ASUS Maximus II Formula - new P45 king?

[cstkl1]

Dude, that is not true. That FUD news was squashed by INTEL before it even became news; FUD apparently mistook Core 2 erratas for Nehalem erratas; erratas that Nehalem had, had been fixed prior to launch.

Here's my take on the x48 debate; as a proud owner of a Rampage Formula, and one who has worked with two other rampage formulas with the same results, the RF is a stellar board. It is fast, tweakable and stable. Yes, the dfi x48 has more tweaks, but they don't translate into higher overclocks; in fact, the dfi x48 is actually an average quadcore clocker. At least the results that I've seen on this forum are many and they all point to limitations in quadcore clocking. Before I upgraded to a Q9550, my stable 24/7 clocks with my E8600 was 7.5 x 560 FSB. Before that, it was my E8400 at 8 x 533 and 8GB G.Skills running at DDR2 1066 for 24/7. The RF is very stable, and it is second to none on the 775/DDR2 platform imo.

I'm also interested in seeing what Cryptic's choice of a better DDR2 x48 board would be because imo there's none.

well i have tried
the dfi x48 LT, rampage formula, ramapage extreme, maximus formula se,

in terms of bandwidth clocking of the rams the dfi x48 is much better.
what pissed me off with the dfi was their pcie compatibility with certain asus gc's and a few 3870x2/4870x2's... the asus 3870x2 rog doesnt even boot on that mobo. same goes for the foxconn p35 mars.

now for ddr2 rampage formula...
if u have tried the maximus 2 formula
and then move on to rampage extreme
u will find the rampage extreme is what the rampage formula should have been.
the exact nature of the bios clocking of the rampage extreme and maximus 2 formula is almost the same.
whats my beef...
rampage formula gtl controls are just not good enough.
hence the high vnb voltages it needs.

but i do agree on the stability of the RF board is much better than dfi x48 LT/UT and needs less work to to do so.
u will spend a lot of time on the dfi x48 lt to get the ram stable rather than finding higher clocks

and my arguement with those that claims the RF clocks better than the m2f..
its because their gtl settings are all wrong for m2f.
the RF u dont really need to worry about the gtl's as much as m2f.

for e8600 on m2f and RE
i can confirm with u many of times .. using the two test to show gtl stability
running IBT for 50 runs and also running orthos ( blend then custom then choose each run 1 min) priority 10.
core 0 +40 the rest auto. tested right up to 563fsb for both boards super stable at 4.5ghz.

[cstkl1]

Which one would you choose? I am tempted to get a UD3P for an interim board until i7 comes down in price and the boards have a chance to mature. I am not very impressed with this MFII, I almost chose the RF and wished I had of.

well my issue with gaygay has always been when it comes to clocking 4 dimms..
this is what happened

gaygay n680dq6
one dimm burned at 2.3v and hence one ram contact point was burned..
samething happened to p35dq6
and another forummer with a p45dq6.
response from fae for the first two motherboards for rma..
in short.. "we dont support clocking of 4dimms above 2.0v "

so far only motherboard i have that has no issue with p45/ddr2 on clocking with 4 dimms is the m2f/biostar t-power i45/dfi DKp45.

in the past no dfi/asus mobo has ever actually burned the contact points of the ram.. aka if that happens u have to pay for the repair cost for the rams...
+ shipping charges and with current prices of rams. i can buy a another new kit for that

all tested with 4x1gb team xtreem pc2-6400 c3s

[CryptiK]

I guess I should have been more clear when I was speaking about the Rampage Formula. I meant the average FSB for quads is around 475, and it appears very difficult to stabilize quads over that, with most topping out around 495 FSB. This may be due to the poor GTL control which I have mentioned before, causing the need for high vNB, and reaching the limit of safe vNB level around the 495 FSB mark. At high FSB speeds they just seem to struggle with quads from what I have seen, even if you thrash the board in an attempt to keep up. Their BIOS is too sparse, and lacks the functionality it should have and needs. I'm not saying the board is no good at all, it's just not my cup of tea.

I would not purchase a UT or LT DFI, they are not mature enough hardware wise, and their clockgen limits their overclocking ability of both duals and quads. I don't feel DFI has too many options, if you know what you are doing with them, setting them up can be done rather quickly. I don't like the fact they have compatibility issues with a few graphics cards, that complicates things.

I still am very wary of Gigabyte, and although the UD3P/R and EP45-Extreme are doing well, I don't think I could put my gear onto them, I'd be too concerned the boards would flake out taking my gear with them.

The Rampage Extreme is probably the best X48 board available, massive FSB and ram clocks (DDR3 of course) and low tRD are par for the course. Whether or not they have used high binned X48 chipsets and clockgens I'm not sure, but they outperform any other X48 available, and their BIOS options are great.

I think the DFI DK-T2RSB Plus is probably the best DDR2 X48 board available now, it clocks both quads and duals better than the UT & LT's as it uses a revised clockgen, the same one used on the Rampage Extreme, and has a solid digital PWM circuit - more than 560 FSB stable has been done. It clocks ram very well, and is highly tweakable. It's also under $300, and even if the RF is slightly better and could be proven to be, there is no way it's $220 better, as it costs around $520 here. For another $100 I could have the Rampage Extreme, which actually is easily $100 better than the RF.

That's just my opinion, the rampage formula will appeal to some, just not me.

[Zucker2k]

well i have tried
the dfi x48 LT, rampage formula, ramapage extreme, maximus formula se,

in terms of bandwidth clocking of the rams the dfi x48 is much better.

