P5B + Q6600 + latest BIOS == 9x ONLY multiplier??

Printable View

09-07-2007, 10:41 AM
jkc120

P5B + Q6600 + latest BIOS == 9x ONLY multiplier??

I just bought a Q6600 to plug into my P5B. Prior to doing so, I upgraded the BIOS to the latest revision. My problem is, I can't LOWER the multiplier. It's stuck at 9x. I want to run at 8x400, but if I set the FSB to 400, it boots at 3.6 GHz, despite the 8x multiplier being set. This used to work on the old revision of the BIOS I had (1102 I think), but that revision doesn't support the Q6600 G0 stepping. Is this a known issue? If so, is there a beta BIOS I can use? Or am I stuck waiting for Asus to fix this? The last BIOS release was over a month ago...surely they would have gotten enough complaints by now that they'd fix this? :(

TIA!
09-07-2007, 11:02 AM
annaconda

How do you know you cannot change it. I mean when you go to the CPU setup in BIOS and change the Miltiplier to 8 it changes back to 9 automatically?
09-07-2007, 11:05 AM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by annaconda

How do you know you cannot change it. I mean when you go to the CPU setup in BIOS and change the Miltiplier to 8 it changes back to 9 automatically?

It changes fine, and when I reboot the summary screen indicates "Actual multiplier - 8". However, it's running at 3.6 GHz instead of 3.2 GHz. So it's not honoring the value.
09-07-2007, 11:07 AM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by annaconda

How do you know you cannot change it. I mean when you go to the CPU setup in BIOS and change the Miltiplier to 8 it changes back to 9 automatically?

This is what it says under the CPU settings sub-menu:

Frequency :3.61GHz
FSB Speec :1600MHz
Cache L1 :128 KB
Cache L2 :8192 KB
Ratio Status:Unlocked (Max: 09, Min: 06)
Ratio Actual Value :8
CPUID: :6FB

The settings I have are:

Modify Ratio Support [Enabled]
Ratio CMOS Setting: [8]
09-07-2007, 11:17 AM
eklipze

Use other programs like everest and such. to check if the CPU is running at 3.6ghz or 3.2ghz. It mostly shows 3.6 because the normal cpu is x9 multi...
09-07-2007, 11:19 AM
sam95ta

This is a common problem,many posts about it on the Asus forums website.Im also stuck with a 9multi with my Go Q6600.
09-07-2007, 11:26 AM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by sam95ta

This is a common problem,many posts about it on the Asus forums website.Im also stuck with a 9multi with my Go Q6600.

So when the hell are they going to fix this? This is ridiculous. It's been 2 months!! I guess they've given up any customer satisfaction for their older boards and are content to only support the newer P35/P38 stuff. Sigh. Guess I'll have to replace this damned board now. You can bet your ass it won't be an Asus after this ordeal.
09-07-2007, 11:30 AM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by sam95ta

This is a common problem,many posts about it on the Asus forums website.Im also stuck with a 9multi with my Go Q6600.

Is there any workaround? Is there an older BIOS that works with the Q6600 but allows you to change the multiplier properly? Or am I SOL until (if) Asus fixes this?
09-07-2007, 11:46 AM
drynyks

I think we are stuck waiting for Asus to get that working again in an updated bios. It's weird how it shows up in windows too. Some programs think the multi is changed and even the bios will show it changed but it isn't. BTW does changing the multi still work for anyone on 1216 that is using something besides a Q6600?
09-07-2007, 11:54 AM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by drynyks

I think we are stuck waiting for Asus to get that working again in an updated bios. It's weird how it shows up in windows too. Some programs think the multi is changed and even the bios will show it changed but it isn't. BTW does changing the multi still work for anyone on 1216 that is using something besides a Q6600?

