Printable View
I have a Xeon X3360 and it doesn't go over 445Mhz FSB. No matter what I try.
I'm not the only one with FSB problems, I think the new C1 stepping isnt so good as the C0. Most X33*0 chips won't get over 450Mhz FSB.
Who has this problem to? What's your limit FSB? And what batch do you have?
Mine:
Chip: X3360
Batch: L803A762
Max FSB: 445Mhz :down:
Motherboard: Asus Rampage Formula
Let's chime mine :
Chip : Q9450
Batch : L811A506
Max FSB : 440 MHz (quick test, further testing tonight to find the real max FSB).
Motherboard : Maximus Formula (Rampage Formula 0308 BIOS).
Tried on P965-mainboard?
My Q9300(ES) doesn't boot into Windows @450 Mhz FSB on Gigabyte P35-DS3, but ist benchstable on Asus P5B @ 480 Mhz + x.
I was having the issue.. Until I tweak my GTL which took me 2 weeks.. If I can help let me know
Which GTL did you tweak and what is your value ? That's my own guess to explain why most guys is struck at that FSB while a old :banana::banana::banana::banana: P5B can work fine and P5E-VM too...Quote:
Originally Posted by X2beach
Can you explain your tweak? I think a lot people have this problem and this could solve it!:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by X2beach
Maybe it really is a GTL problem thats holding these chips back?
I am running 1.4 vcore 1.4 CPU VTT 140 130 125 GTL 1.64 CPU PLL
I am at work. I will be happy to help more in about 2hr when I get home
:up: Some boards already have their GTL values tweaked so well when they were engineered that they don't need to be hand-tweaked to achieve such insane clocks. Maybe that explains why some boards just work better with these chips than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX
I googled about GTL voltage adjustement and so far, it seems that it's specific to each CPU and no 2 settings is the same. You should tweak yourself and that's what I plan to do...
x2Beach use a DFI X48-TR2 board so the settings is not the same as a Maximus/Rampage board so it's hard.
RunawayPrisoner is right, some have better inhouse tweakings than others. I guess it's not impossible that future BIOS updates improve the compatibility with those processors by tweaking the default GTL values.
is this issue limited to the X38/48 chipsets? No problems what so ever here on a ":banana::banana::banana::banana:ty" 780i!
But 450 FSB is hardly... "it." I mean... I could get 3.8GHz with the kind of volt you're using for 3.6! Come on, let's see some higher numbers at lower volts!
(But I'm one to talk... if the computer is stable at 4.0GHz at below 1.45v vCore, I may just keep it! :p:)
The more I read, the more I think its the X38/X48, specifically the Asus boards, because I see good things with the DFI boards, and not so good with Asus.... either its chipset, or because the BIOS just simply isnt mature enough to handle these chips.
Actually, I've heard all kinds of boards achieving an average of 440-460 in the X3350 arrival thread. It's not specific to X38/X48 boards, and definitely not specific to ASUS boards.
Well, put it this way, I have a lot to learn. My last overclocking adventure was a A64 3200+ I had a 2.9Ghz. I had an e8400 for a while, but didnt need to touch GTLvref.Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
I dont know what is holding this thing back. I just know those volts are stable at this clockspeed. I just dont think this is a 'cherry' chip in all reality.
1 of my Q9450 (C1) on P5K-Dlx can run at 450 (FSB) and is stable at 3.6GHz (with low vcore = 1.25v in BIOS) ... temps are good too (full loaded - 56*C in CoreTemp and 46*C in RealTemp)
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/7...4503600mk6.jpg
The another one is "suck" ... on Abit IP35-Pro. It is only stable when vcore is set to 1.29v at FSB=425 (3.4GHz) and temparature are super HOT .... (full loaded - 68*C in CoreTemp and 58*C in RealTemp) .....
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/947...3400we9.th.jpg
1.224v seems about right. :) I got that same result with the X3350.
I don't even think that my two 4GHz chips are 'cherry'. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
Well if others in the Q9450 thread had a 780i board, that would help me out a lot in finding some settings with lower volts. But from what I have seen, this is about right. I can boot 3.8Ghz @ 1.35v, but didnt do any stability testing.