I have heard many people say this, but it's not true in my experience.

now for ddr2 rampage formula...
if u have tried the maximus 2 formula
and then move on to rampage extreme
u will find the rampage extreme is what the rampage formula should have been.
the exact nature of the bios clocking of the rampage extreme and maximus 2 formula is almost the same.
whats my beef...
rampage formula gtl controls are just not good enough.
hence the high vnb voltages it needs.

What good is gtl control if it doesn't translate into higher fsb overclocks? High VNB? Check out the screenie below.

and my arguement with those that claims the RF clocks better than the m2f..
its because their gtl settings are all wrong for m2f.
the RF u dont really need to worry about the gtl's as much as m2f

That's a good thing in my books.

for e8600 on m2f and RE
i can confirm with u many of times .. using the two test to show gtl stability
running IBT for 50 runs and also running orthos ( blend then custom then choose each run 1 min) priority 10.
core 0 +40 the rest auto. tested right up to 563fsb for both boards super stable at 4.5ghz.

I've gotten similar results on rampage formula.

I guess I should have been more clear when I was speaking about the Rampage Formula. I meant the average FSB for quads is around 475, and it appears very difficult to stabilize quads over that, with most topping out around 495 FSB. This may be due to the poor GTL control which I have mentioned before, causing the need for high vNB, and reaching the limit of safe vNB level around the 495 FSB mark. At high FSB speeds they just seem to struggle with quads from what I have seen, even if you thrash the board in an attempt to keep up. Their BIOS is too sparse, and lacks the functionality it should have and needs. I'm not saying the board is no good at all, it's just not my cup of tea.

This is still better than the competition, imo.

The Rampage Extreme is probably the best X48 board available, massive FSB and ram clocks (DDR3 of course) and low tRD are par for the course. Whether or not they have used high binned X48 chipsets and clockgens I'm not sure, but they outperform any other X48 available, and their BIOS options are great.

Yes, the RE is the best, this debate is about DDR2 though.

I think the DFI DK-T2RSB Plus is probably the best DDR2 X48 board available now, it clocks both quads and duals better than the UT & LT's as it uses a revised clockgen, the same one used on the Rampage Extreme, and has a solid digital PWM circuit - more than 560 FSB stable has been done. It clocks ram very well, and is highly tweakable. It's also under $300, and even if the RF is slightly better and could be proven to be, there is no way it's $220 better, as it costs around $520 here. For another $100 I could have the Rampage Extreme, which actually is easily $100 better than the RF.

That's just my opinion, the rampage formula will appeal to some, just not me.

Well, what can I say, if it's not better than the rampage formula then my point is made; I know where that 640 figure comes from, and I haven't seen a single quadcore overclock in that thread, let alone past 500 fsb so again, if it is to be considered a contender, then we must see some justification for that. That 640fsb was is reasonable, but it was done with a x6 multi. I could show you my own screenie of a 7.5 x 600, even went up to 610, on the rampage formula and I wasn't even trying hard, and was limited by ram. Trust me, I've been in some ram bandwidth combat with some dfi nuts, etc. and came out feeling good so I know all about the hype. The RF is a solid overclocker; it may not overclock quads nearly as good as some p45s, but the x48 chipset was designed with other strengths which the RF demonstrates very nicely; eg. high fsbs and tight PLs.

Rampage Formula low volts prime action, everything set to the lowest.



More of the same...



G.Skill PC2-8500 2x2GB overclock on Rampage Formula...



7.5x600 FSB



my 24/7 with my E8600 before I switched to 9550



As you can see, I have gotten some pretty good results with rampage formula.

[CryptiK]

Well, what can I say, if it's not better than the rampage formula then my point is made; I know where that 640 figure comes from, and I haven't seen a single quadcore overclock in that thread, let alone past 500 fsb so again, if it is to be considered a contender, then we must see some justification for that. That 640fsb was is reasonable, but it was done with a x6 multi. I could show you my own screenie of a 7.5 x 600, even went up to 610, on the rampage formula and I wasn't even trying hard, and was limited by ram. Trust me, I've been in some ram bandwidth combat with some dfi nuts, etc. and came out feeling good so I know all about the hype. The RF is a solid overclocker; it may not overclock quads nearly as good as some p45s, but the x48 chipset was designed with other strengths which the RF demonstrates very nicely; eg. high fsbs and tight PLs.

640 FSB is still 640 FSB regardless of multiplier, the CPU limits the CPU speed, if they had used 7x the cpu would have to be good for 4.48GHz. It, and other results as well, are still higher than anything I have seen the RF achieve. I have not seen an RF do 640 FSB, regardless of multi used.

I didn't say the T2RSB Plus was not as good, I'm just not arguing this as vehemently as you are. From what I have seen, I think it's better than the RF, but I really don't mind what other people think is the best DDR2 X48 board, I just do my own thing based on my own opinion.

I said if the RF could be proven to be better FSB wise or quad overclocking wise than the T2RSB Plus, it would have to be proven to be $220 better or I still wouldn't consider buying it. I also said that if I was considering spending $520 on an X48 I consider decent but nothing special, I would pay the extra $100 and get the X48 that is unarguably outstanding (the RE). Essentially, I'm saying I would never buy the RF.

[Zucker2k]

640 FSB is still 640 FSB regardless of multiplier, the CPU limits the CPU speed, if they had used 7x the cpu would have to be good for 4.48GHz. It, and other results as well, are still higher than anything I have seen the RF achieve. I have not seen an RF do 640 FSB, regardless of multi used.

I didn't say the T2RSB Plus was not as good, I'm just not arguing this as vehemently as you are. From what I have seen, I think it's better than the RF, but I really don't mind what other people think is the best DDR2 X48 board, I just do my own thing based on my own opinion.

