More P5B secrets uncovered

[Supertim0r]

SETUP

9x440 from bios


9x440 (9x400 bios, 400 -> 440 clockgen)

[Vapor]

Bachus, what happens when you boot at 399? It seems the higher strap is already applied at 400 1:1

[fscussel]

hummm I dont understand now, for one guy (bachus_anonym) when using memo 1:1 it will act the same if using 440 from boot or clockgen, for the other guy (Supertim0r) with the memo at same 1:1 it works like we tought, much performance improvement when using 440 by clockgen... very strange... could you try setting 395 in the bios and repeating the test going to 440 with clockgen?

[fscussel]

Bachus, what happens when you boot at 399? It seems the higher strap is already applied at 400 1:1

yeah, we had the same ideia at the same time

[bachus_anonym]

Maybe You check x7 multi ? egz 7x514 1:1 (or You Did it) Very strange mobo

I think I did in my first post in this thread... Let me double check...

These are my findings. I believe that the 1333 strap is set at 380 mhz fsb if using the 1:1 ratio. The reason is if I set fsb to 380 or higher I get a double restart on the board. If I set it to 379 or lower it restarts normally. This is using bios 0614. Hope this helps.

Bachus, what happens when you boot at 399? It seems the higher strap is already applied at 400 1:1

I'm actually finishing 32M runs at 375MHz BOOT and raised to 420, 432, 450... I will update my post asap

UPDATE1: Another set added - Booted at 375x8 and then raised. I have updated my previous post for better comparison.

Boot @ 375x8 (DDR2-533 ratio, 1:1) and raised using ClockGen to:

420x8                     432x8                     450x8

15:26.140                       15:00.219                        14:24.375

UPDATE2: ...one more set added, booted at 350x8 and then raised. Again, I have updated my previous post for better comparison.

Boot @ 350x8 (DDR2-533 ratio, 1:1) and raised using ClockGen to:

420x8                     432x8                     450x8

15:26.172                       15:00.547                        System crashed!

As you can see, EXACTLY same thing as booted @ 400x8 and clockgen'd...

hummm I dont understand now, for one guy (bachus_anonym) when using memo 1:1 it will act the same if using 440 from boot or clockgen, for the other guy (Supertim0r) with the memo at same 1:1 it works like we tought, much performance improvement when using 440 by clockgen... very strange... could you try setting 395 in the bios and repeating the test going to 440 with clockgen?

See, key seems to me a multiplier, as I mentioned above. I see the same behaviour at x9 as Supertim0r (advantage of booting at 400 and rasing then) but as soon as I drop multi to x8, the whole theory goes down the drain

[Supertim0r]

you want a specific test ?
I haven't tested with different voltage than auto (vfsb, nb, sb, mch are all auto)

[caater]

by the way, is there any basis for nbcc being (def mult/actual mult*fsb) besides sandra information?
did a quick test.. 1st part bootup speeds, 2nd part - multi changed to 6x.

[dr_sharp]

See, key seems to me a multiplier, as I mentioned above. I see the same behaviour at x9 as Supertim0r (advantage of booting at 400 and rasing then) but as soon as I drop multi to x8, the whole theory goes down the drain

bachus,

This would make sense if the NBCC is, in fact, determined by the multiplier. If we see a strap change @ 400fsb with default multi. Then the NBCC changes strap at 400MHz. But since you are using a multi of 8, your NBCC is 400*9/8 = 450. We would expect to see the strap change at a NBCC of 400 = 9/8*FSB. This would mean a strap change around 355FSB.

