Anyone tried a E4300 on mATX yet, and what was the outcome?
Printable View
Anyone tried a E4300 on mATX yet, and what was the outcome?
Wondering the same myself. Was kinda planning on exchanging my E6400 for an E4300 and run it 9x300
Same ..waiting to see what the Gigabyte GA-965GM-DS2 is like ?
the last bios allows at last overclocking settings!
this mb can handle up to fsb320! (i965g chipset limitation)
I have a e4300 right now and my Biostar I945G-M7 v2 is coming next week. will post results. Max fsb supported by mobo is 300 but id be happy with 9x300 on a dual core for everday use on air. Did some searching around and it supposedly has a pci / pcie lock so im optimistic to reach 300x9.
mATX Conroe's can't go past 350 FSB
As far as I've seen and read about OC'ing, it seems the Intel 945 chipset line has a rather "iffy" PCI/PCI-E lock, meaning it actually doesn't lock all that well.
The consequence of this is that many devices begin to suffer at very high (for that chipset line, mind you) FSB speeds, usually above 300MHz (I think it's above this value the PCI/PCI-E locks begin to fail). Try searching the forum, I remember reading something about it not so long ago...
I would, therefore, recommend G965-based mATX motherboards for serious OC'ing. Of course, the problem then is to actually FIND a G965-based mATX motherboard with decent (if any at all) OC functions... :p: Any guesses?
[EDIT]Ok, I didn't read the thread correctly. I swear I read the Gigabyte model as 945, not 965 :p: Meaning the 945-talk, albeit valid, is somewhat not important, since we're already talking about 965-based motherboards. Sorry about that.
In any case, probably the 320MHz limit on mATX boards, provided there are voltage controls, may come from the IGC (Integrated Graphics Core), which, if memory serves me right, is based on "only" 90nm tech on 965 chipsets (and 130nm in 945).[/EDIT]
Cheers.
Miguel
:nono:
945g outperforms 965g when it comes to overclock c2d!
965g hits a wall around 320
945g can handle fsb up to 350!
However, the new e4300 cannot be recommended today with matx 945g/965g
because it is simply impossible to raise the fsb (Nb strap issue with c2d fsb800)!
tested on P5LD2 VM (945g) & P5B VM (965g)
The c2d fsb1066 is not concerned...
the only matx which works for the moment with the 4300: asrock 775i65g
E4300 works fine with ASUS P5L-MX (945G) at FSB 1300MT/s = FSB 325MHz = CPU 2.93GHz.
E4300 Overclocks? at AnandTech Forums
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulkeeper
Very strange!
although the 6600 works fine on p5ld2 VM DH @3150 (fsb 350)
the e4300 on this same mb does not allow any raise of the fsb over 200!
on an other forum: the p5l mx seems not to be overclocker's friendly
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardw...ict219450.html
It's not mATX but Gigabyte G965-DS3 is almost as good as the P965-DS3:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustRa...gesize=&Page=3Quote:
Pros: Nice features, high overclockability.
Cons: First board was dead, no post on boot. Heard many issues of ram voltage too low for high-end memory, but Corsair CM2X1024-6400PRO worked like a charm (once I got a good board).
Other Thoughts: Right now I'm running a E6300 (1.86Ghz) at 3.22Ghz on stock cooling. By far the best overclocking I have ever personally done.
Biostar P4M890-M7 does 336MHz ( :eek: for a Via chipset...)
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=2055&page=4
e4300 is not the perfect match with 945g (P5LD2 VM DH or VM SE)!
This C2D fsb800 is locked @200 and any attempt to set fsb over 200: 201-265
results in overclocking failed!:mad:
There is no way to change this! (maybe the BSEL mod)
This phenomenon does not concern hopelessly the c2d fsb1066....
The same behavior is reproduced on the P5B VM (965g)!
Be warned....
On the contrary: the e4300 + asrock 775i65g is the perfect match on matx :
http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?i...8351415vd7.jpg
Maybe our savior!