I said if the RF could be proven to be better FSB wise or quad overclocking wise than the T2RSB Plus, it would have to be proven to be $220 better or I still wouldn't consider buying it. I also said that if I was considering spending $520 on an X48 I consider decent but nothing special, I would pay the extra $100 and get the X48 that is unarguably outstanding (the RE). Essentially, I'm saying I would never buy the RF.

I'm not trying to argue with you here; I'm just trying to debate...

The whole point of the debate was that the Rampage Formula overclocks quads better. That 640 fsb is for dualcore, right? So how is that even relevant to the debate? You're backsliding now; don't turn this into a price/performance argument. You said the rampage lacked many features which hampered overclocks; I tried to show certain results which proved that wasn't the case. With the right cpu and memory, I could show you some spectacular results too. Yes, I agree 640 is 640, but it is still 6x640; my 7.5x600 (610) are not unimpressive, the memory I used on that overclock are my Team Xtreems PC2-6400 which throw up a million errors in memtest and need a ton of voltage to reach DDR2 1200 speeds. also, looking at all those voltages in the screenie you can tell I had a lot of headroom. Any experienced overclocker can tell that. I'm not a skeptic, but I choose to believe in numbers. There are too many myths on these forums

Edit: That 640 FSB overclock looks good, but when you think about the fact that Oscar Wu himself was on im with the overclocker, it makes for a little bit of pause on my part. It would seem to me that the board was shipped directly from Taiwan, who knows, could be even the processor too. Oh, the bios was supposed to be special, right? All these things makes me a little skeptical. I just haven't seen these results you speak of. I'm by no means advicing you on your next board pick , I'm just holding you to your bold statements which one would think was coming from someone who had extensive experience with these boards. I'm out.

PS: By the way, I picked up my rampage formula on newegg for $200.

[fido_dido]

Guys,
I bought one E0 E8400 (vid=1.25v). It run 450*9 stable @1.27Vcore,1.53CPU PLL,1.26NB,1.20VTT. I hope to run 500*8 or 500*9 but failed. What volt should I adjust in BIOS?

[CryptiK]

I think you have misinterpreted what I have said. I simply initially made the comment that the RF is not the board for me, and that it is not the board I would choose if I was to purchase an X48. I didn't even want to state which board I would choose, as it is my opinion and I couldn't care less what other people purchase, nor do I want to influence what anyone else would purchase.

I dont have personal experience with either the RF or the T2RSB Plus, I have seen results from both, I like the T2RSB Plus better, simple. This was never an specific debate for the best DDR2 X48, it was initially not even a debate at all until you stepped in. Grnfinger just said he preferred the RF to the M2F. I said it was OK, but I preferred something else. I'm very surprised this escalated in to some apparent 'best DDR2 X48' board debate. This is not the place for such a debate, nor do I wish to take place in one. In fact I have no idea why you have come into the M2F thread and tried to initiate a debate about the best DDR2 X48 board. What it really is, is you saying the RF is the best X48 DDR2 board, and trying to convince others to agree with you.

I am not backsliding by bringing price vs performance into the equation, it was always in the equation from where I stand. Also I never said the RF lacks BIOS options that hampered overclocks at all, I just said it has sparse options and I felt it needed more. I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me. I even stated I did not think the RF was bad, just that it didn't appeal to me at all. I'm not contributing to myths, I've read through the RF thread here and on other forums, and I wasn't impressed, especially when you factor in their retail price. I've said nothing that was not true, nor have I hyped anything up, nor have I made any 'bold statements'.

I've simply stated my preference of X48 board, and said what I don't like about the RF. If you disagree, that's fine with me. I am not trying to convince anyone of my DDR2 X48 board preference. I don't know why you feel a need to do this - you were in this thread trying to show how great you thought the RF was before I even made my second post on the issue - you made the comment:

I'm also interested in seeing what Cryptic's choice of a better DDR2 x48 board would be because imo there's none.

Then I said what I disliked about it, and stated what board I liked better. If you think the RF is the best DDR X48 board, go for it, that's fantastic and I'm glad you're happy. I'm not debating this with you. I feel no need to.

[cstkl1]

I have heard many people say this, but it's not true in my experience.

What good is gtl control if it doesn't translate into higher fsb overclocks? High VNB? Check out the screenie below.

That's a good thing in my books.

I've gotten similar results on rampage formula.

This is still better than the competition, imo.

Yes, the RE is the best, this debate is about DDR2 though.

Well, what can I say, if it's not better than the rampage formula then my point is made; I know where that 640 figure comes from, and I haven't seen a single quadcore overclock in that thread, let alone past 500 fsb so again, if it is to be considered a contender, then we must see some justification for that. That 640fsb was is reasonable, but it was done with a x6 multi. I could show you my own screenie of a 7.5 x 600, even went up to 610, on the rampage formula and I wasn't even trying hard, and was limited by ram. Trust me, I've been in some ram bandwidth combat with some dfi nuts, etc. and came out feeling good so I know all about the hype. The RF is a solid overclocker; it may not overclock quads nearly as good as some p45s, but the x48 chipset was designed with other strengths which the RF demonstrates very nicely; eg. high fsbs and tight PLs.

