Retail Q9650 Overclocking Thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-17-2009, 08:57 AM
WaterFlex

andressergio
Excellent :up: work, bro
03-17-2009, 09:36 AM
Hoss331

Quote:

Originally Posted by situman

Are the Xeon versions the same stepping as the "normal" version?

There all E0s.
03-17-2009, 10:19 AM
Zucker2k

1 Attachment(s)

This is what I'm currently running; went back to 4x 2GB to speed up some blu ray encodings I'm doing; completely stable:
03-17-2009, 10:28 AM
mark0326

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

This is what I'm currently running; went back to 4x 2GB to speed up some blu ray encodings I'm doing; completely stable:

That's interesting, more RAM = faster encoding?
Can you put a % on that 2x2GB Vs 4x2GB?
03-17-2009, 10:46 AM
gergregg

1 Attachment(s)

As usual my luck with getting a good overclocker seems to avoid me.

High vid chip 1.2625 batch number L845B522 with two stuck sensors

Still tweaking, but I don't think there is much left.
03-17-2009, 11:03 AM
Zucker2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark0326

That's interesting, more RAM = faster encoding?
Can you put a % on that 2x2GB Vs 4x2GB?

I'm dealing with huge files and so the less the encoder writes to disk the faster the overall process; also I'm encoding in hi-def 1080p. Notice how much ram I have left in the task manager? :D
03-17-2009, 11:24 AM
humeyboy

Your only using 2+GB of Ram, Vista has Cached the other 6+GB.

I can get that doing nothing at idle.
03-17-2009, 11:30 AM
andressergio

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaterFlex

andressergio
Excellent :up: work, bro

Thanks WaterFlex :up:

Cheers
Sergio
03-17-2009, 11:35 AM
andressergio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

This is what I'm currently running; went back to 4x 2GB to speed up some blu ray encodings I'm doing; completely stable:

niceeeee one :D at 4400 you feel the speeeeed

cheers :up:
Sergio
03-17-2009, 11:37 AM
andressergio

Quote:

Originally Posted by gergregg

As usual my luck with getting a good overclocker seems to avoid me.

High vid chip 1.2625 batch number L845B522 with two stuck sensors

Still tweaking, but I don't think there is much left.

I've been through the same mate, i was 2,5 month trying to reach something stable

Cheers
Sergio
03-17-2009, 12:55 PM
OC Nub

Quote:

Originally Posted by gergregg

As usual my luck with getting a good overclocker seems to avoid me.

High vid chip 1.2625 batch number L845B522 with two stuck sensors

Still tweaking, but I don't think there is much left.

I have the same batch # and have been ready to ditch this chip since day 1. Still trying though.
03-17-2009, 01:52 PM
mattlyall06

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC Nub

I have the same batch # and have been ready to ditch this chip since day 1. Still trying though.

why? because it runs too hot?
03-17-2009, 02:46 PM
gergregg

Quote:

Originally Posted by OC Nub

I have the same batch # and have been ready to ditch this chip since day 1. Still trying though.

I saw you had the same batch number, but your vid was below 1.25 correct? What has been your max stable thus far?
03-17-2009, 02:54 PM
Zucker2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by humeyboy

Your only using 2+GB of Ram, Vista has Cached the other 6+GB.

I can get that doing nothing at idle.

What do you think has been cached? I have superfetch disabled, and a ton of encoder apps in the background.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andressergio

niceeeee one :D at 4400 you feel the speeeeed

cheers :up:
Sergio

Thanks Andres, yeah, I'm definitely feeling the speed. :yepp:
03-17-2009, 03:04 PM
RCG_Bex

I just flashed my BIOS, gave my QX9650 a good kicking, got her at 440*10 again - YAY!!! Not stable yet but hey ho

~Bex
03-17-2009, 03:58 PM
Zucker2k

^^^ :rofl::ROTF::clap:
03-17-2009, 04:52 PM
OC Nub

Quote:

Originally Posted by gergregg

I saw you had the same batch number, but your vid was below 1.25 correct? What has been your max stable thus far?