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3043/118ht6.jpg
Thxs to ABO-san :)
My beta test with the P5LD2 VM SE (PLL =IDT CV122C) is now completed, and the soft made by ABO-san is now fully fonctionnal!
The new revision is now available for download!
Very gratefull for this outstanding job, ABO! :clap:
I think that guy might have posted his comment in the wrong board. No way in hell he's up that high with g965. Just not possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by doompc
pvhk, looks nice!! What's the highest it'd boot from bios settings? It's a miracle you don't lose sound, nic, or sata up that high.
sorry for the late answer!
fsb@340 & PCI@115: no sata issue. PCI locked@33.3
The BSEL mod works on Foxconn G9657MA-8EKRS2H + e4300!
A guy managed to bump the fsb over 266:
http://dj1212.free.fr/OC1.jpg
without BSEL mod with my abit fatal1ty f-i90hd:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1...0copierun6.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3748/g7copierht3.jpg
keep in mind that the samples distributed in europe although retail in appearence come with their bios mentionning "not for sale"!
This may explain why this mb is not available elsewhere until maybe today..
windows in action!
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/173/333kk7.jpg
Impressive, pvhk. That may just be the fastest m-ATX board available for socket 775 ever made... And one of the coolest-looking ones too (and that coming from someone who isn't that fond of red...).
I'm drooling already. I've got to know, how long till they hit the shelves. And, mor important, how much will one of these babies set me back? I'm saving up already... hehe
Cheers.
Miguel
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob511
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...58&postcount=8
Check that post
Since it's not clear from that quote (from the BSEL mod thread) that the GA-965GM-S2 fails to POST with the modded E4300; it boots fine with the unmodded variety, but just doesn't OC enough to really be worth talking about.
I wrote Gigabyte to see if they'd consider adding support for/removing the whatever checks on the BSEL outputs they have in their BIOS at present, and they said they'd forward the request to the BIOS devel team, but I'm not holding my breath.
@pvhk
Does that board have LEDs on it?
Can you post some pictures of it running please.
yes it has! 2LEDsQuote:
Originally Posted by SP1
For you:
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/9...3copierwx4.jpg
it's running out of the box...
Abit f-i90HD:
fsb@340 vcore@1.47 vNorthbridge@1.944v:
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6277/340wl4.jpg
The question is: does it have the PCI-E & PCI lock compared to all other matx boards available?
The answer to come soon, thxs again to ABO san great work! :bows:
that abit really looks nice.
ironicly AMD has the best chipset for mATX C2D boards
We've been waiting for the ultimate matx board for c2d!
The abit f-90hd has already fullfiled some wish in that sense it allows to break the fsb@266 wall without any mod and can then sustain 300-333 with a c2d fsb800 .
For us, who loves matx, ABIT (or ATI) has finally answered our wish!
FSB set to@333 in bios. All the following settings are read by setfsb:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9...bootcu6.th.jpg
PCI-E and PCI are locked! :clap:
In the end:
No N/B strap issue as the other matx board ( no BSEL mod necessary with an e4300)
PCI-E and PCI fully locked
The best matx board for c2d? Definitely YES
pvhk, that is a terrible 1M time. Can you tidy up your memory frequencies and timings a bit and let us know how the 1M score comes along?
all right it will be done! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ted3
Timings doesn't have anything to do with it. Between 4-4-4 and 5-5-5 there is not even .1 difference. I set my timings to his and am running a 4300 on a DS3. He is only using 1GB of ram and most likelly is using onboard VGA. It could be that it is a slow mb too. How can he run less then 1:1? Didn't notice that before.:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ted3
pvhk; nice work. :toast:
1m is great but how stable is it? You have more testing to do.:D
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/1796/7452333jt3.th.jpg
the PLL of setfsb perfectly match to this mobo!
http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5457/icsjh8.jpg
The value displayed by setfsb is done after bios settings!
Well, i dont agree, timings and frequenzy matters for 1M. 3-3-3 vs 4-4-4 makes 0.25s difference for me, 1GB vs 2GB doesnt. Asyncronous RAM could be the bottleneck that limits this setup, would be nice to see results from this board with RAM in sync mode at 333MHz/DDR667. Timings doesnt matter that much, just want to see how it does with synced 1:1, i HOPE for a big difference.