Rampage Formula low volts prime action, everything set to the lowest.

my 24/7 with my E8600 before I switched to 9550

As you can see, I have gotten some pretty good results with rampage formula.

bro u do know right for 500 fsb on the RE at 1600 CL7 TRD 8 and m2F 1200mhz CL7 tRD 8 vNB is 1.25/1.21??? for 4x1gb
with vtt at 1.12 for e8600

i have used all the boards..
if RF had the same gtl control as RE... it would have been mind blowing.
also those who use m2f and went over to RE.. would understand gtl better
instead of blaming clock skews for everything.

also a lot of ppl clocking the quads for m2f are setting wrong gtl values and with the RF is less headache.
so i guess ure arguement wins here on RF clocking quads better

but i do admit that i only had the rampage formula upon launch with the initial bios as comparison to MF SE. So my argument was based on that

the DFI x48 was much better at that time for 1200mhz clocks at tRD 7.
for 4x1gb. Its here somewhere in XS dfi thread.. but i was just pissed off with the amount of time it took to get 500fsb stable for 4dimms and also the lack of support on GC's. It was something to do with DFI pcie compaitibility with pcie 2.0 GC's for ATi especially.

also i am just saying the boards that i have used.
also another point in ure side was the rampage formula that i had was a ES .
also my opinion is always based on the boards that i have clocked and never based on screen shots on threads
btw nice clocks

[seban]

That is a good text from anandtech -> http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3471 about news on the market.

[Zucker2k]

And this is why I still feel the Rampage is a superior board compared to the Maximus II

Quad 9550 506FSB!!!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...postcount=7473

In terms of max screen that's good, but not overly impressive. UD3P does 540 FSB+ with quads. It's a powerful little board.

oh agreed the UD3P is a definately a solid board, but comparing the rampage to max II the rampage ( which is what I was doing ) is far superior in every aspect.
Alot of ppl are hitting 500FSB for quads on other boards, I just dont see many high fsb quads on this board.
I'm still holding out for a bios that corrects all the issues with the MIIF, but I see no light at the end of the tunnel.

From what I can see there are more people with good quads capable of 500 FSB with the rampage formula, most people with the MIIF have duals, or C0/C1 quads that dont clock. If we had more guys with 9650's and E0 9550's I think we'd be seeing a lot more people doing 480 FSB+.
The RF is a decent X48 board, but it wouldn't be my choice if I had to pick an X48 (which I'm considering doing). The average max FSB for it is 495, over which few get any stability at all. 470 - 475 appears to be its max stable FSB on average.

I think you have misinterpreted what I have said. I simply initially made the comment that the RF is not the board for me, and that it is not the board I would choose if I was to purchase an X48. I didn't even want to state which board I would choose, as it is my opinion and I couldn't care less what other people purchase, nor do I want to influence what anyone else would purchase.

I dont have personal experience with either the RF or the T2RSB Plus, I have seen results from both, I like the T2RSB Plus better, simple. This was never an specific debate for the best DDR2 X48, it was initially not even a debate at all until you stepped in. Grnfinger just said he preferred the RF to the M2F. I said it was OK, but I preferred something else. I'm very surprised this escalated in to some apparent 'best DDR2 X48' board debate. This is not the place for such a debate, nor do I wish to take place in one. In fact I have no idea why you have come into the M2F thread and tried to initiate a debate about the best DDR2 X48 board. What it really is, is you saying the RF is the best X48 DDR2 board, and trying to convince others to agree with you.

I am not backsliding by bringing price vs performance into the equation, it was always in the equation from where I stand. Also I never said the RF lacks BIOS options that hampered overclocks at all, I just said it has sparse options and I felt it needed more. I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me. I even stated I did not think the RF was bad, just that it didn't appeal to me at all. I'm not contributing to myths, I've read through the RF thread here and on other forums, and I wasn't impressed, especially when you factor in their retail price. I've said nothing that was not true, nor have I hyped anything up, nor have I made any 'bold statements'.

I've simply stated my preference of X48 board, and said what I don't like about the RF. If you disagree, that's fine with me. I am not trying to convince anyone of my DDR2 X48 board preference. I don't know why you feel a need to do this - you were in this thread trying to show how great you thought the RF was before I even made my second post on the issue - you made the comment:



Then I said what I disliked about it, and stated what board I liked better. If you think the RF is the best DDR X48 board, go for it, that's fantastic and I'm glad you're happy. I'm not debating this with you. I feel no need to.

Dude, you're the one trying to make a big deal out of nothing; I merely wanted you to stand by your comments. Obviously, it is there for all to see; you downplayed the capabilities of the board; here let me quote you:

1. "In terms of max screen that's good, but not overly impressive."

2. "From what I can see there are more people with good quads capable of 500 FSB with the rampage formula, most people with the MIIF have duals, or C0/C1 quads that dont clock. If we had more guys with 9650's and E0 9550's I think we'd be seeing a lot more people doing 480 FSB+."

To sum YOU up, the overclock (Grnfinger pointed to) on RF is not impressive, and the reason why there appears to be better quad overclocks on the RF in general compared to the MIIF is because people with RF have better quads.

After saying that, you go on to say why you won't consider the RF.

Dude are you serious? Ok, let's assume that was the case; did you see the stepping of the chip in that overclock?

It's simple, if you can't defend utterances when you're called upon to defend them, then don't utter anything; especially don't make sweeping statements. You thrashed the RF even though you confess you don't have much experience with it, and then try to make the case for another board which you have no experience with?

I specifically became interested in the conversation between you and Grnfinger because I wanted to know what your comments were based on. Thanks for letting me know I'm debating somebody who doesn't even have much experience with any of the hardware he's commenting on. I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you, but it seems the best way for you to get out of the hole you have dug yourself into is to make it appear as if I'm here trying to pick an argument with you. I have a little advice for you, don't thrash a board you can't beat.

Myth busted!