Bummer. :shakes:

I'm quite frankly not even expecting them to fix it. If they haven't fixed it by now (2 months after the last release), I don't see them bothering to fix it at all. Although they did announce that Penryn support will be there, so maybe they are waiting to roll up the fix and Penryn support? If so, that will suck as we'll be waiting for a while and be lucky to see a BIOS update in 2007. :rolleyes:
09-07-2007, 04:00 PM
ChaosMinionX

NOTE: The 400mhz FSB on P5B Deluxe as per new bios is a grammatical error when you use a multi lower than 9x, it does not display correctly.....if you boot into Windows and use CPU-Z you will see it is in fact 3.2ghz and just an error on the bios's part. So that being said, treat it as if you would 3.2ghz (8x multi) and so on and so forth.
09-07-2007, 04:56 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

NOTE: The 400mhz FSB on P5B Deluxe as per new bios is a grammatical error when you use a multi lower than 9x, it does not display correctly.....if you boot into Windows and use CPU-Z you will see it is in fact 3.2ghz and just an error on the bios's part. So that being said, treat it as if you would 3.2ghz (8x multi) and so on and so forth.

Then why is mine running at 43 C at 400x8 and 33 C at 378x9? It's not just displayed incorrectly, it's flat out wrong.
09-07-2007, 08:48 PM
johnsally

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkc120

Then why is mine running at 43 C at 400x8 and 33 C at 378x9? It's not just displayed incorrectly, it's flat out wrong.

have you run any benchmarks verifying this? run pi at 378x9 and den 400x8 and see what the scores are. if 400x8 scores higher then 378 you will have your answer.
09-07-2007, 08:58 PM
drynyks

The multiplier change is not working for anyone on the P5B using a Q6600 that I have read (I've yet to find a single post) and it has been verified by a bunch of posts as broken. I also tested it and found it to be not working correctly. It for sure was still using the 9x multi even if it read 8x anywhere. I tested it extensively using the 1216 bios.
09-07-2007, 08:59 PM
elec999

Are you using the clean Asus P5B, non deluxe. Just plain P5B.
Thanks
09-07-2007, 09:52 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsally

have you run any benchmarks verifying this? run pi at 378x9 and den 400x8 and see what the scores are. if 400x8 scores higher then 378 you will have your answer.

Well it's not even stable at 400x"8" (3.6 GHz) at the moment, so I can't test it...but based on the temps alone, it's pretty indicative of the actual clock rate :) If it were really running at 3.2, the idle temps would be closer to 32-33 C, not 43-44.
09-07-2007, 09:53 PM
ChaosMinionX

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkc120

Then why is mine running at 43 C at 400x8 and 33 C at 378x9? It's not just displayed incorrectly, it's flat out wrong.

Please run CPU - Z :)
09-07-2007, 09:58 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

Please run CPU - Z :)

I can't, this is a FreeBSD box. dmesg reports 3.6 GHz, and the temps corroborate that. If you know of something similar to CPU-Z for FreeBSD, I'm willing to run it.
09-07-2007, 10:01 PM
ChaosMinionX

Havent got a clue about temp programs for FreeBSD....however are you changing voltages to go from 400x8 to 378x9?

Because it does same thing with my B3 quad it reports 400x9 instead of 400x8...thus far it has been 24hr prime stable.
09-07-2007, 10:01 PM
highoctane

Its just he bios reporting the wrong speed, EDITED

I have a P5B Deluxe I used with my q6600 for a while, it is simply the bios reporting the wrong speed during posting but the actual speed will be whatever you have it set to in the bios. If you have it set to 8x400 in the bios then your real speed will be 3.2ghz not the 3.6ghz being reported during the post.
09-07-2007, 10:02 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by elec999

Are you using the clean Asus P5B, non deluxe. Just plain P5B.
Thanks

I'm using the plain P5B, non-deluxe, non-e, non-*. Just P5B :)
09-07-2007, 10:04 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by highoctane

Its just he bios reporting the wrong speed, EDITED

No it's not. It's running at the wrong speed. Again, why would it run 11-12 C HOTTER at 400x8 than 378x9? It wouldn't. Both cases the voltage was set to Auto. So unless the BIOS is setting the voltage via AUTO anticipating a 3.6 GHz clock, when it's actually 3.2, then I don't see how this would have higher temps.

