On the ggbt extreme, I moved to F5e bios today and noticed something in realtemp 2.9.
The temps for the 1st two cpus are always the same and the temp for the 2nd two are always the same.
Over all the temps might be reporting at 2-3C less?
Printable View
On the ggbt extreme, I moved to F5e bios today and noticed something in realtemp 2.9.
The temps for the 1st two cpus are always the same and the temp for the 2nd two are always the same.
Over all the temps might be reporting at 2-3C less?
the first two cores always seem to match each other and the second two cores always seem to match each other since I got my chip reguardless of bios or temp monitor program used.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
My question is to everyone: when using F5g does it require 1 notch up on the cpu voltage to get stable?
run 32m superpi and watch the first core heatup, then the second, then the third, then the fourth, then the first etc.
It seem to cycle through the cores till they reach a certain temp difference or something
Bob - what bios are you on now - still on f4j?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbylite
yessir has been fine, initiating my HD's takes like 5 seconds or so is the only problem Ive had with it :) looks like its jammed but starts fine after a few secs
I didn't notice this change in realtemp behavior until after I changed from F4m to F5eQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobbylite
Stable with orgcooler..
http://bandwidth.se/thumbs/nouser/42501cec41dff.jpg
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=494924
wow - nice temps - what is the orgcooler?Quote:
Originally Posted by chefnr1
what's an orgcooler? And would it matter what cooler you were using in sub-normal ambient temps?Quote:
Originally Posted by chefnr1
I see allot of this lately.
Dude 1: "Hey look at my kick ass temps with the stock cooler"
Dude 2: "Nice what was the ambient temperature?"
Dude 1 "-20C"
Also mate, a 1m superpi run doesn't mean it's stable....at all.
Rev - be nice ...Quote:
Originally Posted by ReverendMaynard
I have no idea how you came up with that post as not being nice Steve.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
Rev,
I have some new memory arriving tomorrow - upgrading from 3x1gb 1066 to 2000.
I am trying to figure out how to go about ocing it based on current cpu oc, bclock and uncore.
At 200+ bclock I will want to run the mem mutli at 10 so that means the uncore multi needs to be at 21 right?
But 200x21 is uncore running at 4200 which it seems it will not do.
So questions -
1. I assume cpu cycles are still king and that I do not want to give up on any of my cpu oc (almost 4.3 ht on, and 4.4 ht off).
2. How do I get qpi and uncore speed high enough to run the memory at 2k?
Hello guys. Is this UD5 board replaced by UD4P?
LOL! House of cards stable. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by chefnr1
http://wright-pc.com/pyr0/UD5/Quote:
Originally Posted by hlonipha
thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Pyr0
Using unclewebbs apic ID program...listing the core orders, using bioses F4betas every time you reboot, the cores were in different order, like pic 1 (except core 0 always first).Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
Using bios F5e, cores always boot in correct order..see pic 2. I noticed same change on temps...just core order is always correct now. When you run load the temps differ or mine do. Others may have there core order boot up correctly all the time, it is some bios/cpu thing, doesnt happen on everybodies though. I think the most recent version of realtemp though will correct order anyways.
LOL! I love this stuff. Hey I'm not about just boring old 99.999% stability. I'm totally going for all the suicides I can think of once I finally get my WC sorted. :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by YukonTrooper
Upgraded to bios F5F today, problems seem to be gone!
Woohoo for beta bios!
Any ideas here please*****
I can boot and prime @189x20 with turbo enable HT disable for 12hrs. at:
1.31v cpuz idle & 1.296v load,
QPI/VTT 1.18V
x36
x16
x8
rest setting auto.
Now if I change the Bclock to 190+ no boot at all, do not matter if I change multi to 19 turbo off. tried bios f5g, f4,f4r. helpppppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would first see if it is voltage, bios, or bclk issue.
Drop multi to 17, turbo off, and try to boot at 17x190+, but also increase qpi/vtt to 1.35, and DRAM 1.66v-(gives 1.65 in cpuz on most, if not there already). If increasing qpi/vtt works, you can then back down to see what you need.
If that does not work, try 6 multi and 13 for UC and also 8 multi and 17 UC.
thanks thanks a lot for the help will try this and report backQuote:
Originally Posted by rge
no go. the only way I can boot pass 189 is changing the qpi link to slow mode (98mhz). any reason why ?Quote:
Originally Posted by hlonipha
Thanks
Updating BIOS from F4r to F5e, helped me drop CPU Voltage from 1.3V in bios to 1.25V. I never knew BIOS update could reduce voltage requirements.
So it is bclk or corresponding qpi of 18x189 (36 on gb is 18). I hit a wall at 215 bclk, slow mode does not help me, but others have reported they can go higher with slow mode as well on qpi. It is why some were asking for lower qpi multis...raising bclk raises everything, and limit may be qpi, though most can go higher than 189x18. If I raise qpi/vtt and qpi pll I can then go higher but have to go way up on them, others just moderate increase.
But try raising qpi/vtt to 1.45v (not going to hurt for one boot, I have benched for hours at 1.68vtt), and Dram to 1.7v, qpi PLL raise 2-3 notches. If that works, at least you know what problem is. also I am assuming you ruled out mem/uncore by using 6x multi and 13 uncore. And of course use 19 multi to try it, not 21. Also raise vcore to 1.45 and enable LLC...again just trying to get answers first, worry about settings later. One boot isnt going to hurt anything, once you learn problem, then you can decide your voltage limits.
One other thing you could try is bios F3, where TDP limits are in play..again just for testing.