[Leeghoofd]

You can join Jamie and Adam now on the Mythbusters show Zucker2K ( I hope you are good looking :p )

I'm not entering the debate here : but P45 seems to have an inferior bandwith then the enthousiast range Intel boards (clock for clock) but allows many to OC far easier and higher (remember 975 and 965), thus making up for the slight loss in bandwith. Tweaking X38/48 is for many users a no go...(coming from P35 it gave me some headaches at start) To me P45 is far easier... but both platforms have matured well and are awesome... I think MFII suffers lack of bios updates due to the release of I7 boards, as Asus Bios engineers seem to be focused more on that platform for now...

Shake hands and kiss each other's girlfriends...(or boyfriends lol)

[Zucker2k]

bro u do know right for 500 fsb on the RE at 1600 CL7 TRD 8 and m2F 1200mhz CL7 tRD 8 vNB is 1.25/1.21??? for 4x1gb
with vtt at 1.12 for e8600

i have used all the boards..
if RF had the same gtl control as RE... it would have been mind blowing.
also those who use m2f and went over to RE.. would understand gtl better
instead of blaming clock skews for everything.

also a lot of ppl clocking the quads for m2f are setting wrong gtl values and with the RF is less headache.
so i guess ure arguement wins here on RF clocking quads better

but i do admit that i only had the rampage formula upon launch with the initial bios as comparison to MF SE. So my argument was based on that

the DFI x48 was much better at that time for 1200mhz clocks at tRD 7.
for 4x1gb. Its here somewhere in XS dfi thread.. but i was just pissed off with the amount of time it took to get 500fsb stable for 4dimms and also the lack of support on GC's. It was something to do with DFI pcie compaitibility with pcie 2.0 GC's for ATi especially.

also i am just saying the boards that i have used.
also another point in ure side was the rampage formula that i had was a ES .
also my opinion is always based on the boards that i have clocked and never based on screen shots on threads
btw nice clocks

Cas 7? Anyway, I understand what you're saying, I also appreciate the fact that your not holding on rigidly to your position. Thanks. Oh, 500 FSB PL7 is easy on Rampage.

I do remember having a lot of fun doing comparos with Grnfinger on the Maximus Formula; below are some of my runs with Team Xtreem DDR2 800 ram. They're not my highest ram overclocks; this is just to show some numbers here:

[Zucker2k]

You can join Jamie and Adam now on the Mythbusters show Zucker2K ( I hope you are good looking :p )

I'm not entering the debate here : but P45 seems to have an inferior bandwith then the enthousiast range Intel boards (clock for clock) but allows many to OC far easier and higher (remember 975 and 965), thus making up for the slight loss in bandwith. Tweaking X38/48 is for many users a no go...(coming from P35 it gave me some headaches at start) To me P45 is far easier... but both platforms have matured well and are awesome...

Shake hands and kiss each other's girls...

You speak true words; I've been eyeing the Gigabyte UD3P for sometime but I'm afraid I'm not going to get the stability I'm enjoying on RF, even though I'd probably overclock my quad higher on that board; oh well.

[CryptiK]

Wow you seriously have an attitude problem, think you're opinion is the be all and end all. Grow up please, you're making a massive fool of yourself, and ruining the thread. You are coming across like a diehard Asus RF fanboy, forcibly attempting to get people who differ with your opinion to justify their own opinions, or bow down to your "RF is the best" comments.

What I initially said were minor points, and said specifically in relation to the capabilities of the RF vs the M2F. It should have been left as that, as this is the M2F thread, not the "Zucker2K loves the RF and you must all agree with him" thread. If you want to debate the merits of various X48 platforms, make a thread and do it in the appropriate place, don't come into some unrelated board's thread and start arguing, or 'debating' as you euphemistically put it, with M2F owners about how great you think your board is, or how fantastic the 506 FSB max screen you achieved on it was. Aren't there enough people in the RF thread you can try and impress?

It's plainly obvious you got offended at the fact I commented your overclock Grnfinger linked to was not overly impressive, deal with it, it isn't that impressive. Also not a lot of C0/C1 9550's will go that high on FSB, and also there is one or two guys in the M2F thread with a 9550. There is another guy with a Q6600, one guy with a 9650 and one guy with a 9770 - none of these people have tested and posted results of max FSB testing or max FSB SS's. Why don't you educate yourself before attempting to undermine what I said about people with quads and the M2F - not many users have quads capable of 500 FSB, and those that own those quads have not done specific max FSB testing on this board and posted their results.

In addition, I did not 'thrash' the RF, I could certainly be a lot more critical if I felt the need to be, but I was restrained and only made necessary comments to support my opinion, as I don't own it, and didn't want to be overly critical. I used descriptions like "it appears to" and "it seems to" to demonstrate that what I was stating were observations, not direct findings of my own. I didn't go on some unwarranted and unwanted tirade about a board, like you have. I don't really like the RF, I stated briefly why, and when asked I stated the board I prefer to the RF.

Based on your statements, you cannot form an opinion of a board at all until you have owned and overclocked it. What made you choose the RF then? Did you own it before you bought one? Obviously not, you looked at the available results from it and other boards, and made an educated decision to buy it and try it. So essentially you are criticizing me for doing exactly what you did, only I didn't come to the same conclusion you did. You are apparently blind to your hypocrisy.

I shouldn't have to 'defend my utterances', my utterances being my opinion, to you or anyone else, I could have easily if I felt the need to, posted links etc, but your arrogance and attitude make you an unsavory person with which to debate. I simply couldn't be bothered debating with someone like you. From what I have seen, I don't really like the RF - so what? From what I have seen I prefer the T2RSB Plus - so what? I initially found your RF fanboyism and arrogance amusing, but now I find it ridiculous.