At boot time, FreeBSD reports the CPU at 3.6 GHz, not 3.2 GHz.
09-07-2007, 10:05 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

Havent got a clue about temp programs for FreeBSD....however are you changing voltages to go from 400x8 to 378x9?

Because it does same thing with my B3 quad it reports 400x9 instead of 400x8...thus far it has been 24hr prime stable.

I'm using Vcore=auto, because no matter what voltage I try with 400x8 it doesn't post, or it isn't stable (again, I'm thinking because it's running at 400x9 not 400x8).
09-07-2007, 10:08 PM
ChaosMinionX

Your using auto #1 so the board is adjusting voltage to compensate for the increase in FSB regardless. My chip takes more voltage at 500x7 than it does 400x9 or 450x9.... Set your vcore to like 1.45 or so and see if it posts, then check it again..that was your first mistake to setting it to auto.

Not to mention theres several other factors that come into play, but with my B3 quad on the other rig...it reports 3.6ghz (set to 400x8) CPUZ and all other programs read 3.2ghz. Its a BIOS error, nothing more.
09-07-2007, 10:11 PM
highoctane

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkc120

No it's not. It's running at the wrong speed. Again, why would it run 11-12 C HOTTER at 400x8 than 378x9? It wouldn't. Both cases the voltage was set to Auto. So unless the BIOS is setting the voltage via AUTO anticipating a 3.6 GHz clock, when it's actually 3.2, then I don't see how this would have higher temps.

At boot time, FreeBSD reports the CPU at 3.6 GHz, not 3.2 GHz.

Just about every program reported the wrong speed with mine except CPUZ, trust me I wish my B3 q6600 would run 3.6ghz at 1.4vcore but thats just not possible with my q6600, it won't even do 3.6ghz with 1.55vcore.

My q6600 requires 1.4 vcore with 100% load on all four cores to be prime stable at 8x400(3.2ghz) on my p5b which was like 1.5x in the bios due to massive vdrop on the mb.
09-07-2007, 10:12 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

Your using auto #1 so the board is adjusting voltage to compensate for the increase in FSB regardless. My chip takes more voltage at 500x7 than it does 400x9 or 450x9.... Set your vcore to like 1.45 or so and see if it posts, then check it again..that was your first mistake to setting it to auto.

Not to mention theres several other factors that come into play, but with my B3 quad on the other rig...it reports 3.6ghz (set to 400x8) CPUZ and all other programs read 3.2ghz. Its a BIOS error, nothing more.

You're saying use a voltage of 1.45 for 400x8? Should it take that much to do 3.2? Sheesh, what would I have to bump it to for 400x9 then? What I'd like to do is try to run it at 450x8, since I've read a few places that this runs cooler than 400x9 for some reason (the CPU, not the chipset).
09-07-2007, 10:16 PM
highoctane

Set it to 7x400 and I bet it will post without needing to change any voltage.
09-07-2007, 10:18 PM
ChaosMinionX

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkc120

You're saying use a voltage of 1.45 for 400x8? Should it take that much to do 3.2? Sheesh, what would I have to bump it to for 400x9 then? What I'd like to do is try to run it at 450x8, since I've read a few places that this runs cooler than 400x9 for some reason (the CPU, not the chipset).

You will need to not run AUTO....I merely gave you 1.45 as a starting point as its the usual voltage people use for higher quad OC's....my G0 takes 450x8 @ 1.4875 in bios.... 1.45 in windows or so.

As long as your temps are in line... like idling under 50C you should be fine to test that the board is making an error in the display of the clock, not that its actually running that clock. Dont go over 1.55v on air as a good safety measure.
09-07-2007, 10:25 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

You will need to not run AUTO....I merely gave you 1.45 as a starting point as its the usual voltage people use for higher quad OC's....my G0 takes 450x8 @ 1.4875 in bios.... 1.45 in windows or so.

As long as your temps are in line... like idling under 50C you should be fine to test that the board is making an error in the display of the clock, not that its actually running that clock. Dont go over 1.55v on air as a good safety measure.

