I do prime and set process affinity to test. If you have both core running high and well... lucky you. My first core is sucky while 2nd core is exceptional.... figures....Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
Printable View
I do prime and set process affinity to test. If you have both core running high and well... lucky you. My first core is sucky while 2nd core is exceptional.... figures....Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
If your going to kill it why not use LN2 and have a little fun :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xgman
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinu117
My first core is better than the second. I suppose this is to be expected, but you would think that they would be closer based on the same die, lot etc.
I can't pinpoint it exactly but I'm guessing my 2nd core is off by about 20-50Mhz. They will both do over 2.8 fairly easy :p:
How are you testing this? Did you try Systool overclocking utility to see which core errors?Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
I got it semi stable with single core and then started throwing the second one into the mix. It just about handles the same workload but either needs a little vcore boost or a drop of 20-50Mhz.Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
Eric
hehehe, must have not caught that earlier...In that case, VOLT AWAY! :explode2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
Well it's up and running after a slow painful complete reinstall. I haven't even attempted to OC it yet so the poor thing is running with everything at default settings (slack timings etc).
With an X800XL and 4400 at complete stock (not even a whiff of tweaking) I get 5029 3DMark'05 and 23446 3DMark'01.
My X2 install was on a completely brand new DFI nF4 SLI-DR with the 310 BIOS. I used the boot CD BIOS set to flash 510-2. I can see what the BIOS thinks the CPU is as the monitor is too slow!
Also had a little fun with my old OCZ 3500 as it wouldn't post. Using a 512Mb of CAS3 ram for my server it booted first time and allowed me to set up everything.
Put the OCZ back in and it all runs fine.
I'm not expecting a massive OC as it's on an XP90C.
I'll get some proper benching over the weekend. Too tired now..
1.7 BIOS is my max and only for benchmarking. This thing should be fairly easy to get stable running 2.8 @ 1.5 or so volts :)Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
After a few more tests I think I'm off on the 20-50Mhz estimate. I think 3.0Ghz would have been completely doable at 1.65v on the first CPU. The second one seems to need about 1.625v to get 2.8Ghz stable. Both should be able to handle 24 hour prime @ 1.5-1.575v WITH some burning in.
Eric
Seeing the grammar check passed for some odd reason you can guess why I did not publish it ;)
http://s120570057.onlinehome.us//images/x2/8.jpg
Why? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
I'm running the free version. The only way to get a score is to run grammar by itself before running the suite. An option thats not normally available ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Yes I know how to get that score...If you read sampsa's post, I was the one who had asked him originally ;) But I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't post your score. I guess it could be one of two reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
A) You're running a hacked pcmark04 :woot: or
B) You were able to complete the PCMark Benchmark from start to finish without running grammar check separate and you think the orb won't accept it? :p:
My money's on A :D
I'm finding 1.55v in smartguardian will run stable at over 2900 mhz. at 34 deg idle and 42 deg under dual cpu-burn running. I may try to go up to 1.6 later on and see if I can get closer to 3ghz. maybe when my G5 block arrives that will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
yeah, I'm finding burn in seems to help matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
Its A.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Just got my 4400+. Won't be able to install it until Monday tho. :slobber:
It's CCBWE 0522TPMW.
hey guys which bios are ypu using for your x2?
Was using 510-2. Trying 623-2 and seems to be just as good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.President
There is one really nice thing about the X2. While I'm testing stability on CPU2 I don't have to wait for the system to complete. I have prime95 running on it while I'm playing KOTOR2 :D
so it appears that the 4400 X2 is the most popular chip by far...
how come no one wants to test out the 4200+?
i know it only has a total of 1 meg L2 compared to the 2 meg L2 of the 4400+ but doesn't having less cache help in overclocking due to less heat produced?
i dunno... what do you guys think?
A 4200+, same clock speed as the 4400+ but with half the cache and only approximately £35 cheaper. A 4200+, Would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by shimmishim
And I haven't seen any 4200s clocking a whole lot higher than 4400s
As for performance, a picture says a thousand words.
it shows that at least when it's 1024 vs 512 that the extra 512 cache makes like no difference at all but that's single core...
i assume it doesn't make a huge difference in dual core either...
seems like the price of the 4400+ keeps going up and up at most vendors and the price dfiference between the 4200+ and 4400+ is going up... from about $40 to over $70 at some vendors...
is the extra cache really worth it?
Revisit the linkQuote:
Originally Posted by shimmishim