Please take your attitude and and 'DDR2 X48 debate' to an appropriate place, which is certainly not in this thread.

[Zucker2k]

Wow you seriously have an attitude problem, think you're opinion is the be all and end all. Grow up please, you're making a massive fool of yourself, and ruining the thread. You are coming across like a diehard Asus RF fanboy, forcibly attempting to get people who differ with your opinion to justify their own opinions, or bow down to your "RF is the best" comments.

What I initially said were minor points, and said specifically in relation to the capabilities of the RF vs the M2F. It should have been left as that, as this is the M2F thread, not the "Zucker2K loves the RF and you must all agree with him" thread. If you want to debate the merits of various X48 platforms, make a thread and do it in the appropriate place, don't come into some unrelated board's thread and start arguing, or 'debating' as you euphemistically put it, with M2F owners about how great you think your board is, or how fantastic the 506 FSB max screen you achieved on it was. Aren't there enough people in the RF thread you can try and impress?

It's plainly obvious you got offended at the fact I commented your overclock Grnfinger linked to was not overly impressive, deal with it, it isn't that impressive. Also not a lot of C0/C1 9550's will go that high on FSB, and also there is one or two guys in the M2F thread with a 9550. There is another guy with a Q6600, one guy with a 9650 and one guy with a 9770 - none of these people have tested and posted results of max FSB testing or max FSB SS's. Why don't you educate yourself before attempting to undermine what I said about people with quads and the M2F - not many users have quads capable of 500 FSB, and those that own those quads have not done specific max FSB testing on this board and posted their results.

In addition, I did not 'thrash' the RF, I could certainly be a lot more critical if I felt the need to be, but I was restrained and only made necessary comments to support my opinion, as I don't own it, and didn't want to be overly critical. I used descriptions like "it appears to" and "it seems to" to demonstrate that what I was stating were observations, not direct findings of my own. I didn't go on some unwarranted and unwanted tirade about a board, like you have. I don't really like the RF, I stated briefly why, and when asked I stated the board I prefer to the RF.

Based on your statements, you cannot form an opinion of a board at all until you have owned and overclocked it. What made you choose the RF then? Did you own it before you bought one? Obviously not, you looked at the available results from it and other boards, and made an educated decision to buy it and try it. So essentially you are criticizing me for doing exactly what you did, only I didn't come to the same conclusion you did. You are apparently blind to your hypocrisy.

I shouldn't have to 'defend my utterances', my utterances being my opinion, to you or anyone else, I could have easily if I felt the need to, posted links etc, but your arrogance and attitude make you an unsavory person with which to debate. I simply couldn't be bothered debating with someone like you. From what I have seen, I don't really like the RF - so what? From what I have seen I prefer the T2RSB Plus - so what? I initially found your RF fanboyism and arrogance amusing, but now I find it ridiculous.

Please take your attitude and and 'DDR2 X48 debate' to an appropriate place, which is certainly not in this thread.

I see why you've been able to accumulate over a thousand posts in 3 months; posting speculation huh? You haven't proved anything and your best defence is to resort to hostility. Let me tell you what is immature, because that is what you are:

1. Speculation; obviously this is your strong-point otherwise this debate won't even be necessary. I moved from X38 to X48 seamlessly; same bios, everything, so no, I didn't have to "form an opinion" or make an "educated decision." See? Speculator? I went with Intel X** because of the superiority of the chipset.

2. Making Sweeping statements; I can't even elaborate on this one, it's all over your posts.

3. Clueless; you don't even know what you're saying anymore. This is not about you liking the rampage formula; boy, this is about you saying something you really don't know ANYTHING about. Wow! Do I have to point that out to you? Jeez, it feels like I'm having a debate with myself. You said something and I called you on it, capisce?

4. Indefensible statements; obviously that is why we're still having this debate

5. Spinning Myths/Lies; now this is dangerous, you want to give the air of somebody who knows what their talking about, but all you do is perpetrate myths. You've been exposed, boy.

So you tell me who needs growing-up? Dude can't even overclock his dualie and he's trying to pick a fight. Fact is the board you thrash has more potential than your fake skills could ever squeeze from it. Go learn how to overclock and then we can have a REAL DEBATE.

Sorry folks, but this fake wannabe overclocker had to be put in his place. Contrary to what some might think, I didn't take anything he said about my overclock personal. If you doubt me read my initial post. It was his reply to that post that started all this. I guess you can tell a person is cornered when they come out swinging. Man, you're hilarious. Remember, it's not personal I honestly thought you had a clue about what you were talking about. My apologies. I'm out.

PS: Hit me on the pm if you have anything else to say to me.

[The Water Dog]

So 500+ is "easy" on Rampage?
I just wonder, my max is 485 with Q6600. Had been awsome with 500+, i think 490-495 is possible...but need lots of tweaking on my M2F.

[CryptiK]

I see why you've been able to accumulate over a thousand posts in 3 months; posting speculation huh? You haven't proved anything and your best defence is to resort to hostility. Let me tell you what is immature, because that is what you are:

1. Speculation; obviously this is your strong-point otherwise this debate won't even be necessary. I moved from X38 to X48 seamlessly; same bios, everything, so no, I didn't have to "form an opinion" or make an "educated decision." See? Speculator? I went with Intel X** because of the superiority of the chipset.

2. Making Sweeping statements; I can't even elaborate on this one, it's all over your posts.

3. Clueless; you don't even know what you're saying anymore. This is not about you liking the rampage formula; boy, this is about you saying something you really don't know ANYTHING about. Wow! Do I have to point that out to you? Jeez, it feels like I'm having a debate with myself. You said something and I called you on it, capisce?