Frequency. yes. Timings between 4-4-4 and 5-5-5 I just ran was .084. .25 isn't going to help that time.
Not sure why he doesn't run at least 1:1.
you asked it!
here it is! ram @667!
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/8471/667nc8.jpg
With a solid PCI(E) lock keeping the motherboard in check, is anything actually holding you back at FSB=340? Or is your E4300 just not wanting to be pushed beyond 3.06GHz?Quote:
Originally Posted by pvhk
Exciting news, in any case; up until this morning I was considering ripping out the HDD cage at the front of my NSK2400 in order to fit in a proper 965 board, after the junk offerings for C2D mATX. This would seem like a more reasonable solution.
That looks better. :toast:
Used same settings this time to compare. No tweaks just everyday stuff running. Close enough.
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/7114/11112zj7.th.jpg
Thanx man. Respectable improvement there. Have you tried synchronous FSB-DRAM? I dont even know if its possible on that board, just askin.. =)
The price of this board is not so nice over here but could get better in time for the E4300 pricecut. Maybe i can test Abit LG-95 (not with E4300 though...) before the pricecuts, quite a bit cheaper and from what i understand it has a Bios OC menu.
ram@400 vDDR@2.20v (corsair PC5400C4):
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4507/400db2.jpg
That's much better. :)
Can you do a 32m at those settings??
it will be done! ;)
but not tonight.
OMG, now were talking, more than 1sec improvement from 667 to 800 :woot:
Im convinced now, you're right. Thanx for the testing :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by pvhk
The limiting factors that prevent me to sustain fsb@350 with the fatal1ty could be the e4300 or the ram PC5400:
A guy managed to bump the fsb up to @360 with a e6300 at hardforum!
Abit fatal1ty : the best matx board for c2d! Yes sir!
fsb@360 with the abit fatal1ty
No it's not me!
Youve really sold me this board pvhk!
Interesting board. Looks like it can set mem completely independent of fsb. Maybe that'd explain why 1m is still a little slow for each of the tested speeds. Overall, still looks fantastic for matx, although still a bit of a disappointment from what atx can do
Very interesting indeed. I just hope the price is just as interesting :D (Any info on that, btw?)Quote:
Originally Posted by ziddey
RD600 and RD600-derived boards do that. Actually, I think they are the first boards capable of doing that... It still amazes me, though, to see this feature in m-ATX form format...Quote:
Originally Posted by ziddey
That was to be expected, for several reasons. First and foremost, most performance ATX boards have better overall quality and performance features to allow them better overclocking abilities than m-ATX boards; after all, you still get what you pay for (don't forget integrated graphics chipsets are more expensive than regular ones, I'd say around 33% more). And second, integrated graphics take up a vast amount of space on the chipset; and, along with that extra space needed, come huge amounts of heat, which severely limits top OC levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziddey
I'd also add that probably integrated graphics chipset design is less efficient overall (no data on that, though), which again means less OC potential...
Still, 360MHz for a first revision, first BIOS (or pretty much first) NEW chipset seems VERY promising. Don't forget many P965s stopped there (or even before that value) on first implementations, and some still can't go anywhere near 400MHz... We might be looking at a serious low end (SERIOUS low end, if you catch my drift... lol) P965 competitor here... Auch...
Cheers.
Miguel
P.S.: Does anyone want to offer me one of these? LOL Just kidding, of course :p:
very true. that and if you compare it to the g965 which can't really do didlly, it's quite good. I still can't understand why no one is releasing a p965 platform on matx. The ds3 is so close to being the right size. If they just removed some pci/e slots, and hell if need be, reduced from 6phase power to just 3, seeing how the p5b vanilla can do quite well with just 3...
