mATX and E4300, any OC results yet?

[dogsx2]

I've been using my replacement F-190HD board for a few days now and I really like it so far. The biggest drawback is the memory is only running at 800. If there were some dividers to run it faster it would be a really good board. I've been running my 4300 at 3250@1.35 in bios in a microfly case with a stock Intel cooler. It is a quite rig. Not as quiet as the 3600 in the M2nView, but quieter then the P160 it replaced. Put one of the X850XT's that I got from Newegg for $60 shipped and the whole thing is a descent rig for not much money.

[aldamon]

nm........

[zert]

I've been using my replacement F-190HD board for a few days now and I really like it so far. The biggest drawback is the memory is only running at 800. If there were some dividers to run it faster it would be a really good board.

how is that
i thought the x1250 chipset on that board has the same assync mem controller like RD600. so dividers aren't even required anymore ?

[__Miguel_]

aldamon, I saw what you wrote before the edit. I think your problem lies with the chipset. The 945G and 945GZ chipsets are different from each other. The 945G top FSB is 1066MHz, whereas the 945GZ's is 800MHz. Your board uses the lower-speed 945GZ chipset (which, by the way, also doesn't have a "real" 16x PCI-E interface (only 4x electrically, as far as I know) and can only support E4xxx C2Ds.

Since the chipset officially tops out at 4x200MHz, reaching 4x280MHz is actually a VERY good thing... You should try switching to a 945G-based board for superior OC. But be advised, the 945G series of chipsets is lowsy OC'ing, because of its yucky PCI-E lock...

Cheers.

Miguel

[Neon Biker]

Neah, I don't think the 945G or even the G965 are any better. AFAIK both of them overclock the PCI-E bus and SATA ports together with the FSB, so you really can't go higher then 20% before you lose the drives or the graphics card. Your only hope would be to do the pin-mod and hopefully you could start off @ 266MHz and then OC another 20% to get to about 320... but that's only if the mobo sets the FSB by reading the pins and not the CPU id.

[caligula]

http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=63444
Tops up around where fsb wall for e4300 begins. No more needed !
Sorry for crossposting, but Gigabyte should bite my shiny metal S for not enabling 1:1 in their matx mobo.

[Neon Biker]

That's nice. They probably added a new "strap" so that the PCIe frequency defaults to stock once you reach 333MHz, but there is a catch:

We were able to reach 355 x 7 on E6300 using SATAII HDD and 420x7 with IDE HDD.

So if you aim for 400-ish you have to have an IDE HDD. Then again, 355x9 is not that bad either for people not trying to squeeze the last MHz out of their CPU.

[__Miguel_]

Very interesting results from such a value motherboard. Such kind of performance (the 400-ish, that is) wasn't even possible with the earlier P965-based motherboards... Very nice! Now for the fun part. Anyone knows if this also applies to the ConRoe1333-DVI/H R2.0? It's the same board, only with an extra pair of memory slots, so it should have the same results...

Now, someone care to tell me why aren't 945P/G mobos compatible with C2Q? I mean, ASRock even has 865G-based C2Q-compatible boards, not to mention those ultra-cheap Via-based mATX boards (which, by the way, the only thing missing is the dual-channel support for me to "embrace" )... What gives?

Cheers.

Miguel

[caligula]

Mais of course, le petit bsel tweak is there for your pleasure and PCI-E frequency.
Get some ideas here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ght=ConRoe1333

[__Miguel_]

For a moment I thought you were talking to me, caligula. I was starting to wonder what the Celeron 4xx series has to do with C2Q, and what the 1333 R1.0 (That is, only two memory slots, and 10/100 Ethernet) has to do with the 1333-DVI/H R2.0... lol

Sorry for crossposting, but those boards and CPUs are insane... 100% OC @stock, with that tiny cooler? Sheesh... If Intel shrinks the new Celerons to 45nm they won't be needing coolers anymore... lol

Interesting note about the BSEL trick... Now if only it were possible to BSEL them to 333MHz directly... Since they don't need extra voltage to do that, that would result in a heck of a dirt-cheap CPU...

Cheers.

Miguel

[caligula]

Celeron 4xx series is C2D core based. Therefore they inherit the same PSB strap "problems" from E2xx, E4xx and Q series .
Watch carefully, the guy has a link : http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=209484
My link points to the same mobo type : http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=63444
The DVI board is the same PCB, but I wonder if it has the same chipset (on the Asrock site is unclear). The 4DIMMs would be useful.

[__Miguel_]

Ok, part of my questions were answered. No booting @ 333MHz with BSEL, I get it. I remember reading somewhere in this forum you can't get C2D chips (at least the E4300) to boot with that FSB. That part was only wishful thinking

Also, thank you for pointing out the CPU-Z link. I had never read one of those carefully, that's why I missed the DC memory information. Nice upgrade for a Celeron... Not so clear are the EIST and C1E informations, but I guess that "6x" must mean something, which would also mean C1E is probably also present. Really not bad for a Celly...

I do know the ConRoe1333-DVI/H R1.0 is only 945G-based, so that is a big NO on OC. It's weird, based on the little amount of info on the Intel website, it seems the 945GC chipset max FSB should be 800MHz, and with 533MHz memory. There is also no information about the number of memory channels supported... I don't know where ASRock and Gigabyte come up with FSB-1333 in some of them... It seems we'll have to wait and see if anyone tries out the ConRoe1333-DVI/H R2.0 to get that sorted out...

One question remains, though... Are Quads compatible with any 945x.based mobo? That would be sweet...

Thanks for the info. Cheers.

Miguel

[caligula]

Looks like no (

ConRoe1333-D667 supports the LGA 775 for Intel® Dual Core Core™ 2 Extreme / Core™ 2 Duo / Pentium® D / Pentium® Dual Core / Pentium® 4 / Celeron® / Celeron® D processors. The board is based on the Intel® 945GC A2 Chipset which is compatible with all FSB1333/1066/800/533MHz CPUs except Quad Core.

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/asro...33-D667/g1.htm

[__Miguel_]

I don't really understand the reason for that incompatibility... Since you can use a Q6600 on an 865G chipset (both Asus and ASRock have one of these), I can see really no good reason for 945x-based motherboards not being able to run them... I mean, they're 955X derivatives, which is the "father" of the 975X... They can't be that different, or lacking something crucial the 865G has...

Can it be some kind of limitation Intel imposes on manufacturers, so they can't add C2Q microcode to the 945x-based mobos? Just a thought, based on the information I've read about Bearlake chipsets, whose standard BIOSes don't have Netburst microcode embedded (and the 533MHz strap, I think), so they can't recognize said CPUs, and it's up to the manufacturer to add support for Netburst-based CPUs...

If anyone can shed some light on this matter, it would be nice.

Cheers.

Miguel

[Meaker]

333x9 and I run 334x9 on my f-I90HD just fine with my e4300.