Originally Posted by dekruyter
I've been following these threads and trying various combinations of bios settings.
I am and have been stable (DS3) at 3.2 = 400 x 8 with 800 4-4-4-12 ram with an E6600. FSB settings below 400 boot fine (mostly), but the overall performance is worse so they're useless (or not optimal).
However, I can't get any settings to hold after cold boot above 400 fsb (the monitor is not even recognized). Very frustrating. I also have not learned anything definitive on the internet or from Gigabyte to resolve this situation.
I'm just about ready to give up and use the above settings, and/or I may return the board for a replacement; maybe Asus. I also may wait a few months and buy a new board after more bugs have been workded out of the 965's. Maybe the "true" Quad compatible boards will fair better.
I don't know why this board does not overclock successfully over 400 (with a cold boot) with, what appears to be, perfectly acceptable settings. How rediculous that this "Gaming/performance" board, and probably lots of other 965 boards, are so difficult. You also gotta love the "mystery" surrounding each bios release. Why can't Gigabyte communicate how to use the bios, or at least explain how they are designed and work. Where's the documentation!! But no, we have to do all the testing based on guess work and observation; Re-boot, re-boot, reboot.
Here's my guess; the current NB and/or SB 965 chipsets sucks for extreme overclocking with the C2D's. I think Gigabyte and others are trying their best to resove the situation created by the intel 965chipset. Perhaps Nvidia, who also has (other) reported problems, will resolve this issue for me and Intel. I have been enjoying the overclocking adventure up to now, but enough is enough.
Sorry about the rant.
-- Let me add, I am aware of most of the usual suspects for this dilema (voltage, ram latency, strap, etc.). However, this knowledge is useless if the computer doesn't boot/post to the bios.