EDIT: And is it just me or is the title messed up?
Q9x50 and 3x50.
I think there are other things to consider also.. Video card for some reason makes a difference, 9800gx2 draw alot of juice and I was having my computer just shut off, I have OCZ 1010 Powersupply, found out I was overloading one of the rails. so I am getting a single rail Powersupply now.
DFI board do have more options to tweak thats forsure. My buddy has a X3360 on a rampage and he running into the same issues. He doesnt have GTL tweaks and can'nt run at 450bus
I'm running a Q9450(ES) C0 on a DFI X38-T2R that's cooled by a Vapo LS and I'm hitting my max FSB around 450-455. Still tweaking the GTLs to see if I might get it a little higher...
But I had to really crank the CPU VTT and NB Core voltages to get where I am.
Currently running CPU VTT 1.603V, NB 1.677V, GTLs 120, 120, 120.
If I understand it right you can tweak the GTL Voltage and can get a higer FSB?
I've found some information.
http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=87
Maybe can somebody find a GTL pinmod or motherboard mod. (I'm just curious if it's possible, it wil be a revolution on the Q9*50 overclocking scene)
I read that. Though most of it is over my head. I have those options on my 780i board (P04 Bios).
It almost seems though from that other thread and this, with the small cross section we have, that its a X38/48 issue as Im sure I can plow through 450FSB with the right amount of volts.
Oh shoot... I remember it now. GTL may not play a role in the FSB wall after all...
Article:
http://www.edgeofstability.com/artic.../gtl/gtl1.html
What GTL might actually do... is it lets you stay stable at lower voltages from what I've read so far. If that proves true... guhh... then the real problem may lie in the electrical design of the board, in which case, not even a BIOS update would help.
I'm still thinking it's just immature BIOSes (at least for the x38/48 boards)
Although it's not of any relevance, on my M2N SLI deluxe, a bios update gave me an extra 200mhz OC fro 3.0 to 3.2.
I've seen bioses unlock ocing potential and I wouldn't doubt this is the case for the 45nm quads.
I've tried an Asus P5E bios and the Rampage Formula bioses. Both aren't a difference is OC percentage.
I thought as much. Usually, an overclock should be possible on all BIOSes, and it would stay stable on some specific BIOSes. It doesn't necessarily mean that a BIOS would take away an FSB limit. How many times has that (BIOS taking away FSB wall) happened, actually?
So what is the max GTLvref volts then? I started my own thread a week ago asking this but only got 1 person to reply (who was helpful). For some reason, my BIOS sets GTLvref 1 @ 45mv while on auto (stock clocks, and overclocked it didnt change, but I knocked it back to 00mv manual for all). Im nervous to pump a lot of volts through that thing. I dont want to buy another $350 processor.
Here is my thread so as not to jack this one (just in case): http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=183841
So tweaking the GTL wil solve a little bit the FSB problem? Gonna try that when I'm home from school.
Um... sorry to bust your bubbles... but I think it might not help at all. From the article I linked earlier, it seems GTL will only make an impact on stability, and not precisely on overclockability.Quote:
Originally Posted by FiXeR
P.S.: But someone reported an FSB strap at 450 (which means 451 would work but 450 might not) so... maybe that's a clue.
Yep, I was playing with board all day today..... the board booted better on Rampage Formula with 266mhz / 451mhz FSB... 450mhz/451mhz on 333/400mhz strap was a no go. I really think this is all a BIOS issue.
Could it be a Strap problem: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=281
goin to read this when I get home.
Seems like it IS a strap issue, guys. We have had people reporting 475 stable now thanks to this finding. Great job, ChaosMinionX! :up:
I hope it IS a strap problem. Because let me be the first one to report, running on a DFI P35, my Q9450 has been absolutely awful at overclocking, cant get over 350 FSB. 400, 450, 475 all fail prime95 on two cores almost instantly at these speeds... and cranking voltages to the limit (1.45 vcore, 1.4vtt, 1.6NB, 2.4 dram) does not make a lick of difference. See my thread here:
http://csd.dficlub.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6336
It seems now that it's half a strap problem... and half not? And anyway, another member got the same board: ASUS P5E-VM HDMI, and immediately, he could POST at 475.