Yes, that's very true. G965 is a really awful OCer. Hell, ANY IGP is a terrible OCer when compared to the X1250.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziddey
As for the reason why no one makes non-IGP chipsets on mATX boards, I assume it's because mATX is supposed to be an "all-included" platform, to reduce overall costs when assembling computers. I don't know about you, but here in Portugal, the vast majority of low-end configs sold at stores are mATX ones (in mid-tower chassis, go figure), without external graphics. If you (read: the store) want to "go up a notch", you simply change the board for a low-end ATX board (keeping the same chassis), which can be slightly cheaper than the low-end mATX one, and put in a low-end video card. And, at that point, expansion slots algo have a say. You actually should only sell mATX to someone who doesn't and will not need to expand. If you already buy the computer with dedicated graphics, chances are sooner or later you'll want to expand, and finding yourself feeling "cramped" with only a mATX form factor...
That being said, if memory serves me right, ASRock actually pulled that stunt once. I believe they have a 865PE-based mATX board. I've never seen anything like it before or after, and I seriously doubt I'll see it in a near future. You see, there are all sorts of problems associated with mATX boards, which is why there are few models in the first place:
1) They are electrically cramped, you have to "stuff" the same amount of connections you have in ATX on 3/4 the size
2) As a consequence of 1), you have to take extra care about electrical interferences and heat generation, which means extra costs just to keep them running like the ATX counterparts
3) They're made for small system enclosures, which usually means poor airflow, so OC abilities are neglected in the first place
4) IGP chipsets are more expensive than regular ones, which drives the boards' costs even higher, so you have to cut corners somewhere else (guess where...)
Because of all that, making a non-IGP based mATX board makes no sense (economically, that is). It still would be far more expensive to create than a regular ATX board, and it would be a far worse performer when OC'ing... Even if you made a P5B-M Deluxe (mATX version of the P5B Deluxe), or a MQ6 (mATX version of the DQ6), or the respective IGP-based counterparts, which should be something like P5B-VM Deluxe and MGQ6 (not sure of this one, all Gigabyte boards with an "M" in their name are already IGP-based... lol), it would be terribly more expensive than the ATX board, and have a poorer performance.
Let's face it, mATX is not for serious OC (although, 360MHz is already serious for me, it's a 33%+ improvement in FSB speed!). You can try to refine the production methods, but ultimately physics, the IGP chipsets and the economy will bite you in the a:banana::banana:...
Ok, I'm oficially done now. Sorry for the "speech"... hehe
Cheers.
Miguel
Anymore testing?Quote:
Originally Posted by pvhk
Maybe tommorow!
Did not have time (will test an x6800 instead)...
stay tuned
Thats not really ture. AMD has had great O/Cing Matx boards even with a chipset with IGP. IMO the SFF market is really catching on. I just wish there was better cases out for Matx.Quote:
Originally Posted by __Miguel_
Ups, I forgot to say I was only referring to IGPs for Intel CPUs. I don't know AMD products well enough to talk about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by vengance_01
I do, however, still think IGP chipsets are inherently lousier OCers than non-IGP ones. Let's just hope that the SFF market demand "forces" chipset and board manufacturers to close that gap, or at least to make it smaller... With the Conroe-based CPUs being OC monsters, and presumably the same thing applying to future AMD CPUs, it might be hard, let's just hope they manage it. If they do, probably my next PC will be m-ATX based (no CF/SLI for me, I just need 1xPCI-E 16x for the VGA, 1xPCI for the X-Fi :D and eventually 1xPCI/PCI-E 1x for the TV Tuner. Just give the same performance and features (like Gigabit Ethernet, RAID 5 and Firewire) I have on full ATX boards and I'm off... hehe
Cheers.
Miguel
price of this abit f-90hd ? and any link ?
we have hereQuote:
Originally Posted by pvhk
P5LD2 VM and P5LD2 VM SE
what is the difference beside P5LD2 VM SE is 20$/€ cheaper :confused:
yay it has also integrated grahics....Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidfirst
e4300/e6300 and 1gb ddr2 and voila....small c2d system for less then 400€ :toast:
P5LD2VM SE has only 2 DDR2 slots, 1 IDEQuote:
Originally Posted by TEDY
P5LD2VM has 4 DDR2 slots, 2 IDE connectors, more bios options (vDDR, vMCH).