Best I have been able to do Prime stable is 4.1ghz-483x8.5. Stock VID is 1.21v. Had some temp issues but think I got it worked out now. Not real pleased with it after seeing what some of these guys are hitting. The boys at Intel must have shown up hungover that Monday, or maybe I still haven't figures it out. Will just have to make the best of it. Going to shoot for high FSB with lower multi I guess.
03-17-2009, 04:54 PM
Jor3lBR

Quote:

Originally Posted by andressergio

i love this low vid chips, i don't have cool temps in my country, are always more than 26C ambient on my room so im finding a sweetspot

so far 4104 at 1,232vcore and mems on 1216 PL8 at Turbo profile seems fine

Cheers :up:
Sergio

Nice job Sergio! Can't seem to get lower then that :up:
03-17-2009, 05:53 PM
OC Nub

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattlyall06

why? because it runs too hot?

Yes, it was running real hot, hope its under control now. Turned the HS facing up towards the top and reapplied the thermal paste. Helped quite a bit.
03-17-2009, 05:56 PM
humeyboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

What do you think has been cached? I have superfetch disabled, and a ton of encoder apps in the background.

Thanks Andres, yeah, I'm definitely feeling the speed. :yepp:

A Picture says a 1000 words m8. ;)

Your screen shots shoes 6069MB Cached.

Turning it off is pointless, may as well run XP then. :)
03-17-2009, 07:38 PM
Zucker2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by humeyboy

A Picture says a 1000 words m8. ;)

Your screen shots shoes 6069MB Cached.

Turning it off is pointless, may as well run XP then. :)

Armchair quarterbacking is pointless. I had task manager open, available ram was like 7Gbs, started Ripbot264, and watched windows eat the ram to the last drop in less than a minute. Instead of trying to prove something that I know for a fact is wrong, do this: turn of superfetch. run an app, vista keeps it in memory, run another, same happens until system runs out of available ram and THEN vista starts to unload inactive programs from cached memory to make room for the active ones. Superfetch pre-emptively loads programs based on your usage habits into memory, with superfetch off, windows caches programs you've run for as long as there is space in memory for them. With ripbot264, obviously windows is not offloading all the working files to hard drive. This is where the speed factor kicks in because cached ram is 17x faster than a file on a hard drive. With the file sizes and high encoding settings I was dealing with, windows had use for every bit of the 8GBs on the system.
03-18-2009, 03:54 AM
andressergio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jor3lBR

Nice job Sergio! Can't seem to get lower then that :up:

Thank you mate I will keep on testing this weekend :up:

Cheers
Sergio
03-18-2009, 04:50 AM
humeyboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Armchair quarterbacking is pointless. I had task manager open, available ram was like 7Gbs, started Ripbot264, and watched windows eat the ram to the last drop in less than a minute. Instead of trying to prove something that I know for a fact is wrong, do this: turn of superfetch. run an app, vista keeps it in memory, run another, same happens until system runs out of available ram and THEN vista starts to unload inactive programs from cached memory to make room for the active ones. Superfetch pre-emptively loads programs based on your usage habits into memory, with superfetch off, windows caches programs you've run for as long as there is space in memory for them. With ripbot264, obviously windows is not offloading all the working files to hard drive. This is where the speed factor kicks in because cached ram is 17x faster than a file on a hard drive. With the file sizes and high encoding settings I was dealing with, windows had use for every bit of the 8GBs on the system.

We don't do your type of new football in Scotland.

Also I don't need told how Vista works as I am an officially MS Beta Tester, but going by your screens it does look like its Cached so look at it from anothers point of view. ;)

Also I have tried it and if you have prefetch off and do a clean startup after that it will not Cache any of it, but your still has over 6GB.
03-18-2009, 05:05 AM
situman

Where and when did you guys get those "bad" chips?
03-18-2009, 06:00 AM
Zucker2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by humeyboy

We don't do your type of new football in Scotland.

Also I don't need told how Vista works as I am an officially MS Beta Tester, but going by your screens it does look like its Cached so look at it from anothers point of view. ;)

Also I have tried it and if you have prefetch off and do a clean startup after that it will not Cache any of it, but your still has over 6GB.

Thanks for confirming that; I beta test MS software too. I did try to tell you, prefetch is the culprit. Like I said, you have to look at what I'm doing with the computer, and not just task manager in isolation.

PS: I actually prefer soccer to the football we have here. :yepp:

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page