4. Indefensible statements; obviously that is why we're still having this debate

5. Spinning Myths/Lies; now this is dangerous, you want to give the air of somebody who knows what their talking about, but all you do is perpetrate myths. You've been exposed, boy.

So you tell me who needs growing-up? Dude can't even overclock his dualie and he's trying to pick a fight. Fact is the board you thrash has more potential than your fake skills could ever squeeze from it. Go learn how to overclock and then we can have a REAL DEBATE.

Sorry folks, but this fake wannabe overclocker had to be put in his place. Contrary to what some might think, I didn't take anything he said about my overclock personal. If you doubt me read my initial post. It was his reply to that post that started all this. I guess you can tell a person is cornered when they come out swinging. Man, you're hilarious. Remember, it's not personal I honestly thought you had a clue about what you were talking about. My apologies. I'm out.

PS: Hit me on the pm if you have anything else to say to me.

Boy? Capisce? I said you were arrogant and had a bad attitude, and you just proved me right

1) You judged the RF and it's capabilities through the use of a completely different board? I was referring to your specific choice of the RF, you have simply dodged the question.

2) I made statements of opinion based on what I had read about both the boards in question. Call this what you like it doesn't change reality. I was not trying to change anyone's opinion. Anyone can read up on a potential board and see if it seems suitable for them or not.

3) I never said I had personal experience with either board, just that I had an opinion based on the results I had seen with both boards.

4) I have explained and 'defended' my statements. The thing is you differ in opinion and are incredibly arrogant, and that in fact is why this 'debate' is still going. If you think the baord is great, that's fine, I simply said what my opinion was based on what I'd read, and I stated I did not want to argue and did not want to influence anyone's opinion of the board.

5) Spinning myths? That's a ridiculous accusation, and blatantly incorrect. I did nothing of the sort. Anyone can read through the RF thread and see what I said about the average limits of the board are correct. They can also look at the BIOS features it has, and notice that quite a few potentially useful options are not there. All you have done is expose your arrogance and showcase your shocking attitude.

It's quite amusing you accuse me of 'coming out swinging'. You in fact have been the aggressive one throughout this whole 'debate', which is plainly clear for anyone to see. You call me a 'fake wannabe overclocker' and 'boy', capitalize words (in effect yelling) and use psuedo tough guy words like 'capisce'. Who's the aggressive one? You are hilarious.

Like I'd bother to PM you, I have wasted enough time on you already.

[cstkl1]

zuck
just forget him...
he doesnt get that most ppl when they quote things in XS is from experience with the boards.this reminds of lowyat forum.ppl giving statements with boards that they themselves never tried.
and if they did. its right of others to question them.u cant fault that...right crypt??

and u cant fault anyone on their opinions either but its also good to point out to ppl thats its a opinion based on screenies rather than first hand experience which he already did.
y he asked u that cause afaik most opinions in XS is based on first hand experience. also wondering now did u even try the RE kekeke
had to actually buy quite a number of different rams chips..
so far i find d9jnl is the worst.. and samsung hc0's and d9gtrs are pretty good..will be getting some gts later.

anyways typo 1200mhz Cl5 tRD 7.. not CL7..kekeke..
anyways i am Switzerland
but one thing i love about all the ddr2 asus boards... THEY LOVE Team xtreem rams..d9gmh/d9gkx on 4 dimm clocking

oh yeah the m2f has a issue with 4.5ghz clocking.. its the limit..
after that to get it super stable.. the skews options on the rams are insufficient.. tested and proven with RE

and the reason y i think the current situation is such
a lot of forumers here before we claim certain boards capabilities and recommendation
we have tried it the boards to support the statements we have made. this makes some sort of accountability on what we say and recommend.
its what seperates XS from a lot of chit chat overclocking forums out there. The amount everybody learns from contributions etc is not from opinions but rather than personal experience.

u wont find me now claiming d9gts works wonders with RE until i have personally tested it myselfs of a few rams.

but m2f is still one of the best boards for p45. my reasoning is it doesnt do any faky fsb gain with ram performance compromise
that the dk's and t-power does. also it handles crossfire configuration better.
i had a hard time getting the t-power and dk stable with crossfire while the m2f with single card and crossfire config.. voltages remain the same .. no extra stress on the nb

[karamell]

Stability at 9*500 and 4 GB was very easy just a ~ +0.03 at vNB .

Processor:  E8400 E0
Ai Overclock Tuner: Manual
OC From CPU Level Up: Auto
Ratio CMOS Setting: 9
FSB Frequency: 500
CPU Clock Skew: Delay 300ps (This Gave me more stability at the same vCore - - Thanks CryptiK)
NB Clock Skew: Delay 400ps (This Gave me more stability at the same vNB - Thanks CryptiK)
FSB Strap to North Bridge: 333
DRAM Frequency: DDR2-1000MHz

DRAM CLK Skew on Channel A1: Auto
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel A2: Auto
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel B1: Auto
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel B2: Auto
DRAM Timing Control: Auto (For Now)

DRAM Static Read Control: Disabled
DRAM Read Training: Disabled
MEM. OC Charger: Enabled
Ai Clock Twister: Auto (For now)
Ai Transaction Booster: Manual

Common Performance Level: 10
Pull-in of CHA PH1: Disabled
Pull-in of CHA PH2: Disabled
Pull-in of CHA PH3: Disabled
Pull-in of CHB PH1: Disabled
Pull-in of CHB PH2: Disabled
Pull-in of CHB PH3: Disabled