I agree. IGP chipsets never normally O/C very wellQuote:
Originally Posted by __Miguel_
Of course it has integrated graphics. mATX mobos (for Intel CPUs, that is) pretty much always have integrated graphics (the exception being, unless anyone knows of another example, one 865PE-based ASRock mobo; and remember that the Shuttle SLI system is smaller than ATX AND is for AMD-based systems).Quote:
Originally Posted by TEDY
The best thing about the integrated graphics of this board is that you can actually use them for something else than office work. Not that you get anywhere serious with a x300 sibling (I read somewhere that it is in fact a severely cut-down version of the x700, with performances in the x300 area), but is it better than the insanely low performance of the 945G/G965 cores...
And you also get a very decent OCer. For that price, it surely beats the c:banana::banana::banana: out of my favourite mATX boards, the Asus P5B-VM (which is 33% more expensive) and the ASRock ConRoe945G-DVI (which is 15~20% cheaper). I just hope they get to Portugal with that price tag, if that happens I'm bound to get one for my "spare" system.
If you can live without the G965 chipset (which will in fact make the system more expensive) and the extra features of that board (namely, HDCP support, "beefier" integrated graphics and excelent OC capabilities - for a mATX board, of course), you can also try a 945G-based mobo. I'm very fond of the ConRoe945G-DVI by ASRock, which is much cheaper than, well, pretty much everything in the market that has a REAL PCI-E 16x slot (non-Intel chipsets excluded, of course, but you're REALLY on a budget if you have to go there... lol) and supports everything but C2Q CPUs, you can drop that value a bit more. Shame the E4300 is so expensive here in Portugal, with €10 more you get an E6300... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by TEDY
The final value I got was €390, with 2x1GB DDR2-667 OEM sticks :D, E4300 and the ConRoe; €410 for the Abit-based system, and put in €90 for case, PSU, keyboard and mouse, if you need them, and you get an exceptional sub-€500 machine, like an HTPC... Wow, that's nice :slobber::slobber::slobber::slobber:
Cheers.
Miguel
Probably my e4300 which hold me back@340:
testing fsb@350 w/ x6800 multi lowered(8x):
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8577/350uh9.jpg
my little review of the f-i90hd:
http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Hardwar...1.htm#t5322597
pvhk thanks
if it can help! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TEDY
So 360 fsb is pretty much as high as it does? :(
Ill prob go amd, and not have to worry about those ati southbridges
Just one little question for you, pvhk. Can you check if that board is SpeedFan-compatible (meaning, SpeedFan can control the fans' speeds), especially with a 3-pin CPU fan? Thanks.
Appart from that, how come there aren't that many G965-based mobos in this thread? Are they really that bad OC'ing? What about Foxxconn's G9657MA-8EKRS2H? (well, it seems I am finally able to memorise Foxxconn model numbers, which is rather odd... lol)
Cheers.
Miguel
Quote:
Originally Posted by __Miguel_
yes they are that bad at overclocking.
ALLLL the other board either lose SATA/NIC at around 300 or so. or cant even overclock that high.
ther eis only 1 or 2 ASUS boards that can do 350 but that is realllly stretching it and you have to run the pci-e at 120mhz.
so far the bit is the best but your still only gunna hit around 350-370. but, and i maybe wrong, you do not have to crank the pci-e way way high.
i have yet to see anyone post their best mem timings or highest mem speeds.
i mean the thing does have memory dividers.
I did not managed to control fans with speedfan yet, must look further!Quote:
Originally Posted by __Miguel_
Foxxconn's G9657MA-8EKRS2H: this mb has lots of functionnality!
the max fsb is around 320 like all other 965g...
the new conroe1333-DVI/H reach easily fsb@350 (but needs a bump of the pcie@118-120 like most 945g)
The gigabyte GA965 GM S2 can handle up to fsb@368(bios F4) with easytune5 (under windows only) without sata issue but only 280 using bios settings...
