Your sig is Australia. Did you get it from mwave in the U.S.A.?Quote:
Originally Posted by freshy
Printable View
Your sig is Australia. Did you get it from mwave in the U.S.A.?Quote:
Originally Posted by freshy
Those are great temps. I am getting 72C @ 1.300 in BIOS on the GTZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbylite
I am on R2E and do not have this conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by dejanh
Windows XP maybe? We have all been on Vista so far...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
Edit: Well, I have what looks to be an answer and here it is... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930062/en-us
Do what I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmilos
Put your radiator in the window with six fans on it.
1.7v on a q6600 g0, 3.95 GHz, and it doesn't step over 55c.
Gotta love wintertime. :)
yes :yepp:,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukee
my 13 hour prime @4ghz is
19 x 191 HT on, turbo on
vcore 1.375v
qpi/vtt 1.315v
vdimm 1.64v
mem 1528mhz 9,9,9,24
qpi link speed x36
uncore frequency x18
pcie frequency 100
ive tried to drop vcore a bit but it crashed, im just priming now with vcore back at 1.375v but trying to see if i can drop qpi/vtt from 1.315v to 1.295v
but yea ya must lift qpi/vtt voltage or its just not stable
il try get 4.2ghz stable after i know what settings im staying with for 4ghz
edit.... nup she needs 1.315v for qpi/vtt
yep mwave in the USA,i got good friends over there , they sent it over for meQuote:
Originally Posted by roller11
over 2 hours of prime and still going @ 4116mhz
19 x 196 HT on , turbo on
1.45v vcore :sick:
1.435v qpi/ptt :sick:
max temps 80c, are these volages and temps ok for 24/7 ?
Well, I striked my watercooling loop last night (what a PAIN!) and re applied the thermal paste, changed the fans to pushing, refilled the coolant (no more air pockets) and it seems to have done the trick. I have a 18 hour prime stable 4.1 mhz @ 153 x 27 w/ 1.39375 and a qpi @ 1.40000 , HT on. Temps were in the 80c range at load.
that sounds more like it :up:
nice to know 920 is kinda keeping up with 965 :D
depends on what you own...
thats true, personally i expected more from the 965, they were $2k here in australia :shocked:
freshy has one of the nicest i7 stable overclocks. sad - this new arch isn't all that interesting to me.
Yeah, I am not going to lie but I am pretty pissed at the moment. I purposely bought a Core i7 940 because I figured they would be higher binned chips than the Core i7 920 and hence get better overclocks. I know this is not guaranteed, but at least in AMD world it held pretty true. However, not only can I not get better overclocks (tried 2 CPUs so far), but the i7 920 actually often beats my highest stable overclocks on air.Quote:
Originally Posted by freshy
A couple of points I noticed...
(1) Lots of chips out there will not run 20x multiplier. Both of my Core i7 940 chips won't. Above or below that is fine.
(2) Voltage requirements and temps for same clocks are a complete crapshoot. My first i7 940 would heat up ~15C more than the one I use now for the same volts and clocks.
(3) Jumps in volts for additional few MHz are stupendously large (e.g., going from 200x19 to 200x20).
(4) Having 22x multiplier (23x turbo) on the i7 940 is actually a major hinderance in comparison to the i7 920 as running this chip with 4-cores/8-threads at 22x200 is basically not possible thereby making 23x200 practically impossible. Turbo sort of gives a multiplier for free, except that means nothing when you cannot run your chip at its default multiplier to allow for turbo in the first place.
(5) At theoretical top clocks assuming 200MHz BCLK (even) there is a 400MHz difference between top clock on i7 920 vs i7 940 which likely translates to at least 0.3-0.5V (likely more) difference in extra voltage needed to achieve stability which is again practically impossible as most regular i7 920 will already require too much voltage to run at their theoretical maximum of 200x21.
Overall, pretty pathetic. With the current state of affairs and unless you are a top-notch enthusiast going for the higher possible bench score with some amazing cooling there is no point in buying either the i7 940 or the i7 965 EE. Simply put, they are a waste of money.
I am going to have to agree with you, on all fronts. One would think $700USD would get you a bit further than the 920. Ive seen consistent 1.3 - 1.5 overclocks from the 920 and I am having trouble reaching a 1.0 mhz overclock. What sense does that make?
Given, this chip seems to thrive on SS and ln2, that would be an extra $800 for a phase changer... Not worth it.
I am still keeping the faith, though. Maybe through some miracle bios or untapped voltage, the 940 and 065 will prevail. I've reached an unstable 4.4mzh boot, but prime95 has been beating me up from 4.2 on...
dejanh..yes you are right..therefore i want the people see what real performance they get for the money with my chess test!
If you look to my list then you see clearly how good the core i7 920 is compared with the 940 & 965.
JP.
The one thing that the 965 allows is more control over what you want to OC your memory to. Given that, that's a hell of a lot of money to OC your memory a couple hundred MHz.
My i920 HATES 20 X CPU multiplier.
I've managed to run 211 BCLK, but at obscene Qpi/vtt voltages.
I'm hoping that as time goes on, Gigabyte will put out a bios that will allow me to use that x20 multiplier.
Right now I can run 211 x 19 pretty stable at pretty low voltages. It's just not worth running higher for me. The increase in heat and voltages just aren't worth the possible gains.
That being said, if I saw a 965 for $500 I'd jump on it in a heartbeat!!
Lukee, why not try 20x200 with turbo (running a bios that leaves turbo always on)
have you tryed settings in my sig?
I've tried for like 5 days and nothing. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbylite
I've tried 21x200 , 20x200
My bios setting are smiliar to yours :
Voltage:
1.375 vcore set in bios LLC enabled
1.41 QPI/VTT - I think I was a bit lower on this.. like 1.31
1.86 PLL
1.66 Vdimm (probably could be lowered)
All other voltages Auto
21x200
Turbo enabled even under load (thanks f4j )
HT disabled
x36/x18/x8
PCI-E 101 - I have PCI-E 100
CPU clock drive -800mV
PCI-E clock drive -900mV - I have 700mV
I'll give it a shot while changing those 3 settings.
The funny thing is with the 211 x 20, I run it at 1.3V in bios. I turn turbo on and it still gives me problems even at 1.45V in bios That's a lot of juice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmilos
Hi
thats strange , im using 3.8Ghz @ 1.20v with watercooling (and BAD Thermal Compound)
playing GTA IV for 1 Hour max temp = 46º
http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1...sistemaqv3.jpg
and prime95 = 55º/60º
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9391/3800120vev4.jpg
:up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
Not, strange. You are using 1.20 vcc. I'm using 1.4v vcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmilos
haaaaaaaaaaaaa , 1.40v (didnt saw that)
Edit: with 1.35v i get ~70º
:up:
I emailed Asus about this issue. Their support team is a JOKE!Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
How the hell can bugs get fixed then? What the hell is their support good for if it can't be in the loop? Thats the most BS I've ever heard! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Asus Support
Anyone using a Peltier? I'm thinking it would be a good investment that would yield some results...
no need to laugh at the guyQuote:
Originally Posted by mascaras