PCIE Frequency: 100

CPU Voltage: 1.341 (Droops to 1.336 under Load)
CPU PLL Voltage: 1.54
FSB Termination Voltage: 1.16625
DRAM Voltage: 1.9
North Bridge Voltage: 1.35
South Bridge 1.5 Voltage: 1.54 
South Bridge 1.1 Voltage: 1.12 (Those because i have Raid)

CPU GTL Reference (0): Auto
CPU GTL Reference (1):-30mv (This means 0.64x anything else at tha 0.61x - 0.67x Range cause prime to stop)
CPU GTL Reference (2): Auto
CPU GTL Reference (3):-30mv
NB GTL Reference: Auto
DDR2 ChA Reference Voltage: Auto
DDR2 ChB Reference Voltage: Auto
North Bridge DDR Reference: Auto


CPU Configuration:

Ratio CMOS Setting: 9
C1E Support: Disabled
Max CPUID Value Limit: Disabled
Intel Virtualization Tech: Disabled
CPU TM Function: Disabled
Execute Disable Bit: Disabled

Load-Line Calibration: Enabled
CPU Spread Spectrum: Disabled
PCIE Spread Spectrum: Disabled

Edit:

4h dual Prime with 4GB.



*My NB temps without a big fan and open window are 62+..still haven't put any washers...but i am 100% sure that the washers will improve my temps.

I will try for 8.5*533 now :P

Hi.
I've tried these settings, but my mobo always hangs at "DET DRAM"
Kinda noob here....

[cstkl1]

Hi.
I've tried these settings, but my mobo always hangs at "DET DRAM"
Kinda noob here....

theres no need for cpu/nb clocks skews..
ok when do use cpu/nb skews.... i cannot explain it until u try it ureself.. but it has to do with vtt voltage and gtl.
but for 500 fsb.. just leave it at auto.

assuming ure rams can handle 1000mhz Cl5 tRD 10 at around 2.1-2.2vdimm and strap 333 strength moderate
also assuming that uve found the exact vcore set for 4ghz.. ( usually i try this with higher multi and overvolt fsb/vnb/dram)
static read etc all enabled
ok when to change clock skews..
its to stabilize the fsb/vtt voltage.
so for 500fsb .. theres no need
also try this
+40 on cpu 0
leave the rest on auto...
up ure vtt voltage until u can enter windows
with nb voltage 1.21-1.25v
pll/sb 1.5 stock
leave the sb 1.05 stock... i was running raid 0 with two veloci..and 3 other hdd's...

after trying so many rams .. i finally getting what tony meant about ram chipsets and strength or something like that.. it becomes more apparent with ddr3... so hence the vnb voltages is depending on ure rams i guess.

[GeorgeVasil]

Hi.
I've tried these settings, but my mobo always hangs at "DET DRAM"
Kinda noob here....

Just put the rated voltage your rams have.

Mine are rated 1.8-1.9v 1100mhz (PSC) so i use 1.9v.

Yours might be 2.0 - 2.2v because you have some kind of D9's.

[Grnfinger]

WOW
alot goes on here in a short time.
Didnt mean to start a fight guys, was merley sharing some results.

Hi.
I've tried these settings, but my mobo always hangs at "DET DRAM"
Kinda noob here....

Try PL11, it should eliminate your Det Dram issue.

[cstkl1]

oops
grnfinger just reminded me
sorry 1000mhz Cl5 - PL 11 Cl4 is PL10 1200mhz Cl5 - PL8 for this mobo..at 500fsb
forgot about that.

[CryptiK]

zuck
just forget him...
he doesnt get that most ppl when they quote things in XS is from experience with the boards.this reminds of lowyat forum.ppl giving statements with boards that they themselves never tried.
and if they did. its right of others to question them.u cant fault that...right crypt??

***************

and u cant fault anyone on their opinions either but its also good to point out to ppl thats its a opinion based on screenies rather than first hand experience which he already did.
y he asked u that cause afaik most opinions in XS is based on first hand experience. also wondering now did u even try the RE kekeke


***************

and the reason y i think the current situation is such
a lot of forumers here before we claim certain boards capabilities and recommendation
we have tried it the boards to support the statements we have made. this makes some sort of accountability on what we say and recommend.
its what seperates XS from a lot of chit chat overclocking forums out there. The amount everybody learns from contributions etc is not from opinions but rather than personal experience.

u wont find me now claiming d9gts works wonders with RE until i have personally tested it myselfs of a few rams.

I have used the RF, the RE (very briefly) and the T2RSB Plus. I have helped my mates set up their systems using the boards, but have not had what I would call 'overclocking experience' using them, as the guys I helped are pure gamers, and only wanted mild overclocks.

I thought it was pretty obvious from how I phrased what I was saying regarding the RF & T2RSB Plus was mostly based on what I had read, not what I had personally experienced. I would have said it totally differently if I was basing my opinion of the board off personal experience, and most likely provided examples of my max clocks etc. I was using phrases like "seems to" "appears to" and "may be due to" describing the apparent limitations I have read about. I would have been much more definitive if I had personally experienced it.

I have a problem with the fact Zucker2K was refusing to accept my personal opinion as valid as I had not personally had much experience with pushing the boards we were discussing to the limit. I have an opinion based on what I have read, and the brief personal experience I have had with the boards. He has based opinions on results he has seen himself, then criticizes me for doing exactly the same thing. His reaction was over the top, and he was hell bent on proving that the RF was the best DDR2 X48 board, in the M2F thread no less.

He was simply aggressive and arrogant. He was rude, and made false accusations. I'm not going to sit back and take that. Perhaps he was drunk or something, but that's no excuse for that kind of behaviour.

EDIT - for anyone reading this - search his user name and look at his posts. He has got to be one of the most aggressive, argumentative, hypocritical users on this site.