I have an E4300 on a v3.3 DS3 and can't do more than about 350 anyway. I blame the CPU as I've tried absolutely everything that I and all of the threads out there can come up with. It must be a strap issue. Just last night I threw away an hour trying to irk it to 356 for 3.2 GHz. It booted fine a few times and went into Windows fine, and then decided that was enough and did the trademark DS3 reboot loop bullsh*t. Even after several CMOS clears, it would not boot again at 356. Back at 345/3.1 again.
I've personally overclocked a P5L-MX. I have one at work with a E6300 on it. Ran it up to about 360 MHz. Any higher and SATA didn't work. The internal NIC is junk even at stock (was BSODing me! that one took months to discover) and so a crappy PCI Realtek NIC is in there permanently. I have just left the machine at 333 MHz FSB. Nice little boost and SATA should be safe from any weird corruption.
It is possible to control fans with speedfan 4.32!
In "advance": select winbond W83627DHG and set PWM mode (1 to 4) to"manual PWM control" and it's done!
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/1786/untitledso5.jpg
Nice to know that, pvhk. You are using 3-pin fans all around and can control every fan that way, right?
Now I only need to know a way to make a Winbond W83627EHF (or EHG, the report isn't very acurate...) chip do the same thing on my ASRock 775i945GZ board... The "Manuel PWM Control" doesn't work, so I can't control my fans, even those on 3-pin connectors...
Anyway, thank you for the info. One more reason to get one of those babies... :D
Btw, do you (in general) think your visions about G965 mobos not being good mATX mobos (not including OC capabilities, of course) may change once Intel "coughs up" the new performance (and probably already DX10-enabling) drivers for that chipset (due sometime over "the next few months")? And, being those drivers DX10-ready or not, could they somehow enable better OC?
The thing is, I'm really considering a new board for a small system (a HTPC/semi-portable hybrid using a tiny custom-made box). Nothing too fancy, it will probably run only integrated graphics. But I'm strugling to decide between the X1250 and G965 chipsets, the two boards I like are €5 off in price (btw, those two boards are the F-I90HD and the G9657MA-8EKRS2H)...
This is probably not the best place to talk about it, but how would each one fare?
Cheers.
Miguel
I currently have this board at 355FSB but cant get any more with any kind of stability :(, I can get into windows at 365FSB but it crashes, I have tried upping the CPU voltage but this didnt help making me think its not the CPU holding me back
Why don't they just make a P965 (or the upcoming P35) motherboard and chop three slots off. If you are going to use a graphics card you won't be paying for an intergrated graphics chip that you are never going to use.
That has been the question (or rather a variation of that question) several people keen on mATX mobos have been asking themselves for years now. The fact is, however, mATX mobos are still seen as entry-level motherboards, for those people who can't/won't buy larger/more expensive boards. So everything but the kitchen sink is thrown in (as far as basic functionality goes), and off the client goes. The odd thing is, if the mobo/CPU/memory combo is the right one, he won't even notice anything for years to come...Quote:
Originally Posted by SP1
Also, LANParties are recent events, high-performance systems didn't need to be compact a few years ago.
That explains why the only motherboard to date to follow what you ask was made for socket 478, by ASRock, based on the 865PE chipset. I really think, however, that a shift may happen in a near future. The Abit F-I90HD is just an example. It is the second OC-friendly mATX board I know (the other one being a AM2 mobo by the same manufacturer...), and the first to actually have the Fatal1ty logo, which means it was at least designed for gamers, or with them in mind (whichever suits you better, I know many think the Fatal1ty brand means nothing... lol). Also, Firewire and RAID functions are slowly appearing on mATX boards, too. Take the Foxconn G9657MA-8EKRS2H, for one.
Taking the next step and changing IGP chipsets for regular chipsets may not be that far...
Cheers.
Miguel
9 x 350 is working ok. I am going to use 3.0 stock volts for 24/7 but want to see how high fsb I can get.
