restart it would spontaneouly clear the cmos, and I think the pci-e lanes went south after about 3 days. So far I can only get my x3360 and a borrowed 9550 to around 3.95ghz on the 48t vs 4.05ghz on the asus but you know something? This board is faster at 3.95 than the p5e3 premium at 4.05 with the quads I tried and I'm sure as I learn how to tune the skews the clocks will go up.
those skew controls can be difficult to set correctly...only move them out of auto once you past 480 FSB for a dual core....quads will be lower...i found 250ps was a workable setting at 445 fsb for my QX9650
CPU COMPATIBILITY LIST: http://www.gigabyte.us/Support/Mothe...ProductID=2650
This is going to seem like a silly question, but I want to flash my bios now so I downloaded the F5a, but it's extension is .F5a which I guess is wrong :P @Bios saved my current one as .bin... What should I rename the new one to?
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by I34z1k
@bios recognizes the bios with the .f5a extension, no problem.
:lol: something I'd not even checked , looked at my filenames & can confirm X4er0 , works no problem:up:
I can comfirm it too :D But stuck @ 588fsb :P
Anycase, what's the standard pll? And by changing the skew setting to 150ms, that's an increase of 0.15v right?
Nice clock :DQuote:
Originally Posted by I34z1k
I'm curious about what the standard voltages are too?
Default voltages as far as i'm aware, see
MIT Settings
included in Bios Template at no extra charge :rofl:
luck:)
Thanks Supershanks... I knew I shoul;d have read that thread :D
edit: Reading that, I think I could use a little more vtt (fsb voltage) for my bench runs. Even max doesn't seem to be excessive for bench runs. Might allow me to decrease vcore slightly on the yorkfields. Thanks again.
loonym,
What GTLRef are you at ?? I've found running -3 on both 1 & 2 help higher clock & give a little more stability.
luck:)