Thanks! I'll start with 1.45 and go from there at 450x8 and see where I get :)
09-07-2007, 10:40 PM
drynyks

I am 100% positive it isnt working and like I said Ive yet to find 1 post that has anyone using 8x that is working on the p5bs with a Q6600 (g0 at least). You are the first person I have seen that has reported it working. I would guess upon further inspection you would see that it wasnt working and in fact you were running at 3.6ghz. I tested at lower fsb speeds so that even if the 8x wasn't working it would still get in to windows. I had different programs showing different speeds but Im positive it was running at the faster speed. I played with it for a whole night because I really wanted the higher fsb. So at this point rather than speculate someone show it working. Temps are a great indicator and benchmarks will show it. Not the programs that read the speed. did you maybe have a different bios? Im using 1216
09-08-2007, 12:06 AM
jkc120

It's stuck at 9x. Here's proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drynyks

I am 100% positive it isnt working and like I said Ive yet to find 1 post that has anyone using 8x that is working on the p5bs with a Q6600 (g0 at least). You are the first person I have seen that has reported it working. I would guess upon further inspection you would see that it wasnt working and in fact you were running at 3.6ghz. I tested at lower fsb speeds so that even if the 8x was working it would still get in to windows. I had different programs showing different speeds but Im positive it was running at the faster speed. I played with it for a whole night because I really wanted the higher fsb. So at this point rather than speculate someone show it working. Temps are a great indicator and benchmarks will show it. Not the programs that read the speed. did you maybe have a different bios? Im using 1216

I think you're right and the multiplier IS stuck.

I tried to boot at 450x"8". Of course the BIOS reported the CPU at 4 GHz. I started at 1.4875 V and it wasn't stable. I went all the way up to 1.5375, and it still wasn't stable.

So I gave up and decided to try 425x"8". I got all the way up to 1.525 and it wasn't stable.

I then tried 400x"8" and it wasn't even stable at 1.4875. I didn't bother trying to go higher, as it's getting really late. But as a reference point, it's running stable at 378x9 (3.4 GHz) at 1.4375 V. So if 400x"8" is truly 400x8 (3.2 GHz), I would think it'd be stable with 1.4875 V.

I'm really not convinced the multiplier is being honored. If it is, then I can't explain the above. I can't even get it to 400x8 stable??? It's not like a 378 FSB is much lower than 400. 3.4 GHz (9x378) at 1.4375 V

stable, but 3.2 GHz (8x400) at 1.4875 not? Something's wrong here.

If the multiplier is indeed stuck at 9, then it really explains these results. My initial attempt at 450x8 would be 4 GHz and it would make sense that not even 1.5375 V would keep it stable. Likewise, 425x9 (3.8 GHz) wasn't stable with 1.525 V and that also makes sense (I'd think I would need 1.55 or better to do 3.8, and then we're talking water cooling territory).

So can someone explain these results? The only explanation I can come up with is that the multiplier is in fact stuck at 9x.
09-08-2007, 06:00 AM
ChaosMinionX

There is really a very slim chance your processor booted 450x9 at 1.4875 :) Meaning its running at 3.6ghz (450x8) most likely. And is that a B3? And what cooling do you have on it? There really is no guarantee that chip can even run 400fsb stable, or run over 3ghz stable...most B3's didnt like to OC that well at all. If your temps are running high, chances are its not going to be stable.
09-08-2007, 07:29 AM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

There is really a very slim chance your processor booted 450x9 at 1.4875 :) Meaning its running at 3.6ghz (450x8) most likely. And is that a B3? And what cooling do you have on it? There really is no guarantee that chip can even run 400fsb stable, or run over 3ghz stable...most B3's didnt like to OC that well at all. If your temps are running high, chances are its not going to be stable.

It's a G0, and it runs at 3.4 GHz at 1.4375 V. Why wouldn't it run stable at 400x8 and be much hotter? It simply doesn't add up. I guess I got a crappy G0 chip, I guess. I'm using a Zalman 9500 (unlapped). The temps are ok, though. Idle less than 43 C on all the above mentioned attempted boots (I got far enough to run chm in FreeBSD to check temps).