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5...f190jl6.th.jpg
9 x 370 works ok too. I only have an old Intel stock cooler with the steel bottom so I am not going to try any higher until I get a better cooler. If it will not die, it's a great mb.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2...f190ty5.th.jpg
It would be great if someone like DFI came out with a LanParty mATX board using 965p chipset. A board measuring just 8" x 9.6" which can clock a conroe to 500MHz and run two memory slots at that speed would be wonderful.
Well, if someone is brave enough to do that it's DFI. They have always been the first ones to try weird stuff on their boards (I'm thinking reactive slots and RD600, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by dexx
The thing is, it would probably be a VERY expensive board, because of the low volume production and niche market.
I'm only affraid that the market divides completely on a near future (especially after reading that Intel is creating a Quad-FX competitor), and we'll have to choose between performance (like E-ATX boards with multiple CPU/GPU sockets and slots) and size (m-ATX or smaller, with only one CPU socket and one GPU slot).
True, you have to choose right now, but even a QX6800 and single 8800GTX m-ATX-based system is capable of immense performance, even at stock (it would totally kill my E6400+X1950Pro+P5B Deluxe rig anytime), there is not that huge of a leap to SLI/CF and massively OC'ed systems, especially if you don't want to go to a LAN Party carrying a 30'' monitor... lol Not really so with a 3 or 4-GPU based solution (possibly even handling physics processing) with two high-end quad-core CPUs... The performance difference would be huge just for the extra cores and physics processing...
Anyway, even if that happens, I do hope games will still be playable even on single socket single GPU machines... :P
Cheers.
Miguel
I've been using my replacement F-190HD board for a few days now and I really like it so far. The biggest drawback is the memory is only running at 800. If there were some dividers to run it faster it would be a really good board. I've been running my 4300 at 3250@1.35 in bios in a microfly case with a stock Intel cooler. It is a quite rig. Not as quiet as the 3600 in the M2nView, but quieter then the P160 it replaced. Put one of the X850XT's that I got from Newegg for $60 shipped and the whole thing is a descent rig for not much money.
nm........ :shakes:
how is that :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsx2
i thought the x1250 chipset on that board has the same assync mem controller like RD600. so dividers aren't even required anymore ?
aldamon, I saw what you wrote before the edit. I think your problem lies with the chipset. The 945G and 945GZ chipsets are different from each other. The 945G top FSB is 1066MHz, whereas the 945GZ's is 800MHz. Your board uses the lower-speed 945GZ chipset (which, by the way, also doesn't have a "real" 16x PCI-E interface (only 4x electrically, as far as I know) and can only support E4xxx C2Ds.
Since the chipset officially tops out at 4x200MHz, reaching 4x280MHz is actually a VERY good thing... You should try switching to a 945G-based board for superior OC. But be advised, the 945G series of chipsets is lowsy OC'ing, because of its yucky PCI-E lock...
Cheers.
Miguel
Neah, I don't think the 945G or even the G965 are any better. AFAIK both of them overclock the PCI-E bus and SATA ports together with the FSB, so you really can't go higher then 20% before you lose the drives or the graphics card. Your only hope would be to do the pin-mod and hopefully you could start off @ 266MHz and then OC another 20% to get to about 320... but that's only if the mobo sets the FSB by reading the pins and not the CPU id.
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=63444
Tops up around where fsb wall for e4300 begins. No more needed ! :)
Sorry for crossposting, but Gigabyte should bite my shiny metal S for not enabling 1:1 in their matx mobo.
That's nice. They probably added a new "strap" so that the PCIe frequency defaults to stock once you reach 333MHz, but there is a catch:
So if you aim for 400-ish you have to have an IDE HDD. Then again, 355x9 is not that bad either for people not trying to squeeze the last MHz out of their CPU. :)Quote:
We were able to reach 355 x 7 on E6300 using SATAII HDD and 420x7 with IDE HDD.
Very interesting results from such a value motherboard. Such kind of performance (the 400-ish, that is) wasn't even possible with the earlier P965-based motherboards... Very nice! Now for the fun part. Anyone knows if this also applies to the ConRoe1333-DVI/H R2.0? It's the same board, only with an extra pair of memory slots, so it should have the same results...