[dr_sharp]

Another thing. I could not replicate your results, bachus. Here were my findings:

Boot @ 450x8 1:1 4-4-4-10
32M results: 15:17.437

Boot @ 400x9 1:1 4-4-4-10
32M results: 14:57.297

Boot @ 400x8 Clockgen to 450x8 1:1 4-4-4-10
32M results: 14:37.469

Boot @ 350x8 Clockgen to 450x8 1:1 4-4-4-10
Hard Lock

Boot @ 350x8 Clockgen to 432x8 1:1 4-4-4-10
32M results: 15:10.xxx

Boot @ 350x8 Clockgen to 444x8 1:1 4-4-4-10
32M results: 14:49.078

Boot @ 355x8 Clockgen to 444x8 1:1 4-4-4-10
32M results: 14:50.469

[bachus_anonym]

9x440 from bios
http://simon.webideal.ca/Bench/9x440%2032m.JPG

9x440 (9x400 bios, 400 -> 440 clockgen)
http://simon.webideal.ca/Bench/9x440...20clockgen.JPG

... and @dr_sharp

Just curious, are you guys able to guys boot @ 400x9 (e.g. 4:5, not 1:1) and clockgen to around 445-450x9 without system locking up, instead of straight boot @ 445-450x9? Provided your CPU and RAM is up for 4GHz/DDR2-1120, naturally. I'm still on a stock cooler, and 3.65GHz is all I can bench at at this moment, so I can't try it myself yet...
Thanks

[Revv23]

be nice if emc2 was still around i bet he would scope this out for us if you know what i mean.

[dr_sharp]

... and @dr_sharp

Just curious, are you guys able to guys boot @ 400x9 (e.g. 4:5, not 1:1) and clockgen to around 445-450x9 without system locking up, instead of straight boot @ 445-450x9? Provided your CPU and RAM is up for 4GHz/DDR2-1120, naturally. I'm still on a stock cooler, and 3.65GHz is all I can bench at at this moment, so I can't try it myself yet...
Thanks

My ram is up to par but my cpu max out around 430x9

[Supertim0r]

... and @dr_sharp

Just curious, are you guys able to guys boot @ 400x9 (e.g. 4:5, not 1:1) and clockgen to around 445-450x9 without system locking up, instead of straight boot @ 445-450x9? Provided your CPU and RAM is up for 4GHz/DDR2-1120, naturally. I'm still on a stock cooler, and 3.65GHz is all I can bench at at this moment, so I can't try it myself yet...
Thanks

I can't clockgen from 400, only boot 445x9 4:5

[bachus_anonym]

Man, that sucks, if you can do 445x9 with 4:5 only with straight boot!

[Supertim0r]

it freeze past 415ish clockgen

[yotomeczek]

I think I did in my first post in this thread... Let me double check...

I can't find Youre 7x514 1:1

[bachus_anonym]

I can't find Youre 7x514 1:1

here you go, under EDIT part , and yes, time sucked

[Supertim0r]

here you go, under EDIT part , and yes, time sucked

Are you planning phase change soon ? You're waiting the 775 adapter ?

[fscussel]

I have an ideia, why don't someone write to ASUS and ask them about this, it would be easier. Dunno if they will answer tho...

[Tony]

here is something to try:

Anyone with a 6800XE and P5B deluxe try the folowing. Set the various downclock multipliers and see if the NBCC is altering. We have a feeling the 6800XE is a little different to normal Conroes in that each multiplier is a default multiplier, so it never overclocks the NB on a lower ratio.

Just theory...we need someone to test if they can.

T

[caater]

here is something to try:
Anyone with a 6800XE and P5B deluxe try the folowing. Set the various downclock multipliers and see if the NBCC is altering.

Just a question i asked earlier, how to see the NBCC?

[freecableguy]

[caater]

but what about that

[KiD0M4N]

@ fcg: hey dude.... care to answer one doubt of mine?


(pic from hexux)

I see that they are running the X6800 @ 500 x 6.

So does it mean the NBCC is at

500 * 11/6 =~ 917 Mhz (x 4 = 3667 Mhz fsb )

Please clarify.

Regards,

Karan

ps: is the multiplier change of X6800 different? i am trying to go over the thread, please point me to the post if i have missed it.

[freecableguy]

kidoman - I believe that every multiplier on the X6800 is a "default" multiplier - you can raise FSB as high as you want while changing the multiplier and it never overclocks the NB (NBCC always equals the FSB). This is one of the subtle differences that XE chips possess.