Myself, I've been able to POST at up to 524 now... and I think that's a bit... high?
I can POST at high FSB (475+). But, anything over 350 causes two cores to fail prime95 the second it is started, regardless of how much voltage I am feeding everything. This is pissing me off to no end because I am on extremley good water, my BIOS reports the CPU temp at 8-11C, but I can hardly get a 200MHz overclock!!! :down: :down: :mad: :mad:
There has to be something else at work, because the amount of time it takes to fail prime is always the same, regardless of speed or voltage.
Well, POSTing can be quite... fun.
Gee... but only 1MHz to 4200MHz and it wouldn't let me... so it ends up being 4192 instead. Oh well.
A guy from Gathering of Tweakers (A dutch forum) called to Asus and he talked to the BIOS Department fron Asus. He explained the problem to Asus and the will look what the problem is and he'll fix it! Next week we hear more from Asus and what we can do to fix the FSB limit on the X48/X38/P35 motherboards. Maybe they will come with a new bios with the fix in it.
Great support from Asus!
:clap: :clap:
Dude... thats really not helping the situation, bragging...Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
Fixer:
I am seriously considering getting the x48 asus board (ddr2 version), as it just seems like a higher quality board all around (better heatsinks, 8 layer pcb, etc...) and does not have retarded ram compatibility problems.
How is vdroop on it?
I've a P5E flashed to a Rampage Formula. (Still a X38) But with the rampage bios do you have minumum vdroop. Dont know how much, but look around in the X48 topics :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Yeah, but what I'm trying to say is that this is not specific to ASUS boards. It also happens with Abit and DFI boards as well, as reported by a lot of others. Maybe it is a BIOS issue and a BIOS update for all X38/X48 boards is in order, but my suspicion up until now falls on the design of the chipset rather than the BIOSes. If that's true, then all X38/X48 boards might not help at all in this situation. But ASUS P5E-VM HDMI is not the only way to go. You can still choose the Striker II Extreme, and from what I've heard, that board could also hit 4GHz easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Its turning out to be a X38/X48/P35 issue with clocking these, most likely they didnt tune them properly for 45nm and focused more on 60nm which was the current market when all these boards were released...so if people could not clock 60nm, then nobody would buy them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
Now that 45nm is hitting the streets (slowly) but the issues are starting to come out, my guess is they never pushed these boards with 9450/3350 to 450-475mhz FSB. Part of that would explain why DFI's boards work with higher FSB, because they do extreme testing like that from what I have seen.
But I'm also getting that DFI boards are not clocking as well either despite the user having total control over almost anything adjustable. Currently, world record is held by a P5K modded to death (with very insane voltages) so I believe that with even higher voltages on these boards, it's possible for the chip to do 450 - 475, but if that's so then it's a board design issue and not a BIOS issue. Most likely these boards have been designed to clock 65nm processors in mind, and not to clock 45nm processors.
But then I can't explain why the P5E-VM HDMI requires such low voltages to do extreme clocks. Here's what I need for 500MHz:
vCore: 1.42v real (1.48v under load if the system is to stay stable)
vPLL: 1.58v - 1.60v
vFSB: 1.36v - 1.40v
vNB: 1.65v real (bare minimum)
So 500MHz doesn't require much effort from the board... if it required any at all.
Edit: the said P5K results:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=182791
Compare that to the kind of voltages I need for 500MHz (stable) and you'll see how much of a difference it makes. Maybe vCore stays the same, and I'll need more than 1.6v to validate that 524MHz run (or to POST further than 524MHz) but other voltages for the P5K board were really high, almost impractical for assuring longevity.
Not faster with my experience. See my previous posts in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX
Hmm that P5k seems to do really well, I need to look into that.