Now, someone care to tell me why aren't 945P/G mobos compatible with C2Q? I mean, ASRock even has 865G-based C2Q-compatible boards, not to mention those ultra-cheap Via-based mATX boards (which, by the way, the only thing missing is the dual-channel support for me to "embrace" :p:)... What gives?
Cheers.
Miguel
Mais of course, le petit bsel tweak is there for your pleasure and PCI-E frequency.
Get some ideas here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ght=ConRoe1333
For a moment I thought you were talking to me, caligula. I was starting to wonder what the Celeron 4xx series has to do with C2Q, and what the 1333 R1.0 (That is, only two memory slots, and 10/100 Ethernet) has to do with the 1333-DVI/H R2.0... lol
Sorry for crossposting, but those boards and CPUs are insane... 100% OC @stock, with that tiny cooler? Sheesh... If Intel shrinks the new Celerons to 45nm they won't be needing coolers anymore... lol
Interesting note about the BSEL trick... Now if only it were possible to BSEL them to 333MHz directly... Since they don't need extra voltage to do that, that would result in a heck of a dirt-cheap CPU...
Cheers.
Miguel
Celeron 4xx series is C2D core based. Therefore they inherit the same PSB strap "problems" from E2xx, E4xx and Q series ;).
Watch carefully, the guy has a link : http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=209484
My link points to the same mobo type : http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=63444
The DVI board is the same PCB, but I wonder if it has the same chipset (on the Asrock site is unclear). The 4DIMMs would be useful.
Ok, part of my questions were answered. No booting @ 333MHz with BSEL, I get it. I remember reading somewhere in this forum you can't get C2D chips (at least the E4300) to boot with that FSB. That part was only wishful thinking :p:
Also, thank you for pointing out the CPU-Z link. I had never read one of those carefully, that's why I missed the DC memory information. Nice upgrade for a Celeron... Not so clear are the EIST and C1E informations, but I guess that "6x" must mean something, which would also mean C1E is probably also present. Really not bad for a Celly...
I do know the ConRoe1333-DVI/H R1.0 is only 945G-based, so that is a big NO on OC. It's weird, based on the little amount of info on the Intel website, it seems the 945GC chipset max FSB should be 800MHz, and with 533MHz memory. There is also no information about the number of memory channels supported... I don't know where ASRock and Gigabyte come up with FSB-1333 in some of them... It seems we'll have to wait and see if anyone tries out the ConRoe1333-DVI/H R2.0 to get that sorted out...
One question remains, though... Are Quads compatible with any 945x.based mobo? That would be sweet...
Thanks for the info. Cheers.
Miguel
Looks like no :((
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/asro...33-D667/g1.htmQuote:
ConRoe1333-D667 supports the LGA 775 for Intel® Dual Core Core™ 2 Extreme / Core™ 2 Duo / Pentium® D / Pentium® Dual Core / Pentium® 4 / Celeron® / Celeron® D processors. The board is based on the Intel® 945GC A2 Chipset which is compatible with all FSB1333/1066/800/533MHz CPUs except Quad Core.
I don't really understand the reason for that incompatibility... Since you can use a Q6600 on an 865G chipset (both Asus and ASRock have one of these), I can see really no good reason for 945x-based motherboards not being able to run them... I mean, they're 955X derivatives, which is the "father" of the 975X... They can't be that different, or lacking something crucial the 865G has...
Can it be some kind of limitation Intel imposes on manufacturers, so they can't add C2Q microcode to the 945x-based mobos? Just a thought, based on the information I've read about Bearlake chipsets, whose standard BIOSes don't have Netburst microcode embedded (and the 533MHz strap, I think), so they can't recognize said CPUs, and it's up to the manufacturer to add support for Netburst-based CPUs...
If anyone can shed some light on this matter, it would be nice.
Cheers.
Miguel
333x9 and I run 334x9 on my f-I90HD just fine with my e4300.