*edit* at 378x9 with Vcore 1.4375 my idle temp is 34 C and the load temp is 54 C. Those are pretty good for that voltage/fsb/multiplier, right? I don't see why I can't run 400x8 without Vcore 1.5 V+. Doesn't make sense.
09-08-2007, 12:25 PM
ChaosMinionX

That your problem right there....your using a dinky cooler on a quad and trying to OC it like mad :) Dual Core that cooler was fine, Quad move up to a Thermalright Ultra-120...and if your chip does 4050mhz 450x9 at 1.4875 that is a very nice chip...however its highly unlikely, and is only the fact that the bios is reporting the speed wrong. Stability of anychip has alot to do with thermal management, and sometimes it comes down to a hardware limitation.

If you had windows installed you could easily see that.

And in my findings of FSB and chips....My quad will do 400x9 at like 1.4-1.45v 450x8 at 1.4875... and 500x7 takes anywhere from 1.5 to 1.55 for complete stability as well as an increase to NBvoltage and vFSB....there are numerous factors to describe your overclocking woes..... but that board is running the multi and FSB you set, just not reading the change....
09-08-2007, 03:45 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

That your problem right there....your using a dinky cooler on a quad and trying to OC it like mad :) Dual Core that cooler was fine, Quad move up to a Thermalright Ultra-120...and if your chip does 4050mhz 450x9 at 1.4875 that is a very nice chip...however its highly unlikely, and is only the fact that the bios is reporting the speed wrong. Stability of anychip has alot to do with thermal management, and sometimes it comes down to a hardware limitation.

If you had windows installed you could easily see that.

And in my findings of FSB and chips....My quad will do 400x9 at like 1.4-1.45v 450x8 at 1.4875... and 500x7 takes anywhere from 1.5 to 1.55 for complete stability as well as an increase to NBvoltage and vFSB....there are numerous factors to describe your overclocking woes..... but that board is running the multi and FSB you set, just not reading the change....

Mine isn't even coming close to running 400x9 at 1.4 - 1.45v. As I said, it won't even do 400x8 at 1.4875. That seems fishy to me. I am going to install some sort of windows live cd I guess, so I can run CPU-Z.

I've got a Thermalright 120 Extreme on order, which should arrive Monday. However, I didn't ask them to lap it (it was $15). I think I should have...so I'm going to order another one lapped, and return the one arriving Monday. We'll see how my temps are then, but again, temperatures do NOT seem to be my problem, other than having to set 1.5v+ just for 400x8 (which I shouldn't have to do, I've not seen anyone else with a G0 Q6600 having to use so many volts to hit 3.2 GHz). Perhaps CPU-Z will shed some light on the situation.
09-08-2007, 09:44 PM
ChaosMinionX

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkc120

Mine isn't even coming close to running 400x9 at 1.4 - 1.45v. As I said, it won't even do 400x8 at 1.4875. That seems fishy to me. I am going to install some sort of windows live cd I guess, so I can run CPU-Z.

I've got a Thermalright 120 Extreme on order, which should arrive Monday. However, I didn't ask them to lap it (it was $15). I think I should have...so I'm going to order another one lapped, and return the one arriving Monday. We'll see how my temps are then, but again, temperatures do NOT seem to be my problem, other than having to set 1.5v+ just for 400x8 (which I shouldn't have to do, I've not seen anyone else with a G0 Q6600 having to use so many volts to hit 3.2 GHz). Perhaps CPU-Z will shed some light on the situation.

Its working, your chip just might not be able to handle it, its very likely.
09-08-2007, 09:55 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

Its working, your chip just might not be able to handle it, its very likely.

You're right, CPU-Z reports the proper speed based on the multiplier I set.

So as it stands, my system just is incapable of 400 FSB. I should try 400x7 I guess or 400x6 just to see if it's the motherboard/chipset that's having the problem, or what.

