It depends, some 0610 are excellent, some are worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb
Printable View
It depends, some 0610 are excellent, some are worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb
is it true that the earlier 904 batch is supposed to be good?
that seems to be the general conclusion... speaking of, my 904 is officially for sale nowQuote:
Originally Posted by blazin-asian
Yeah, 904 is the best of the two that are in circulation. 3Ghz at 1.456v for me. My results have been from the 904 variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazin-asian
here's a good start
Um, I have a 904 too, and it takes me 1.55V to run 3.0Ghz, and that isn't prime stable, just 3D stable...and it takes about 1.45V to run at 2.9, and I think it might need more, or my windows could be corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb
What variations do we have so that we can determine why this is? Well, first off, my ambient temps are horrible, it's usually at least above 29C here...but, I have the IHS off, so my temps NEVER go over 45C, basically no matter what voltage. Could be I'm still holding myself back by other bios options though, but I could imagine what. I've done some pretty exhaustive tweaking.
Second, my whole batch number is as follows: 1434904C60509...notice the last three digits? I believe yours is 70X, and mine is 509...
itznfb, what are the last three numbers of your batch?
On a side note, I think I might need to reinstall windows:( <-------pwned!@#
Hey, do you think you might be slightly mobo limited???Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb
my batch is 1434904C60987
i have to reinstall windows all the time, i corrupt windows on a weekly basis, if not more, and this WILL effect your overall OC
i actually know i'm quite mobo limitedQuote:
Originally Posted by phi|os
Hmm, I will definitely mull this over, lol. So what do you think the last three numbers specify? The actual CPU #? That would mean I have the earliest between Thunder, you and I; Thunder would have the "middle child", and you'd are the youngest...just an entertaining thought, I have no way of knowing...Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb
yea, i have no idea what they mean, all i know is the stepping break down.
Dunno if batch number is relevant. Too many inconsistent results to say something like "lower is better".
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=93926
Heres my result on my 170 CCBWE 0551 UPMW
http://rigshowcase.com/img/281aOTVr/4231
nice. i like the hitman bg too ;)
Mine was 434 IIRC, and needed 1.53v to do 3ghz not prime but 3D stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by phi|os
as a little side note:::
i got this chip to boot into windows 334x9 @ 1.25v, but it wasn't even close to stable, it rebooted while opening cpuz =\
still impressive, i may not be selling this chip.
Some days ago got mine, its CCBBE 0610DPMW, max stable with default votage and default cooling was 310 x 9, its ok I think, with 1.375v it goes 2.8+ Ghz! Hope burnin will help me to get 311 x 9 stable with 1.35v or less :D Booted easy into the Windows with 3Ghz and a little bit more voltage, must repair waterhead to lower temperatures! :p:
<a href="http://img180.imageshack.us/my.php?image=310x9prime7bb.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2170/310x9prime7bb.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
hey man looks like u are on here too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kashelz
sure, also reinstalled SmartGuardian a few times and also MBM and Everest / Sandra report same temp. I will try to reinstall nF4 drivers. If that doesn't help i'll consider reinstalling Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Repoman
Well, finally got all my parts, and have been stress testing everything out...
So far, for my 0609, I have:
It was memtesting before for 6 passes.
It is trying to be prime stable ..so far :
[IMG]http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4...est46kt.th.jpg[/IMG]
Looks like my case *sucks*:shock2: , and needs cooling for the PWMIC (this is on a DFI Ultra-D). Wonder what the limit is for those? 90C?
Oh, this is on air cooling with a Freezer 64 Pro.
^yeah probably around 90. But of course lower temps provides better performance.. you can test if it's performing like it should be measuring your vcore and vdimm with a multimeter, if it's stable then the temp is fine.
PS ITZNFB- can you test the lowest voltage stable @ 3GHz? That would be a good indicator of overall performance of the chip :) I'd really appreciate it.. if it can do it at a way low voltage it may just force me to pick one up :(
edit: actually thats a way good sign, mine is stable at 3GHz@1.425v but it BSOD's on boot at 1.35 and sometimes 1.375, depending on temps :eek: So your might be stable at stock or less
i think the chip will yield much better results on a Ultra D, or SLi-D/DR than the board i'm using. plus my best cooling solution at this point in time is a TT Big Typhoon =\
i'm guessing i'll hit 3ghz @ 1.5v, maybe 1.475v. on a better board, who knows. but i may be way off, i haven't seen how this chip scales yet.
If it's anything like my chip, it will be stable at 3GHz@1.325-1.35v
Where'd you get it, tankguys? If you can hit 3GHz@ stock volts or a bit over I'm picking one up.
I have got batches 0099 and 0368 and between the two the 0368 is much better ;)
I ve reapplied AS5 and retightened the Alphacool waterblock and managed OCCT stable at 1,47VCore at 3 GHZ. Both are 904 series.
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9...30063dz.th.jpg
I was able to boot into XP and play games at 1.41VCore /Oblivion /Quote:
Originally Posted by Repoman
lower VCore was a nogo.