Currently I'm running at 3.4GHz (378x9) at 1.4375v stable. Idle temp is 34-35 C, which is really good. Temperature at load is 56 C. I'm hoping once I get my Thermalright 120 Extreme that'll be well below 30/50 C respectively. Since it doesn't seem to be an overheating barrier with this chip, I guess I'm stuck with 3.4 (378x9). Could be worse, I suppose.

Any suggestions for what I can try here? I never had to adjust the FSB voltage when I ran 400 FSB on my E6600. Could that be causing the instability? Would you mind saving your BIOS settings via the Overclock utility and send it my way?
09-09-2007, 10:04 AM
punisher69

you might have to increase vMCH voltages to get it at 400
09-09-2007, 10:46 AM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by punisher69

you might have to increase vMCH voltages to get it at 400

Is that the FSB voltage? Is there a reason why I'd have to increase this for 400 on a Q6600, when I didn't for an E6600? I don't see anywhere to change "vMCH"...
09-09-2007, 11:15 AM
punisher69

quads are very different and 400 fsb is nearing max on that board with a q6600

vmch = Memory controller hub

now mabey i overlooked the thread but i did'nt happen to see what ram you are using.

you could also try drynyks settings of

FSB Termination Voltage 1.450
NB VCore 1.65

He is running a q6600 go on a Asus p5b Deluxe.

edit: why not shoot drynyks a pm. see if he can be of any assistance to you.
09-09-2007, 12:03 PM
[XC] 4X4N

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkc120

You're right, CPU-Z reports the proper speed based on the multiplier I set.

So as it stands, my system just is incapable of 400 FSB. I should try 400x7 I guess or 400x6 just to see if it's the motherboard/chipset that's having the problem, or what.

Currently I'm running at 3.4GHz (378x9) at 1.4375v stable. Idle temp is 34-35 C, which is really good. Temperature at load is 56 C. I'm hoping once I get my Thermalright 120 Extreme that'll be well below 30/50 C respectively. Since it doesn't seem to be an overheating barrier with this chip, I guess I'm stuck with 3.4 (378x9). Could be worse, I suppose.

Any suggestions for what I can try here? I never had to adjust the FSB voltage when I ran 400 FSB on my E6600. Could that be causing the instability? Would you mind saving your BIOS settings via the Overclock utility and send it my way?

I'm working on a q6600 and p5b deluxe right now. I have had this board over 500 fsb with several chips, but all dual core. To get over 400 fsb stable I have had to up the fsb termination, nb, and sb. Although I'm not sure yet if the increase in sb voltage is needed. Quad core is a totally different animal. For me it's not worth it to for extra fsb. I'm priming it right now at 9x390.

Also about your temps. You will never get the temps you are seeking with that much voltage, unless your ambient is 15c. These run much hotter than dual cores.
09-09-2007, 01:00 PM
highoctane

I think my P5B Deluxe maxed out at around 425 with my B3 q6600, its been a while though but it was definitely somewhere around 425.
09-09-2007, 01:01 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by highoctane

I think my P5B Deluxe maxed out at around 425 with my B3 q6600, its been a while though but it was definitely somewhere around 425.

Thanks all! So I'm not necessarily seeing a limitation of my G0 Q6600, but rather my P5B? Do you have any suggestions for a motherboard (preferably < $150) that can do 450x8 with the Q6600?
09-09-2007, 02:32 PM
ChaosMinionX

Get something P35 based....I think they are down to a reasonable price by now.
09-09-2007, 06:13 PM
jkc120

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX

Get something P35 based....I think they are down to a reasonable price by now.

Hmm FreeBSD 6.x doesn't support the ICH9 stuff on P35 motherboards. So I'll have to wait. I am fine with 3.4 (378x9) for now. My temps aren't bad (36/56), but I'm hoping the Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme drops that to 32/52 and then when I lap it, I'm hoping those will drop below 30 and 50 respectively. If I'm getting a significant temperature drop, perhaps I'll consider trying for 425x8 or 450x8 at that point. If it's a no go, no biggie. I'm not really going to miss 22 MHz of FSB and 200 MHz of clock speed, really :)

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:24 AM.

XtremeSystems